Deriving Pedestrian Risk Index by Vehicle Type

and Road Geometry at Midblock Crosswalks

under Heterogeneous Traffic Conditions
Avinash R. Chaudhari 1; Ninad Gore, S.M.ASCE 2; Shriniwas Arkatkar, Ph.D. 3; Gaurang Joshi, Ph.D. 4;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and Srinivas S. Pulugurtha, P.E., F.ASCE 5

Abstract: Pedestrian crash data are not available in sufficiently large quantity and suffer from known problems such as a low-mean small
sample, underreporting, and misclassification. Moreover, under heterogeneous traffic conditions, due to the involvement of multiple classes
of vehicles, pedestrian–vehicle interactions become even more complex. To address this limitation, a pedestrian risk index (PRI) linking the
probability of a crash between vehicle and pedestrian and the severity of the conflict was developed for varying road and traffic conditions.
Data were analyzed from nine locations in different parts of India, accounting for variations in geographical distribution and pedestrian–
vehicle interactions. The derived values of PRI were assessed by vehicle type and road geometry. The PRI value was significantly higher
when the approaching vehicle was three-wheelers (3W), two-wheelers (2W), and cars compared with heavy vehicles such as buses and
trucks. This indicates that the severity of conflicts is higher for lighter vehicles. Furthermore, the addition of lanes increases the PRI value.
As an important outcome, variation in PRI values was modeled as a function of vehicle speed, pedestrian volume, and vehicle volume using
a multilinear regression approach. The developed model can enable planners and engineers to compute PRI using the independent variables
and to evaluate pedestrian safety at urban midblock crossings. Overall, this research contributes immensely to assessing the prevailing level
of safety at crosswalks under heterogeneous traffic conditions, thereby improving pedestrian safety. DOI: 10.1061/JTEPBS.0000421.
© 2020 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Safety; Pedestrian; Crosswalk; Midblock; Traffic conflict; Risk index; Surrogate measures.

Introduction Among the various elements responsible for roadside friction,

The vehicular traffic on roads in India is highly heterogeneous in
nature, with a wide range of static and dynamic vehicular character-
istics. In addition, vehicles in heterogeneous traffic streams do not
follow lane-discipline and can occupy any available road space.
This complex traffic scenario on roads in developing countries such
as India is a serious issue. The roadside friction due to activities
such as on-street parking maneuvers, the presence of pedestrians on
the carriageway, frequent bus stops, entry and exit from major
roads, the presence of nonmotorized traffic, street vending activ-
ities, and so on further increases the complexity.
1
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai
National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India. Email:
avinashchaudhari17@yahoo.com
2
Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai
National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India. Email:
ninadgore24@gmail.com
3 concern for transport planners, traffic engineers, and policymakers
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai
National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India (correspond-
ing author). Email: sarkatkar@gmail.com; s_arkatkar@yahoo.co.in
4
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sardar Vallabhbhai National
Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat 395007, India. Email: gjsvnit92@
gmail.com
5
Professor, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of
North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, NC 28223. ORCID: https://orcid
.org/0000-0001-7392-7227. Email: sspulugurtha@uncc.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on February 24, 2019; approved
on May 4, 2020; published online on August 14, 2020. Discussion period
open until January 14, 2021; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Transportation En-
gineering, Part A: Systems, © ASCE, ISSN 2473-2907.
pedestrians are inevitable features found along urban road stretches.
In India, pedestrians cross at intersections or midblock locations
without any safety due to improper road geometry and the nonexist-
ence of designated crossing facilities on roads. As a result, a state
of conflict exists between pedestrians and vehicles in sharing the
limited space available on roads due to inadequate pedestrian
facilities. These conflicts create confusion and risk for crossing
pedestrians, as well as to the drivers of approaching vehicles, and
often result in severe conflicts and crashes. According to statistics
for 2012, the percentage of pedestrians involved in road crashes in
major cities was 20% in Delhi, 14% in Kolkata, 38% in Chennai,
and 64% in Mumbai (MoRTH 2013); 60% of pedestrians involved
in such crashes were killed. The rapid growth of vehicular traffic on
streets had a catalytic effect, creating conflict situations. Moreover,
poor yielding behavior, aggressive driving habits, and poor com-
pliance add another dimension to already complex pedestrian–
vehicle interactions. Therefore, pedestrian safety remains a major
in India.
The pedestrian crossing facilities in developing countries are
quite different compared with those in developed countries. Fur-
thermore, metrics to quantify risk and fatalities to enhance pedes-
trian safety in developed countries may not be applicable for
developing countries due to the poor compliance levels, poor yield-
ing behavior and heterogeneous traffic conditions. Moreover, only
a limited number of studies have focused on pedestrian crossing
behavior at midblock crosswalks under heterogeneous traffic con-
ditions. Therefore, it is necessary to assess prevailing pedestrian
safety in detail for the design of safe and efficient pedestrian cross-
ing infrastructure.

© ASCE 04020123-1 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

 Pedestrian Safety and Conflicts
Pedestrian Crash Statistics in World and in India
Pedestrian fatalities are more likely to occur in urban areas at non-
intersection (midblock locations) and at night (NCSA 2013). Urban
areas account for 73% of pedestrian fatalities, of which 70% occur
at nonintersection locations (NCSA 2013). Many factors, such as
unsafe pedestrian crossing behaviors, drivers failing to yield to pe-
destrians (and vice versa), and speeding, contribute to pedestrian
crashes. Drivers failing to yield result in 42% of pedestrian crashes
in the case of marked crosswalks and 32% in the case of unmarked
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
crosswalks (Zegeer et al. 2001). According to a 2014 report pre-
pared by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA 2015), unsafe pedestrian behavior is one of the contrib-
uting factors for pedestrian crashes (NHTSA 2015). The report
also noted that the faster a vehicle is travelling, the more likely
it is that a pedestrian involved will be seriously injured or killed
in a crash. The average risk of severe or fatal injury for pedestrians
struck by a vehicle varies with the speed of the vehicle (Salamati
et al. 2012). As an example, the average risk of a severe injury is
90% for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle at 73.6 km/h (46 mi=h),
whereas it is 50% for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle at 49.6 km/h
(31 mi=h). The average risk of a fatal injury is 90% for a pedestrian
struck by a vehicle at 92.8 km/h (58 mi=h), whereas it is 50% for a
pedestrian struck by a vehicle at 67.2 km/h (42 mi=h).
Pedestrian Conflict and Safety Assessment
Pedestrian safety is commonly analyzed in terms of the number of
traffic crashes and associated economic losses. The details available
in the crash database and the quality of data play an important role
in the pedestrian safety analysis. However, such an analysis typi-
cally is conducted as an afterthought rather than proactively
(Pulugurtha et al. 2013). St-Aubin et al. (2013) analyzed pedestrian
safety using historical crash data and provided an arbitrary value of
requirement of the duration of data in years. They concluded that
the impact of modification could not be evaluated quickly due to
the lack of treatment data. Furthermore, relatively fewer pedestrian
crashes on roads sometimes may not yield statistically meaningful
outcomes. To overcome the lack of historical crash data and address
safety problems proactively, a surrogate approach called conflict
analyses has been used by researchers.
The classical Swedish conflict method developed in the 1970s
defined conflict as the situation in which two road users approach
each other in time and space in such a way that a crash is highly
probable if their movements remain unchanged (Laureshyn et al.
2010). In the Dutch conflict technique called DOCTOR, van der
Horst and Kraay (1986) considered situations in which two road
users crossed paths within a very short time as dangerous. Gettmann
et al. (2008) defined traffic conflict as “an observable situation in
which two or more road users approach each other in space and time
to such an extent that there is a risk of crash occurrence if their
movements remained unchanged.” Agarwal (2011) analyzed con-
flict behavior to understand the conflicts between vehicles or be-
tween vehicles and pedestrians, instead of waiting for actual
crashes to occur. Due to a lack of reliable pedestrian-vehicle crash
records or adequate sample size, this approach can substitute for
actual crash numbers and serve as a surrogate measure of safety.
Conflict identification is based on estimated time to collision
(TTC) at the moment an evasive action is initiated. This value, also
called time to accident, together with vehicle speed was used to
determine the seriousness of a conflict situation. Furthermore, ac-
tive signage systems are quite effective in decreasing vehicle speeds
© ASCE 04020123-2
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123
and improving driver behavior in terms of willingness to give way
to pedestrians (Turner et al. 2006). Silcock et al. (1998) proposed a
method that uses video recording as a data collection method to
automatically extract data from videotapes and describe the number
of crossing movements and pedestrian–vehicle interactions.
However, the definition of conflict (e.g., the threshold used as
the surrogate measure of safety to distinguish from other events)
was not clarified. Injury analysis (Nhan et al. 2009; Yao et al.
2007) and crash reconstruction also studied to obtain empirical
or theoretical results for prevention of pedestrian crashes. In addi-
tion, safety evaluation has been done to supplement understanding
of pedestrian safety programs (Jones et al. 2010). Tarko and
Davis (2009) adopted a surrogate measurement technique which
satisfies two elementary conditions. The first condition is a meas-
urable or an observable noncrash event that is related physically in
a predictable and reliable way to the actual number of crashes. The
second measure is a practical method for converting or calibrating
the noncrash events into the corresponding crash frequency and/or
severity.
Most of the literature on surrogate measures is related to the
traffic conflicts technique (TCT). It is based on measures of the
spatial and temporal proximity of road users that describe the
interaction between road users involved in a critical event for safety.
The primary advantage of TCT is that conflicts occur much
more frequently than crashes. Furthermore, TCT may provide in-
formation on relative risk to diagnose the types of problems at a
location, and it represents an easy and efficient tool to check safety
problems at the study location when there are limited or no crash
data.
Chin and Quek (1997) stated that the validity of the problems
is at least partially due to the quality and coverage of crash data.
Migletz et al. (1985) indicated that conflict studies can produce es-
timates of crash occurrence that are as good as those based on crash
data and require a significantly shorter period for data collection.
Several attempts have been made to define spatial or temporal
indexes of the severity of pedestrian–vehicle conflicts. Varhelyi
(1996) proposed the time to zebra (TTZ), a variation of the concept
of TTC, to estimate the frequency and severity of a critical situation
between a vehicle and a pedestrian. Allen et al. (1978) proposed the
post encroachment time (PET) between two road users. PET was
defined as the period from the moment when the first road user
leaves the conflict area until the second road user reaches it.
Cafiso et al. (2011) proposed the pedestrian risk index (PRI)
as a conflict indicator for different traffic situations. Pasanen and
Salmivaara (1997), Vaughn (1997), and Hannawald and Kauer
(2004) used mechanical formulas to define PRI by characterizing
the kinematics of pedestrian–vehicle conflict. Sayed et al. (2013)
presented a proactive safety diagnosis procedure which uses video
analysis to automatically identify and analyze serious events such
as traffic conflicts and violations.
Salamati et al. (2012) developed and implemented a conflict-
based assessment of pedestrian safety (CAPS) method to assess
pedestrian accessibility at complex intersections, with more empha-
sis on safety problems pertaining to visually impaired pedestrians.
CAPS is based on five factors. By classifying the severity level of
each factor and using a conflict grade matrix, the severity of a po-
tential conflict is identified. Toran Pour et al. (2017) developed
three models using different decision trees to identify the factors
contributing to the severity of pedestrian crashes. To improve
the accuracy, stability, and robustness of the decision trees, they
used bagging and boosting techniques. Their results showed that
the boosting technique improved the accuracy of individual deci-
sion tree models by 46%. Moreover, the results of boosting deci-
sion trees showed that neighborhood social characteristics were as
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems
 important as traffic and infrastructure variables in influencing the
severity of pedestrian crashes.
Wu et al. (2018) developed a mixed effect model to associate the
four potential risk factors and two human factors with surrogate
measures. According to their results, the driver’s gender and age
are the two significant factors that affect the maximum deceleration
and the minimum TTC. Time of day and pedestrian clothing color
have a significant effect on the maximum deceleration, PET, and
the minimum TTC. Crosswalk marking and road type influence
only the maximum deceleration and the minimum TTC.
The application of new theory and technological approaches
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
may hold great potential to reduce the crash frequency and severity
for pedestrians (Jiang et al. 2015). Field traffic data were collected
through video recording and image processing at unsignalized
midblock crosswalks in Beijing, China and Munich, Germany.
Centered vehicle–pedestrian conflict situation, pedestrian speed
performance during different walking phases, pedestrian waiting
behavior related to waiting decision choice and waiting time,
and pedestrian gap acceptance were statistically analyzed to under-
stand the pedestrian behavior in the conflict process. Intercultural
comparisons were made between China and Germany.
Chung (2018) analyzed the injury severity in taxi–pedestrian
crashes using measures, such as the TTC, speed, angle, and region
of the crash. Five variables were found to have a greater effect on
injury severity: crash speed, crashes in no-median section, crashes
in which the secondary impact object of pedestrians was the crash
vehicle, crashes in which the third impact object of pedestrians was
another moving vehicle, and crashes in which the third impact re-
gion of pedestrians was their head. However, injuries were less se-
vere in crashes in which the first impact region on the pedestrian
was their leg, crashes in which the car moved in a straight line, and
crashes involving junior high school students. Chaudhari et al.
(2020) evaluated pedestrian–vehicle conflicts at midblock cross-
walks under mixed traffic conditions using different surrogate
safety measures such as PET, conflict ratio, and yielding compli-
ance rate. They correlated PET data and speed of approaching
vehicles to define the severity of the conflict.
Overall, it can be concluded that a substantial literature on the
application of TCTs to assess safety levels exists. Very few studies
reported on pedestrian–vehicle conflicts and developed an appro-
priate measure for pedestrian safety. However, most of the past
studies are not related to heterogeneous traffic conditions, in
which the behavior of road users certainly is different from that
observed in developed countries. Moreover, some critical factors
such as the type of approaching vehicle, the level of pedestrian
activity, and non-lane-based traffic movement prevailing in India
were not considered in past studies. To fill this research gap, this
paper proposes and illustrates the working of a methodology to
assess safety at midblock locations under heterogeneous traffic
conditions using a proximal surrogate safety indicator. TCT was
derived based on the driver’s actual behavior, particularly under
heterogeneous traffic conditions at unmarked and marked cross-
walks in India.
The remainder of the paper is organized in seven sections. A
comprehensive explanation of PRI and motivation for adopting
PRI are explained in the section “Pedestrian Risk Index.” A case
study, data collection, and data extraction are illustrated in the sec-
tion “Case Study.” Section “Analysis and Results” comprehen-
sively explains the variation in conflict probability and PRI by
vehicle type and road geometry. As an important outcome, the
PRI is modeled as a function of pedestrian volume, vehicular speed,
and vehicular volume using a multilinear regression technique,
which is explained in the section “Application of Study,” followed
by the “Conclusion” section.
© ASCE 04020123-3
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123
Pedestrian Risk Index
Motivation for Adopting PRI
From the comprehensive review of the literature, it was inferred that
PET and TTC are two of the most commonly used TCTs to assess
pedestrian safety. Furthermore, it also can be concluded that very
few studies explored PRI as a suitable TCT for analyzing pedestrian
safety.
PRI provides details of the involvement of the probability of a
crash between vehicle and pedestrian and the severity of the con-
sequences before the crash. In addition, it also provides information
about the type of approaching vehicle, and reduction in the severity
of conflicts.
TTC commonly has been implemented as a measure of conflict
severity for the whole interaction process. It originally was defined
as the time remaining until two vehicles will collide if both
continue at their present speeds along their respective trajectories.
Hayward (1972) explained the TTC using a time-space diagram
and inferred that if the two vehicle paths remained unchanged, there
is a maximum probability of a crash. Time to conflict under this
condition (collision) becomes zero. However, if one of the vehicles
changes its path, TTC may increase or decrease. Furthermore, if
either a pedestrian or vehicle performs evasive action such as stop-
ping, the TTC tends to infinity. This forms a major limitation of
using TTC as a risk index. TTC can be detected easily in rear-
end conflict situations because the trajectories of the paired vehicles
are assumed to overlap. However, it cannot be detected (or does not
exist) in most interactions if the trajectories of the paired users do
not intersect, for example, in pedestrian–vehicle conflict and con-
flict between left-turn and opposing through vehicles. In rear-end
conflict, the following vehicle will collide with the leading vehicle
if the speed of the follower is higher. However, in pedestrian–
vehicle conflict, cases in which the pedestrian and the vehicle oc-
cupy the trajectory intersection point at the same moment are rare.
Furthermore, for PET, only their passing times at the conflict point
are necessary. Another important property of PET is that it is con-
tinuous from crash-free operations to crash occurrences, with a dis-
tinct boundary at zero. A smaller value of PET implies a greater risk
of vehicle–pedestrian crashes. In the context of vehicle–pedestrian
conflict assessment, PET similarly can be defined as the time
difference between the departure of the encroaching pedestrian
from the potential crash point and the arrival of the conflicting ve-
hicle at the crash point, or vice versa. However, because PET con-
siders only the last moment of the interaction, it has limitations in
indicating pedestrian safety, because no information is provided
during vehicle–pedestrian interaction. However, events in which
the approaching vehicle decelerates to a near stop to avoid a crash
with the conflicting pedestrian may have PET values that do not
reflect the true severity of the interaction. These limitations are well
accounted for in the calculation of PRI because it effectively covers
different phases of a pedestrian–vehicle interaction. Moreover,
TTC of both the pedestrian and the vehicle is considered in defining
conflict. Therefore, PRI inherently considers TTC in its computa-
tion, and thus it can be considered comprehensive.
Deriving Pedestrian Risk Index
A pedestrian approaching a crossing area may stop and yield if the
approaching vehicle is moving and is too close to the crossing area.
In other situations, the driver is too close to the crossing area and
does not have adequate time to slow down and come to a complete
stop. Therefore, several phases may occur if the vehicle is farther
from the crossing area (Fig. 1).
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 1. Conflict representation due to pedestrian and vehicle movement. (Vehicle and bike images by authors.)
Passing Phase
The vehicle is reasonably close to the pedestrian crossing, and it
can pass the conflict area before the pedestrian reaches it. If the
vehicle is too far, the pedestrian can pass before the vehicle ap-
proaches the pedestrian crossing area.
Stopping Phase
The vehicle is far enough that it can stop safely by controlling
the speed of the vehicle in the presence of a pedestrian in the con-
flict area.
Conflict Phase
The positions and speeds of the two road users can lead to a crash if
neither the driver nor the pedestrian takes evasive action (according
to conflict definition). This phase must be identified and analyzed
carefully because it represents the condition of a potential crash
between vehicle and pedestrian (Davis 2001; Cafiso et al. 2011).
The PET is defined as the duration from the moment when the
first road user leaves the conflict area until the second road user
reaches it. Usually, the last PET value is taken into consideration
to evaluate traffic safety. The TTC of the vehicle is computed using
the following equation:
DyiðvÞ
TTCiðvÞ ¼ ð1Þ
V iðvÞ
where TTCiðvÞ = vehicle time to reach pedestrian crossing at instant
i (s); DyiðvÞ = longitudinal distance between vehicle and crossing at
instant i (m); and V iðvÞ = vehicle speed at instant i (m=s).
The TTC of the pedestrian is calculated to establish if a pedes-
trian arrives at the conflict area in time to collide with the vehicle.
It is computed using the following equation:
ðDxiðvÞ − DxiðpÞ Þ
TTCiðpÞ ¼ ð2Þ
Vp
where TTCiðpÞ = pedestrian time to reach conflict area at instant
i (s); DxiðvÞ = lateral vehicle distance at instant i (m); DxiðpÞ =
pedestrian position on crossing at instant i (m); and V p = pedestrian
speed (m=s).
The vehicle time to stopping (T s ) is computed using the follow-
ing equation (Davis 2001):
© ASCE 04020123-4
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123
V iðvÞ
T si ¼ T r þ ð3Þ
ab
where T si = stopping time at instant i (s); T r = reaction time of
driver (s); V iðvÞ = vehicle speed at instant i (m=s); and ab = absolute
value of braking deceleration (m=s2 ).
These time variables are utilized to define a conflict (Table 1).
Fig. 2 depicts examples of the different phases. In the stopping
phase, the vehicle stopping time is less than the vehicle time to
reach the pedestrian crossing or conflict point [Fig. 2(a)]. Fig. 2(b)
depicts the conflict phase, in which the pedestrian time to reach the
conflict point is less than the vehicle time and stopping time
(TTCp < TTCv < T s ). In this case, to avoid the interaction, the pe-
destrian reduces speed or changes path, or the driver of the vehicle
changes path or reduces speed. This means that the compliance
behavior of both elements is important. In the passing phase,
the pedestrian time to reach the conflict point is greater [Fig. 2(c)].
In other words, the vehicle reaches and passes the conflict point,
and then the pedestrian reaches the conflict point.
The difference between the time to stop (T s ) and the time to
collision (TTCv ) at instant i during the conflict phase, ΔT i , is a
measure of the chance to make a safe emergency stop. Therefore,
it can be considered as a surrogate measure of the probability that a
crash between a vehicle and a pedestrian occurs. From the law of
uniformly accelerated motion, V impact at each instant of the conflict
phase is (Cafiso et al. 2011)
qffiffiffiffiffiffi
V impact ¼ V 2v − 2ab ðDyðvÞ − V v T r Þ ð4Þ
where V impact = collision speed at instant i (m=s); ab = braking
deceleration (m=s2 ); V v = initial vehicle speed at instant i (m=s);
Table 1. Conflict conditions
Condition Remark
TTCv > T s Vehicle can safely stop before the conflict area
(stopping phase)
TTCv < TTCp Pedestrian reaches the conflict area only after the
vehicle has passed (passing phase)
TTCv < T s Vehicle cannot stop before reaching the conflict area
TTCv > TTCp Pedestrian is exposed to conflict with vehicle
TTZduration Conflict time (conflict phase) in the interval: TTCp <
TTCV < T s
Source: Data from Cafiso et al. (2011).
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. Photographs of different phases: (a) stopping phase; (b) conflict phase; and (c) passing phase. (Images by Avinash R. Chaudhari.)
T r = perception and reaction time of driver (s); DyðvÞ = longitudinal
vehicle distance from conflict area (m); and V v T r = distance trav-
elled during perception and reaction time (m).
Furthermore, the difference between the pedestrian time to reach
conflict area (TTCp ) and the TTCv at instant i during the passing
phase (TTCp > TTCv ) is ΔT 1 , whereas the difference between
T s and TTCv at instant i during the stopping passing phase
(TTCv > T s ) is ΔT 2 .
Considering the complexity of computing PRI, the following
equation was used to compute the PRI (Davis et al. 2003;
Cafiso et al. 2011):
PRI ¼ ΣTTTD ðV 2ImpactSpeed;i ΔT i Þ ð5Þ
where V ImpactSpeed;i = potential collision speed at instant i (m=s);
and ΔT i = difference between T si and TTCvi (s).
PRI can be computed individually for each phase of pedestrian–
vehicle interaction, i.e., the passing phase, the stopping phase, and
the conflict phase. This study computed PRI for the conflict phase
only.
Case Study
Study Area and Data
A study was carried out by collecting data at nine midblock loca-
tions in five different cities of India (Mumbai, Surat, Ahmadabad,
Chandigarh, and Delhi). The study locations were selected in such
a way that capturing of precise movement of the pedestrians and
vehicles simultaneously was possible. Videographic survey was
conducted in the June, October, November, and December of 2015
and February of 2016 to capture pedestrian and vehicular move-
ment at selected locations during normal working days in ideal
weather conditions. Data were recorded using a wide-angle high
definition digital video camera (frame rate of 29 frames/s, and
55× zoom), which was mounted at a vantage point on a multistory
building in such a way that it recorded the movements of pedestrian
and vehicles. The camera was not visible to the drivers to avoid
influence on their behavior, and allowed a sufficiently wide zone.
The details of the study locations are shown in Fig. 3. Geometric
details, observed traffic and pedestrian flow characteristics, and
average vehicular traffic speed recorded at selected study locations
are presented in Table 2. The average vehicular traffic flow during
the survey at selected locations was between 2,080 and 4,174
passenger car units ðPCUÞ=h, pedestrian flow rate was between
484 and 1,235 pedestrians=h, and mean vehicular speed was
between 23.63 and 38.34 km=h (Table 2).
© ASCE
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123
The volume:capacity ratios for the subject study locations varied
from 0.15 to 0.8, indicating traffic states ranging from free-flow to
capacity conditions. The pedestrian cross flow varied from 10 to
180 pedestrians=15 min in one crossing direction.
Pedestrian–Vehicle Trajectory Data Development
The trajectory data of a pedestrian and a vehicle in interaction were
extracted manually from the recorded video (for each interaction
irrespective of the time of the day or traffic condition). The pres-
ence of multiclass vehicles with poor lane discipline and crossing
pedestrians made it difficult to use image processing based on any
automation tools for extracting both vehicle and pedestrian trajec-
tories. Trajectories of each approaching vehicle and pedestrian
were captured on a two-dimensional coordinate system considering
a grid of 1.6 × 5.0 m over a 30-m trap length in the longitudinal
direction of the road. This grid size was used because of the
width of the roads and the condition of the crosswalks. The grids
were created manually using AutoCAD 2014 software. The grid
then was overlaid on the video using Corel Video Studio ProX9.
Figs. 4(a–d) show crosswalks with overlaid grids at different study
locations. The pedestrian and the type of vehicle were detected
at the entry point and then tracked frame-to-frame in unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV) video. In this study, the trajectories of vehicles
and pedestrians were extracted at intervals of 0.04 s using a detec-
tion and tracking system developed in past studies. The system
mainly includes three steps (Fig. 5): (1) video stabilization; (2) ve-
hicle detection; and (3) vehicle tracking in case of the vehicle and
the procedure for a pedestrian. The video is run frame by frame for
every object (pedestrian/vehicle). During the UAV motions, after
detection of vehicle type, the object position (coordinates) are
marked at the entry point then the vehicle is tracked. The trajectory
of the vehicle is derived after the tracking is finished. Commonly,
the entry and exit regions are set at the upstream and downstream of
a midblock section. When a vehicle enters the entry region (i.e., the
front bumper of the vehicle crosses the entry line), it is detected and
tracked. The tracking is finished when the vehicle enters the exit
region (i.e., the front bumper crosses the existing line). The pedes-
trian detection and tracking methodology was developed similarly
to the extraction of vehicle trajectory. The developed system con-
sists of two components, i.e., a detector and a tracker. When pedes-
trians are detected, their coordinates (based on the grids) are fed as
inputs for initialization of trackers. After tracking, the pedestrian
trajectory data can be saved for further analysis. The available ob-
servations are trajectory profiles based on time series. From these
data, all relevant quantities of vehicles and pedestrians, such as po-
sition, speed, and TTC, can be derived directly. The trajectories of
04020123-5 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems
 4-lane divided: Mumbai:(KFCBandra-Vileparle) / Chandigarh (Neelam Cinema)/Ahmedabad (Ashdodia)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

6-lane divided: Surat / Dwarka

8-lane divided: Vakola-Mumbai/ Ramprashtha-Delhi); 2-lane undivided: ISBT-Chandigarh

Fig. 3. Pictorial view of the case study locations. (Images by Avinash R. Chaudhari.)

both crossing pedestrians and interacting vehicles were extracted
for the entire survey duration (Table 2). Fig. 5 represents the meth-
odology adopted for the extraction of pedestrian–vehicle trajectory.
The positions and speeds of the vehicle to compute the time
variables that characterize the PRI during the conflict phase were
extracted from the sequence of video frames. Data were extracted
when there was a possibility of conflict between the pedestrian
crossing the road and the vehicle approaching the crosswalk.
The exercise was repeated for stopping as well as passing phases.
It is obvious that pedestrian–vehicle interaction will not exist when
there is no pedestrian either on the curb or in the crosswalk. There-
fore, such conditions were not extracted in this study. Table 3 sum-
marizes the number of samples extracted for the passing, stopping,
and conflict phases of pedestrian–vehicle interaction for the subject
study locations.
Analysis and Results
Preliminary Analysis
Figs. 6 and 7 characterize pedestrian composition by gender and
age for the subject study locations. The age variable was catego-
rized as children (<15 years), young (15–30 years), middle-aged
(30–50 years), and elderly (>50 years) by visual appearance.
Male pedestrians dominated (72%–82%) the pedestrian composi-
tion compared with female pedestrians (18%–28%) at all subject
study locations (Fig. 6). Furthermore, middle-aged pedestrians do-
minated the pedestrian composition, followed by young pedestrians
(male/female), and the percentages of elderly and children were the
lowest (Fig. 7).
Based on types of vehicles observed, it was deemed appropriate
to classify them into six categories: motorized two-wheelers (2W),
motorized three-wheelers (3W), car, SUV, bus, and truck. Fig. 8
represents the vehicular traffic compositions recorded at uncon-
trolled midblock crosswalks for all locations. Cars, 2W, and 3W
accounted for a substantial share at all locations (Fig. 8).
Furthermore, all possible variations of pedestrian crossing char-
acteristics due to variations in land-use type were incorporated
(Table 2). In short, the selected study locations incorporated rea-
sonable variation with respect to demographics and pedestrian,
vehicular, and traffic characteristics.
Pedestrian–Vehicle Conflict Analysis
Validation of Reaction Time
The reaction time of vehicle drivers was computed prior to calcu-
lating PRI. An appropriate value of reaction time (T r ), 0.7 s, was
chosen as per the maximum deceleration for different categories of

© ASCE 04020123-6 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

 Average traffic
speed (km=h)
vehicles under Indian conditions as reported by Maurya and Bokare
(2012). A reaction time (T r ) of 0.7 s also was standardized using

38.34
34.22
24.75
32.07
23.63
23.99
29.61
27.50
32.71
the value of maximum deceleration for the respective vehicle cat-
egories. The data extracted from Location 3 (six-lane divided road)
were used to validate the reaction time. The entry time of the ve-
hicle every 10 and 20 m was taken, from which the vehicle speed
Traffic volume

was computed. The average value of the reaction time of the driver
(PCU=h)

was computed to be about 0.708 s. The details of the computation

4,174
4,022
3,554
3,824
3,432
2,674
3,532
3,612
2,080
procedure are given in Table 4.
Pedestrian–Vehicle Trajectory Analysis
At midblock locations with marked or unmarked crosswalks, pe-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

destrians try to use an available vehicular gap to reach the curb

Pedestrian volume
(pedestrians/h)

or median while the approaching vehicle approaches the crosswalk.

1,235

When both the pedestrian and the vehicle move without a change in
980
788

770
818
711
944
510
484

speed and yield by changing their path, reducing their speed, or

stopping, there is a chance of a crash or conflict. Therefore, to
check the effect of the speed of the approaching vehicle type, the
trajectories of approaching vehicles and crossing pedestrians were
plotted over space and time for four-lane divided, six-lane divided,
November 25, 2015
December 27, 2016

December 26, 2015

February 20, 2016

February 16, 2016

October 6, 2015
October 6, 2015
January 6, 2016

and eight-lane divided roads [Figs. 9(a–c)].

Day of survey
June 6, 2015

Prior to analyzing trajectory data, possible outliers in trajectories

were eliminated by applying smoothing techniques. Raju et al.
(2017) and Venthuruthiyil and Mallikarjuna (2018) applied
smoothing techniques to eliminate possible noise, outliers, and er-
rors in trajectory data. In the present study, the extracted trajectory
data were smoothened using a four-point moving average method
10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m.

10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m.

10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m.

to eliminate all possible noise and outliers from the trajectories.

8:00 a.m.–7:00 p.m.

8:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m.

1:00 a.m.–5:00 p.m.
7:45 a.m.–7:15 p.m.
7:45 a.m.–6:45 p.m.

7:45 a.m.–6:45 p.m.

Survey duration

Raju et al. (2017) and Venthuruthiyil and Mallikarjuna (2018) gave

detailed explanations of different data smoothing techniques.
Figs. 9(a–c) depict pedestrian–vehicle trajectory plots for four-
lane, six-lane, and eight-lane divided roads. The trajectories are
plotted for both pedestrian and vehicles on same set of axes.
Vehicles trajectory is plotted over the space of 30 m (length of
trap), whereas the pedestrian trajectory is plotted for the width
of the carriageway. The intersection of the trajectories can assist
Mixed type

Mixed type
Mixed type
Mixed type
Rail transit
Residential

Rail transit
Shopping

Shopping
Land-use

in identifying the conflict point and its associated conflict indica-

type

tors, such as TTC, vehicle speed and PET. Vehicle trajectory slope
was substantially steeper for the eight-lane divided road, resulting
in smaller TTCv. This indicates that approaching vehicles reach
the conflict location with high speed and take less time to reach
Un-marked

Un-marked
Un-marked
Un-marked
Crosswalk

Marked

Marked

Marked
Marked
Marked

the conflict point. On the other hand, the slope of trajectory for the
type

six-lane divided road was moderately steeper than that for the four-
lane divided road, indicating higher TTCv values. Furthermore,
some trajectories indicated a passing phase, indicating that the
Table 2. Details of case study locations with traffic flow data

Two-lane undivided

pedestrian left the conflict point before the vehicle reached the
Eight-lane divided

Six-lane divided

4-lane divided

conflict.
Type of road

Variation in Conflict Probability (ΔT)

Traffic conflicts were detected for different crosswalk scenarios.
The PRI was computed for different phases, in terms of lane
and gender; ΔT and V ImpactSpeed values were recorded during con-
flict, passing, and stopping phases for smaller as well as heavy ve-
Note: ISBT = interstate bus terminus.

hicle classes. Plots of ΔT 1 and V ImpactSpeed for the passing phase,

Neelam Cinema, Chandigarh
Dwarka,Sec 6-10, Delhi

ΔT 2 and V ImpactSpeed for the stopping phase, and ΔT and

Ashdodia, Ahmadabad
Ramprashtha, Delhi

Vile Parle, Mumbai

ISBT, Chandigarh

V ImpactSpeed for the conflict phase are depicted in Figs. 10(a–f), re-
Bandra, Mumbai
Vakola, Mumbai
Study location/

Varacha, Surat
classification

spectively. Under Indian conditions, the TTCv values were higher

than the reaction time (T r ). Hence, it is interesting to see if there is a
correlation between these two factors so that these variables can be
applied to compute PRI later.
During the passing phase, there was a strong positive linear
correlation between ΔT 1 and V ImpactSpeed for all varying road geom-
etries considered in this study: two-lane undivided, four-lane di-
vided, six-lane divided, and eight-lane divided roads for smaller
No.

as well as for heavy vehicles [Figs. 10(a and b)]. In addition,

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

© ASCE 04020123-7 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 4. Photographs of trajectory data extraction for (a and b) eight-lane divided road; and (c and d) four-lane divided road. (Images by Avinash R.
Chaudhari.)
Fig. 5. Extracting trajectories: (a) pedestrian position on midblock and
vehicle at entry; and (b) vehicle position at exit. (Images by Avinash R.
Chaudhari.)
ΔT 1 was significantly higher due to huge variation in (1) road
geometry and traffic conditions, (2) diverse pedestrian–vehicle
interaction, and (3) variation in pedestrian and vehicle behavior.
The ΔT 1 and V ImpactSpeed values increased for wider roads, particu-
larly for eight-lane roads compared with four- or six-lane roads
[Figs. 10(a and b)]; ΔT 1 and V ImpactSpeed values for six-lane divided
© ASCE 04020123-8
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123
roads were significantly lower than those for four-lane divided
roads, which suggest that trajectory-based microlevel analysis
is necessary, because there is a huge variation in ΔT 1 and
V ImpactSpeed values because of the diversity of pedestrian–vehicle
interactions and behavior. Moreover, the variation in ΔT1 and
V ImpactSpeed values also was dependent on the vehicle type. For
smaller vehicles (2W, 3W, and cars), there was higher variance
comparison with that for heavy vehicles (trucks and buses). Similar
observations were noted for two-lane undivided roads.
There was a strong negative correlation between ΔT 2 and
V ImpactSpeed for all varying road geometries considered in this
study—two-lane undivided, four-lane divided, six-lane divided,
and eight-lane divided roads—for smaller as well as for heavy ve-
hicles. The impact speed for 2W and cars was higher than that for
3W, trucks, and buses, whereas the ΔT 2 values in the stopping
phase were smaller than the ΔT1 values in the passing phase
[Figs. 10(c and d)]. that the trends of ΔT 2 and V ImpactSpeed suggest
that there is a higher risk on wider roads, such as six-lane and
eight-lane divided roads, compared with four-lane divided roads
[Figs. 10(c and d)]. In addition, the slope was relatively flat in
the case of two-lane undivided roads, indicating cautious behavior
by both pedestrians and vehicle drivers during the stopping
phase. As anticipated, variance in ΔT 2 and V ImpactSpeed values was
much less than in the passing phase. However, variation existed
based on the vehicle types, as explained previously for the passing
phase.
During the conflict phase, a strong positive linear correlation
existed between ΔT and V ImpactSpeed for all varying road geometries
considered in this study—two-lane undivided, four-lane divided,
six-lane divided, and eight-lane divided roads—for smaller as well
as heavy vehicles [Figs. 10(e and f)]. As the width of the road in-
creased, the V ImpactSpeed value increased [Figs. 10(e and f)]. The ΔT
value was higher for eight-lane divided roads than for four-lane and
six-lane divided roads. Moreover, for the smaller vehicles (2W and
cars), ΔT was lower than that of heavy vehicles (trucks and buses)
and 3W during the conflict phase, indicating aggressive behavior of
the drivers. A similar observation can be made in the case of two-
lane undivided roads, because there was a pronounced effect of ve-
hicle type and its interaction with pedestrians in the conflict phase
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems
 Table 3. Sample size for different phases
Phase
Road geometry Vehicle size Vehicle type Passing Phase Stopping phase Conflict phase
Eight-lane divided Light 2W 134 9 224
3W 282 25 355
Heavy Car 634 63 807
Bus/Truck 91 5 157
Six-lane divided Light 2W 186 56 95
3W 34 24 737
Heavy Car 473 57 705
Bus/Truck 6 9 53
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Four-lane divided Light 2W 415 15 436

3W 1,287 26 800
Heavy Car 1.124 77 808
Bus/Truck 115 20 404
Two-lane undivided Light 2W 59 119 407
3W 256 40 300
Heavy Car 163 119 79
Bus/Truck 28 21 41

Female Female
26% 28%
Male
74% Male
72%

2-LANE UNDIVIDED ROAD 4-LANE DIVIDED ROAD

Female Female
21% 18%

Male Male
79% 82%

6-LANE DIVIDED ROAD 8-LANE DIVIDED ROAD

Fig. 6. Pedestrians by gender at subject study locations.

as well. For smaller vehicles (2W, 3W, and cars), the variance in
ΔT and V ImpactSpeed values was higher compared with that for
heavy vehicles (trucks and buses).
The parameter ΔT (expressed in seconds) is the time difference
between T si and TTCvi , and, is a measure to predict conflict prob-
ability, or it can be considered as a surrogate measure of the prob-
ability that a crash between a vehicle and a pedestrian occurs in a
given instance. Previous studies (Davis et al. 2003; Cafiso et al.
2011) were reviewed, and the cumulative distribution curves for
different locations were plotted to explain the variation with respect
to governing factors such as the number of lanes (road width),
vehicle type, and pedestrian characteristics (gender and age)
[Figs. 11(a–d)].
The intercepts for the 15th, 50th, and 85th percentiles were ob-
tained from cumulative frequency plots (Fig. 11) for ΔT (conflict
probability) and vehicle speed (m=s) with variation in road geom-
etry, vehicle type, and demographic factors (Table 5). The ΔT
values corresponding to the 15th percentile can be considered as
dangerous conflicts, those corresponding to the 50th percentile
can be considered as a potential conflict, and those corresponding
to the 85th percentile ΔT value can be considered as a normal con-
flict value. The 15th percentile ΔT values can be considered as the
lower limit, below which the value is considered as dangerous con-
flict, whereas the 50th percentile can be considered as the limit of
potential conflict, and the 85th percentile can be considered as safe
crossing (Khanna and Justo 1991).
The ΔT value (15th percentile value, i.e., dangerous conflict
measure) increased with the addition of a lane; it increases by
36% from four-lane to six-lane divided roads and by 52% from
six-lane to eight-lane divided roads (Table 5). However, the ΔT
value for two-lane divided roads was 70% higher than that for
four-lane divided roads. Likewise, the ΔT value (50th percentile
value, i.e., conflict measure) also increased with the addition of
a lane; it increases by 42.40% from two-lane undivided roads to

© ASCE 04020123-9 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Pedestrians by age at subject study locations.

Fig. 8. Vehicle compositions on different roadway condition.

four-lane divided roads. It increased by 13% from four-lane to six-
lane divided roads and by 80% from six-lane to eight-lane divided
roads. For the 85th percentile values (normal conflict), there was
a marginal increase with the addition of a lane. Furthermore, the
ΔT value for eight-lane divided roads always was higher than that
of six-lane divided roads, four-lane divided roads, and two-lane
undivided roads, which indicates that pedestrians cross wider
streets with greater caution.
The ΔT values also depended on the type of approaching ve-
hicle. The ΔT values were higher for heavy vehicles and lower for
smaller vehicles such as bikes (2W), cars, and 3W. This may be due
to the aggressive behavior of smaller-vehicle drivers. This shows

© ASCE 04020123-10 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

 Table 4. Validation of reaction time
Veh icle Veh icle Veh icle Time to Time to Initial Final Distance Average
Type of entry at entry at entry at travel travel speed at speed at to stop Reaction reaction
vehicle 20.0 m (s) 10.0 m (s) 0.0 m (s) 20–10 m 10–0 m (s) 10 m (m=s) 0.0 m (m=s) (m) time (s) time (s)
Car 7.480 7.490 7.504 1.000 1.400 10.00 7.143 15.676 0.795 0.708
Car 7.579 7.590 7.604 1.020 1.400 9.804 7.143 15.401 0.756
3W 8.010 8.030 8.051 2.000 2.100 5.000 4.762 13.058 0.642
2W 8.157 8.170 8.188 1.300 1.800 7.692 5.556 13.846 0.692
2W 8.238 8.255 8.274 1.700 1.900 5.882 5.263 14.046 0.769
Car 8.278 8.294 8.311 1.600 1.700 6.250 5.882 12.923 0.497
3W 8.340 8.360 8.381 2.050 2.100 5.000 4.762 13.058 0.642
2W 8.420 8.434 8.451 1.400 1.700 7.143 5.882 14.440 0.755
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

3W 8.520 8.540 8.562 2.000 2.200 5.000 4.545 13.807 0.838

Car 9.020 9.042 9.063 2.200 2.100 4.545 4.762 13.316 0.696

that the size of the vehicle affects pedestrian attention. Pedestrians
tended to take the risk to cross the road with rolling behavior, ac-
cepting available gaps, if the approaching vehicle was a truck or
bus. In the case of 2W and 3W, pedestrians crossed with higher
risk, because the ΔT value was much less due to aggressive driving
behavior.
Male pedestrians were less conscious about their safety com-
pared with females and took higher risks crossing the street with
minimum ΔT values. Moreover, child pedestrians crossed the
street with a casual approach compared with elderly pedestrians
with smaller ΔT values. Furthermore, the average vehicle speed
increased with the addition of a lane; it increased by 8.57% from
four-lane to six-lane divided roads, and by 56.82% from six-lane to
eight-lane divided roads. However, in the case of two-lane undi-
vided roads, the traffic flow was low with higher headway. In ad-
dition, pedestrian flow was low due to high average approaching
speed (Table 2). Furthermore, the speed of 2W was higher than that
of 3W, cars, and heavy vehicles (trucks and buses) by 16.66%,
7.58%, and 23.13%, respectively. In addition, male pedestrians
took greater risk while crossing the road than did female pedes-
trians. Furthermore, the drivers of approaching vehicle reduced
the speed of the vehicle by 5.03% when a female pedestrian
was on the crosswalk compared with a male pedestrian. The speed
of the approaching vehicle was 25.70% higher when young and
middle-aged pedestrian were present and 37.71% lower when an
elderly pedestrian was present on the crosswalk, compared with
the situation for child pedestrians.
Computation of PRI
The proposed methodology for computing PRI was applied to the
subject study locations. The mean vehicle speed over the vehicle
trajectory within the marked crosswalk area and a border equal
to the width of the opening for the unmarked crosswalk was used
as the vehicle approaching speed for each vehicle for different
crosswalk locations. First, the vehicle trajectory of vehicles and pe-
destrians in the conflict area on four-lane divided, six-lane divided,
and eight-lane divided roads are plotted in Figs. 9(a–c) as exam-
ples. The intersection of the trajectories of both elements is iden-
tified as a conflict. At the conflict point, the speed of approaching
vehicle (VI) and the time to reach the conflict point (TTcv ) were
determined from each trajectory of vehicles and pedestrians. The
related parameter was computed using these trajectories for a se-
lected sample of vehicles on four-lane, six-lane, and eight-lane di-
vided roads using these values. The computed PRIs are presented in
Table 6.
In the same way, the traffic conflicts were detected, and the
corresponding PRI values were estimated for all the locations to
evaluate the prevailing safety level, for unmarked and marked
crosswalks on two-lane undivided, four-lane divided, six-lane di-
vided, and eight-lane divided roads. The PRI was computed when a
pedestrian was in the crosswalk and the conflict occurred between
pedestrian and approaching vehicle. Student’s t-tests and F-tests
were conducted to verify the statistical differences between the
average values of PRI obtained for marked crosswalk and un-
marked crosswalks for different locations, based on approaching
vehicle type. The data first were checked for normality at a 5%
level of significance. The detailed descriptive statistics for PRI
are presented in Tables 7 and 8.
Statistical analysis (Tables 7 and 8) showed no significant differ-
ence in PRI values between marked and unmarked crosswalks for
3W and bus/truck, except bus/truck on eight-lane divided roads,
which may be due to high speeds. There was a significant differ-
ence in the PRI between marked and unmarked crosswalks for
smaller aggressive vehicle types, i.e., 2W and cars. The average
value of PRI also was compared for statistical significance based
on variation in the number of lanes (two-lane undivided and four-
lane, six-lane, and eight-lane divided roads) for different vehicle
types (Table 9).
From Table 9, it can be inferred that the PRI also depended on
the type of vehicle. PRI value for 2W was significantly higher than
that for cars and 3W. The PRI values for heavy vehicles (truck/bus)
were smaller than those for 2W, 3W, and cars. The PRI value for the
smaller vehicles was higher than that for heavy vehicles. This may
be due to the aggressive behavior of the drivers, who approached
the crosswalk at high speed. Furthermore, the PRI values increased
by 37.35% with the addition of lanes. The PRI value for eight-lane
divided roads was higher than that for two-lane undivided and
four-lane and six-lane divided roads, which may be due to the
higher average approaching speed of the vehicles. On average,
4%–12% of drivers reduced their vehicular speed with safe stop-
ping distance to allow pedestrians to cross the road, whereas
88%–96% of drivers did not allow pedestrians to cross; instead,
they increased the approaching vehicle speed at the crosswalk to
avoid delay at the midblock. However, this specific behavior in-
creases crash risk. Furthermore, the traffic volume on eight-lane
divided roads was higher than that on six-lane and four-lane di-
vided and two-lane undivided roads (Table 2), which implies that
as the traffic volume increases, the PRI value also increases. The
PRI increased (37.35%) with the addition of every lane. The find-
ings also indicate that the PRI value for eight-lane divided roads
was higher than that for four-lane and six-lane divided roads. This
was due to the higher average approaching speed of vehicles.
Furthermore, to determine the effect of approaching vehicle
speed, traffic volume, and pedestrian volume crossing the road on
PRI, different plots were generated depicting possible relationships

© ASCE 04020123-11 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0
(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 9. Vehicle–pedestrian trajectory plots for (a) four-lane divided road; (b) six-lane divided road; and (c) eight-lane divided road.

© ASCE 04020123-12 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

 between (1) PRI and vehicle speed, (2) PRI and traffic volume, and
(3) PRI and pedestrian volume (Fig. 12).
There was a linear relation between PRI and the speed of ap-
proaching vehicle (Fig. 12). As the speed of approaching vehicle
increased, the PRI value also increased. This indicates that a pedes-
trian crosses the street with high risk on wider roads. The severity
of pedestrian conflicts is high when the vehicle speeds are high.
Furthermore, the best-fitted relation between traffic volume and
PRI was found to be polynomial in nature. With an increase in traf-
fic volume (PCU=h) on a road, available gaps may not be adequate
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
to cross the street, because the available headway is minimum.
Pedestrians must wait longer for a safe available gap. During heavy
traffic flow, the waiting time for pedestrians increases at the curb or
median, and impatient pedestrians accept smaller gaps to cross the
road with rolling behavior. This increases the potential of a crash
between the pedestrian and approaching vehicles, which increases
the PRI value. Furthermore, an increase in the pedestrian volume
gives rise to predominant group behavior, which in turn changes the
crossing speed of pedestrians drastically. This also affects the safety
of pedestrians while crossing the street, thereby increasing the

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 10. V ImpactSpeed versus ΔT by vehicle type during different phases: (a) passing phase for smaller vehicle (2W and 3W); (b) passing phase for
smaller vehicle (car) and heavy vehicle (bus/truck); (c) stopping phase for smaller vehicle (2W and 3W); (d) stopping phase for smaller vehicle (car)
and heavy vehicle (bus/truck); (e) conflict phase for smaller vehicle (2W and 3W); and (f) conflict phase for smaller vehicle (car) and heavy vehicle
(bus/truck).

© ASCE 04020123-13 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(d)

(e)

(f)
Fig. 10. (Continued.)

PRI value. Hence, higher approaching vehicle speed, traffic volume,
and pedestrian volume intensify pedestrian–vehicle interaction,
which is a complex phenomenon. Nevertheless, PRI as a measure
of safety can serve practitioners as well as researchers by develop-
ing pedestrian crossing warrants to monitor the safety levels and
operational efficiency at midblock crosswalks.
Comparison with Other Traffic Conflict Techniques
The results of the proposed methodology were compared with other
TCTs, namely PET, to corroborate the developed methodology for
assessing pedestrian safety. It is obvious that smaller values of PET
indicate greater severity of the conflict. On the other hand, higher
values of PRI indicate higher risk and severity of the conflict. A
comparative summary is presented in Table 10.
The PET values of different vehicles types when compared for
similar geometry were lower for 2W, which indicates that conflicts
with 2W are more critical compared with other vehicle categories
(Table 10). Similarly, PRI values for conflicts with 2W were higher
than those with other vehicles, which indicates that conflicts
with 2W are more critical than those with other vehicle categories.
Furthermore, average PET values increased with a change in
road geometry. For instance, higher PET values were found for
two-lane divided road geometry, followed by four-lane, six-lane
and eight-lane divided road geometry. This indicates that the
severity of conflicts is lesser for two-lane undivided road geom-
etry compared to other road configurations. This can be attributed
to the presence of contraflow. Higher PRI values were found
for eight-lane divided road geometry, followed by six-lane and

© ASCE 04020123-14 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

 four-lane divided and two-lane undivided road configurations.
This also indicates that the severity of pedestrian conflicts is less
for two-lane undivided road configurations compared with other
road configurations, which can be attributed to the presence of
contraflow. Therefore, it can be inferred from Table 10 that
common conclusions regarding the severity of pedestrian conflicts
can be drawn based on PET and PRI values for varying vehicle
types and road geometries. However, considering the detailed
methodology adopted in the computation of PRI, the conclusion
regarding pedestrian safety drawn based on PRI can be considered
more comprehensive.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Application of Study
As an important outcome, this study developed a multilinear regres-
sion model for modeling variations in PRI using a set of indepen-
dent variables. Initially, correlation analysis was performed to
check the multicollinearity among variables. Table 11 summarizes
the correlation test results. Pedestrian volume, vehicle volume, and
vehicle speed were positively correlated with PRI. This indicates
that the PRI values increases with increase in these variables. Fur-
thermore, number of lanes also was positively correlated with PRI.
This indicates that the PRI value for eight-lane divided roadways is

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 11. Cumulative frequency plots for ΔT (conflict probability) and vehicle speed by (a) number of lanes; (b) vehicle type; (c) gender; and (d) age.

© ASCE 04020123-15 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(d)

Fig. 11. (Continued.)

Table 5. Variation of ΔT, vehicle speed based on road, vehicle type, and demographic factors
ΔT (s) Vehicle speed (m=s)
No. Classification Particular 15th 50th 85th 15th 50th 85th
01 Lane Two -lane undivided 2.25 3.676 5.11 20.6 29.40 38.20
Four- lane divided 0.68 2.727 4.86 8.40 21.80 35.20
Six-lane divided 1.06 3.083 5.11 13.1 23.67 34.30
Eight-lane divided 2.230 5.535 8.83 9.70 37.12 64.50
02 Vehicle 2W 0.76 3.094 5.13 15.88 28.75 34.00
3W 0.69 3.529 6.30 11.56 23.95 36.35
Car 0.79 3.015 5.38 11.23 26.57 41.91
Bus/truck 1.06 4.488 8.02 10.19 22.10 41.62
03 Gender Male 0.75 3.52 6.29 12.90 26.42 39.90
Female 1.08 3.90 6.71 9.30 25.09 42.70
04 Age Child 0.61 3.239 5.87 9.60 21.05 32.50
Young 0.87 3.816 6.77 11.20 26.46 40.50
Middle-aged 0.99 3.758 6.52 13.00 26.79 41.70
Elderly 1.36 4.315 7.25 12.40 19.53 26.70

Table 6. Distribution of PRI values for different vehicle types

Lanes Gender Vehicle TTCv (s) T s (s) ΔT (s) V impact (km=h) PRI
Four-lane divided Male 2W 3.20 6.05 2.85 30.37 2,633.62
Male 2W 3.80 6.05 2.85 24.63 1,367.34
Male and female 3W 2.80 6.79 3.99 30.37 4,461.65
Female 3W 2.80 6.79 3.99 37.28 5,550.66
Female Car 2.90 5.52 2.62 36.00 3,396.95
Female Tractor 8.40 12.16 7.40 12.16 391.11
Six-lane divided Male 2W 2.95 6.65 3.65 12.09 4,648.18
Elderly female 2W 3.00 6.65 3.70 29.28 1,689.34
Male Car 4.40 6.52 5.02 18.81 10,462.00
Female child 3W 2.95 9.42 6.47 29.28 5,549.49
Young male Tractor 4.42 5.62 1.20 19.54 457.61
Male Truck 5.60 6.38 0.78 18.00 253.31
Eight-lane divided Male 2W 3.40 7.55 4.15 24.35 2,461.18
Male 2W 1.85 7.55 5.70 56.43 18,151.34
Male 2W 1.20 7.55 6.35 80.64 41,291.76
Male Car 1.40 6.52 5.12 54.00 14,930.31
Male Car 1.62 6.52 4.90 57.77 16,358.66
Male Car 1.40 6.52 5.12 66.98 22,971.48

© ASCE 04020123-16 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

 Table 7. Descriptive statistics of PRI for different vehicle types at study locations
2W 3W Car Bus/truck
Location Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
1 12,679.15 13,151.82 13,238.94 13,761.24 10,676.63 14,637.86 8,520.22 7,039.14
2 5,744.54 4,818.07 9,036.63 11,831.80 7,417.86 9,990.68 7,632.84 15,691.70
3 2,217.70 2,610.79 2,097.92 2,963.45 1,467.89 2,159.81 1,216.82 1,924.66
4 15,921.26 99,900.16 7,304.87 5,516.53 8,393.15 37,016.27 1,973.92 2,065.56
5 2,672.43 4,788.40 2,540.00 12,076.13 2,858.25 6,138.31 2,116.27 5,691.01
6 4,013.26 5,135.61 3,044.95 14,026.83 2,417.34 5,281.41 2,019.95 4,778.85
7 6,950.26 20,960.77 3,247.95 3,116.28 6,839.95 10,514.95 2,870.72 4,935.72
8 5,803.36 5,230.22 4,680.44 4,243.34 4,822.45 3,677.88 1,809.56 1,456.77
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 4,718.86 2,927.58 4,438.45 4,490.61 3,842.93 2,896.34 1,451.10 1,923.87

Note: SD = standard deviation.

Table 8. F-test statistics for PRI by vehicle type

2-wheeler 3-wheeler
Locations F-value Remark F-value Remark
1 and 2 Fð1,206Þ ¼ 41.551, p < 0.05 Significant Fð1,348Þ ¼ 2.240, p < 0.05 Not significant
3 and 4 Fð1,1449Þ ¼ 53.78, p < 0.05 Significant Fð1,736Þ ¼ 22.056, p < 0.05 Not significant
7–5 Fð1,354Þ ¼ 6.92, p < 0.05 Significant Fð1,762Þ ¼ 0.131, p > 0.05 Not significant
7–6 Fð1,430Þ ¼ 3.880, p < 0.05 Significant Fð1,755Þ ¼ 0.522, p > 0.05 Not significant
5–6 Fð1,533Þ ¼ 14.446, p < 0.05 Significant Fð1,1440Þ ¼ 1.757, p > 0.05 Not significant
Car Bus/Truck
1 and 2 Fð1,779Þ ¼ 9.834, p < 0.05 Significant Fð1,112Þ ¼ 7.055, p < 0.05 significant
3 and 4 Fð1,708Þ ¼ 26.438, p < 0.05 Significant Fð1; 53Þ ¼ 1.245, p > 0.05 Not significant
7–5 Fð1,1089Þ ¼ 11.612, p < 0.05 Significant Fð1,802Þ ¼ 0.048, p > 0.05 Not significant
7–6 Fð1,1797Þ ¼ 40.62, p < 0.05 Significant Fð1,989Þ ¼ 0.079, p > 0.05 Not significant
5–6 Fð1,2363Þ ¼ 15.978; p < 0.05 Significant Fð1,389Þ ¼ 0.143, p > 0.05 Not significant

Table 9. Average value of PRI

Vehicle type Location 9 Location 5 Location 6 Location 7 Location 3 Location 2 Location 4 Location 1 Location 2
2W 4,939.6 603.0 974.0 858.0 803.0 137.0 15,921.0 12,230.0 744.0
3W 4,438.5 481.0 015.0 710.0 680.0 031.0 7,304.0 12,152.0 036.0
Car 3,842.6 716.0 281.0 788.0 822.0 416.0 8,393.0 9,605.0 235.3
Bus/truck 2,101.8 909.0 962.0 — 809.0 216.0 1,973.0 8,421.0 083.0
Average 4,113.6 427.2 808.0 785.3 278.5 700.0 8,397.7 10,602.0 274.5
Average number 3,612.4 3,824.8 5,048.4 8,938.9
of lanes Two-lane undivided Four-lane divided Six-lane divided Eight-lane divided

higher compared with that for six-lane and four lane divided road-
ways. Pedestrian volume, vehicular speeds, and vehicular volume
were considered as independent variables to model PRI. Three dif-
ferent models were developed. The first model considers only PRI
as a function of vehicular speed; the second model considers PRI as
a function of vehicular speed and vehicular volume; and the third
model considers PRI as a function of vehicular speed, vehicle vol-
ume, and pedestrian volume. The models were developed with 60%
of the samples and were validated using the remaining 40% of sam-
ples. The models are summarized in Table 12. Model 3. i.e., PRI as
a function of vehicular speed, vehicle volume, and pedestrian vol-
ume, is considered as final model based on the R2 values.
The calibrated PRI model was validated with 40% of the re-
maining data. The predicted values were calculated by substituting
the values of variables in the obtained model. Thereafter, the pre-
dicted PRI values were compared with the observed PRI values.
Observed and predicted values were plotted with a line passing
through the origin (zero) (Fig. 13). The R2 value of the validation
was 0.728. The results showed that the developed multilinear re-
gression model has good prediction proficiency for estimating
the PRI value for road crossing behavior of pedestrians at uncon-
trolled midblock crosswalk sections in Indian conditions. Mean
absolute percentage error (MAPE) was 5.54%. According to the
Lewis scale of interpretation, estimation of accuracy for any fore-
cast with a MAPE value of less than 10% can be considered rea-
sonably accurate, 11%–20% can be considered good, 21%–50%
can be considered reasonable, and 51% or more can be considered
inaccurate (Kenneth and Ronald 1982). Therefore, the calibrated
PRI model can be deemed accurate for predicting PRI values
using a set of vehicular speeds and pedestrian and vehicular
volumes. Other variables, such as the presence of marked or un-
marked crosswalks, land-use type, and road geometry, were con-
sidered for modeling. However, these variables were found to be
insignificant.

© ASCE 04020123-17 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c)

Fig. 12. PRI versus (a) vehicle speed; (b) traffic volume; and (c) pedestrian volume.

Table 10. Pedestrian risk using PRI and PET

Average PET (s) Average PRI
Road type 2W 3W Car Bus/truck 2W 3W Car Bus/truck
Eight-lane divided road 2.118 2.902 2.529 3.523 9,029 8,987 8,420 7,752
Six-lane divided road 2.824 3.566 3.549 4.157 8,987 9,029 4,904.5 1,594.5
Four-lane divided road 3.518 2.471 2.073 3.655 4,809.5 3,721.5 3,901.75 1,893.33
Two-lane undivided road 3.686 3.675 3.671 4.386 4,940 4,438 3,843 21

Table 11. Correlation results

Variables PRI PEDVOL VEHVOL VEHSPEED LANDUSE CROSSWALK LANE
PRI 1.00 0.34 0.69 0.80 −0.57 −0.49 0.27
PEDVOL 0.34 1.00 0.03 0.30 −0.16 −0.23 −0.03
VEHVOL 0.69 0.03 1.00 0.48 −0.38 −0.20 0.20
VEHSPEED 0.80 0.30 0.48 1.00 −0.69 −0.49 0.34
LANDUSE −0.57 −0.16 −0.38 −0.69 1.00 0.31 −0.21
CROSSWALK −0.49 −0.23 −0.20 −0.49 0.31 1.00 −0.02
LANE 0.27 −0.03 0.20 0.34 −0.21 −0.02 1.00
Note: PRI = pedestrian risk index; PEDVOL = pedestrian volume; VEHSPEED = vehicle speed; VEHVOL = vehicle volume; and LANE = number of lanes.

Conclusions countries for a given location such as midblock crosswalks. In

Traffic safety commonly is analyzed in terms of the number of traf-
fic crashes and human losses using historical data for long periods.
It is well known that safety analysis cannot be evaluated quickly
due to the lack of reliable past crash data, particularly in developing
India, due to heterogeneous traffic conditions, it is extremely com-
plex to understand pedestrian–vehicle interaction to derive a safety
measure. To overcome this problem, proactive methods are pro-
posed. The research work reported here presents a detailed analysis
to classify conflicts that occur between vehicles and pedestrian

© ASCE 04020123-18 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

 Table 12. Model summary
Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients
Adjusted R
Model Variables B Standard error Beta t Significance R R squared squared
1 (Constant) −2,375.87 980.02 −2.42 0.02 0.79 0.63 0.62
VEHSPEED 277.92 33.71 0.80 8.25 0.00
2 (Constant) −4,456.58 946.64 −4.71 0.00 0.86 0.75 0.74
VEHSPEED 211.67 31.95 0.61 6.63 0.00
VEHVOL 1.31 0.30 0.39 4.31 0.00
3 (Constant) −5,260.39 987.05 −5.33 0.00 0.88 0.78 0.76
VEHSPEED 189.74 32.41 0.54 5.85 0.00
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

VEHVOL 1.39 0.29 0.42 4.73 0.00

PEDVOL 1.52 0.73 0.17 2.08 0.05
Model 1. Predictors: (Constant), VEHSPEED
Model 2. Predictors: (Constant), VEHSPEED, VEHVOL
Model 3. Predictors: (Constant), VEHSPEED, VEHVOL, PEDVOL
Dependent Variable: PRI
Note: PRI = pedestrian risk index; PEDVOL = pedestrian volume; VEHSPEED = vehicle speed; and VEHVOL = vehicle volume.

pedestrians simultaneously share designated road space. The pre-

sented methodology is extendable and transferable to other parts of
the world, contributing to achieving better safety for pedestrians.
The PRI can vary with different categories of approaching ve-
hicles, the time of day (day/night), the season, events/incidents on a
day, and proximal land use. Future research can be extended to
study the effect of these parameters on PRI. The dynamics of
PRI can be analyzed using different techniques. Ideally, more data
on midblock crossings from different cities can enable the develop-
ment of a robust PRI prediction model. Furthermore, the method-
ology can be extended to both unsignalized and signalized
intersections to analyze traffic conflicts during various phases to
benchmark its universal applicability.

Fig. 13. Scatter between observed and predicted PRI values.

Data Availability Statement

Some or all data, models, or code generated or used during the

study are available from the corresponding author by request, in-
using a new risk indicator, PRI. The developed measure or risk in-
cluding pedestrian–vehicle trajectory data and PET data.
dicator evaluates the potential severity of a pedestrian–vehicle con-
flict, relating it to both severity and critical traffic situation. The
analysis showed that the PRI value for smaller vehicles is higher
than that for heavy vehicles. This may be due to both aggressive Acknowledgments
behavior of the drivers of smaller vehicles, who approaches cross-
The work described in this article is supported by Council of
walks at high speed, and aggressive pedestrian behavior by accept-
Scientific & Industrial Research–Central Road Research Institute
ing smaller gaps when an approaching vehicle is a 2W or a car. The
(CSIR–CRRI) Supra Institutional Network Project for Develop-
findings also indicate that PRI value for wider roads, i.e., eight-lane
ment of Indian Highway Capacity (INDO-HCM) Manual funded
divided roads, is higher than that for four-lane and six-lane divided
roads. This may be due to the combined effect of higher average by Planning Commission, Government of India under 12th five-
approaching speed of vehicles and vehicular volume. Male pedes- year plan.
trians are less conscious about their safety compared with female
pedestrians and take more risks crossing the street with minimum
ΔT values (higher conflict probability). Furthermore, child pedes- References
trians crossed the street with a casual approach compared with eld-
Agarwal, N. K. 2011. “Estimation of pedestrian safety at intersections
erly pedestrians.
using simulation and surrogate safety measures.” Ph.D. dissertation,
Overall, the methodology of computing PRI shows promise as
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Univ. of Kentucky.
an indicator which can be very effective to highlight alterations in Allen, B. L., B. T. Shin, and P. J. Cooper. 1978. Analysis of traffic conflicts
design, control, and enforcement for the yielding behavior of ap- and collisions. Rep. No. TRR 667. Washington, DC: Transportation
proaching vehicle drivers against the diverse nature of pedestrians Research Board.
during potential or dangerous conflicts at midblock crosswalks, Cafiso, S., A. Garcia, R. Cavarra, and A. R. Rojas. 2011. “Crosswalk safety
thereby achieving the goal of improving safety at crosswalks. evaluation using a pedestrian risk index as traffic conflict measure.”
The proposed risk indicator can be particularly useful under hetero- In Proc., 3rd Int. Conf. on Road Safety and Simulation. Indianapolis:
geneous traffic conditions in which different vehicle classes and Purude Univ., Transportation Research Board.

© ASCE 04020123-19 J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems

J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123

 Chaudhari, A., N. Gore, S. Arkatkar, G. Joshi, and S. Pulugurtha. 2020.
“Exploring pedestrian surrogate safety measures by road geometry at
midblock crosswalks: A perspective under mixed traffic conditions.”
IATSS Res. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2020.06.001.
Chin, H. C., and S. T. Quek. 1997. “Measurement of traffic conflicts.” Saf.
Sci. 26 (3): 169–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00041-6.
Chung, Y. 2018. “Injury severity analysis in taxi-pedestrian crashes: An
application of reconstructed crash data using a vehicle black box.”
Accid. Anal. Prev. 111 (2018): 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.aap.2017.10.016.
Davis, G. 2001. “Relating severity of pedestrian injury to impact speed in
vehicle-pedestrian crashes: Simple threshold model.” Transp. Res. Rec.
1773 (1): 108–113. https://doi.org/10.3141/1773-13.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by S.V. National Institute Of Technology on 09/21/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Davis, G., K. Sanderson, and S. Davuluri. 2003. “A vehicle-pedestrian
collision model for neighborhood traffic control.” In Proc., 82nd Trans-
portation Research Board Annual Meeting. Washington, DC: Transpor-
tation Research Board.
Gettmann, D., L. Pu, T. Sayed, and S. Shelby. 2008. Surrogate safety
assessment model and validation: Final report. Rep. No. FHWA-
HRT-08-051. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Hannawald, L., and F. Kauer. 2004. Equal effectiveness study on pedestrian
protection. Dresden, Germany: Technische Univ.
Hayward, J. C. 1972. Near-miss determination through use of a scale of
danger. Rep. No. TTSC 7115. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State
Univ.
Jiang, X., W. Wang, K. Bengler, and W. Guo. 2015. “Analyses of pedestrian
behavior on mid-block unsignalized crosswalk comparing Chinese and
German cases.” Adv. Mech. Eng. 7 (11): 168781401561046. https://doi
.org/10.1177/1687814015610468.
Jones, D. K., K. R. Evenson, D. A. Rodriguez, and S. A. Aytur. 2010.
“Addressing pedestrian safety: A content analysis of pedestrian master
plans in North Carolina.” Traffic Inj. Prev. 11 (1): 57–65. https://doi.org
/10.1080/15389580903434199.
Kenneth, D. L., and K. K. Ronald. 1982. Advances in business and man-
agement forecasting. Bingley, UK: Emerald Books.
Khanna, S. K., and C. E. G. Justo. 1991. Highway engineering. Roorkee,
India: Nem Chand & Bros.
Laureshyn, A., A. Svensson, and C. Hydén. 2010. “Evaluation of traffic
safety based on micro-level behavioural data: Theoretical framework
and first implementation.” Accid. Anal. Prev. 42 (6): 1637–1646.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.03.021.
Maurya, A. K., and P. S. Bokare. 2012. “Study of deceleration behaviour of
different vehicle types.” Int. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2 (3): 253–270.
https://doi.org/10.7708/ijtte.2012.2(3).07.
Migletz, D. J., W. D. Glauz, and K. M. Bauer. 1985. Relationships
between traffic conflicts and accidents. Rep. No. FHWA/RD-84/042.
Washington, DC: USDOT, Federal Highway Administration.
MoRTH (Ministry of Road Transport and Highways). 2013. Study on road
accidents in India. New Delhi, India: MoRTH.
NCSA (National Center for Statistics and Analysis). 2013. Pedestrians:
Traffic safety facts, 2011 data. Rep. No. DOT HS 811 748. Washington,
DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Nhan, C., L. Rothman, M. Slater, and A. Howard. 2009. “Back-over
collisions in child pedestrians from the Canadian Hospitals Injury Re-
porting and Prevention Program.” Traffic Inj. Prev. 10 (4): 350–353.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580902995166.
NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). 2015.
“Pedestrian safety enforcement operations: A how-to guide.” Accessed
October 31, 2017. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/nti/pdf/812059
-PedestrianSafetyEnforceOperaHowToGuide.pdf.
© ASCE 04020123-20
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems, 2020, 146(10): 04020123
Pasanen, E., and H. Salmivaara. 1997. “Driving speed and pedestrian safety
in the City of Helsinki.” Traffic Eng. Control 34 (6): 308–310.
Pulugurtha, S. S., V. R. Duddu, and Y. Kotagiri. 2013. “Traffic analysis
zone level crash estimation models based on land use characteristics.”
Accid. Anal. Prev. 50 (Jan): 678–687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap
.2012.06.016.
Raju, N., P. Kumar, C. Reddy, S. Arkatkar, and G. Joshi. 2017. “Examining
smoothening techniques for developing vehicular trajectory data
under heterogeneous conditions.” J. East. Asia Soc. Transp. Stud.
12 (2017): 1549–1568. https://doi.org/10.11175/easts.12.1549.
Salamati, K., B. Schroeder, N. M. Rouphail, C. Cunningham, R. Long, and
J. Barlow. 2012. “Development and implementation of a conflict-based
assessment of pedestrian safety (CAPS) to evaluate accessibility of
complex intersections.” Transp. Res. Rec. 2264 (1): 148–155. https://
doi.org/10.3141/2264-17.
Sayed, T., M. H. Zaki, and J. Autey. 2013. “A novel approach for diag-
nosing road safety issues using automated computer vision techniques.”
In Proc., 16th Road Safety on Four Continents Conf., 15–17. Beijing:
Road Safety on Four Continents.
Silcock, D. T., R. Walker, and T. Selby. 1998. “Pedestrians at risk.”
In Proc., European Transport Conf., 209–220. London: PTRC Educa-
tion and Research Services Limited.
St-Aubin, P., N. Saunier, L. F. Miranda-Moreno, and K. Ismail. 2013. “Use
of computer vision data for detailed driver behaviour analysis and
trajectory interpretation at roundabouts.” Transp. Res. Board 2389 (1):
65–77. https://doi.org/10.3141/2389-07.
Tarko, A., and G. Davis. 2009. “Surrogate measures of safety.” In Proc.,
88th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Washington,
DC: Transportation Research Board.
Toran Pour, A., S. Moridpour, R. Tay, and A. Rajabifard. 2017. “Modelling
pedestrian crash severity at mid-blocks.” Transportmetrica A: Transp.
Sci. 13 (3): 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2016.1256355.
Turner, S., K. Fitzpatrick, M. Brewer, and E. S. Park. 2006. “Motorist
yielding to pedestrians at unsignalized intersections: Findings from a
national study on improving pedestrian safety.” Transp. Res. Rec.
1982 (1): 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106198200102.
van der Horst A. R. A., and J. H. Kraay. 1986. “The Dutch conflict obser-
vation technique ‘DOCTOR’.” In Proc., ICTCT Workshop. Budapest,
Hungary: KTI Institute for Transport Sciences.
Varhelyi, A. 1996. Dynamic speed adaptation based on information
technology—A theoretical background. Bulletin 142. Lund, Sweden:
Lund Univ.
Vaughn, R. 1997. Avoiding the emerging pedestrian: A mathematical model.
SAE Technical Paper 970962. Warrendale, PA: SAE International.
Venthuruthiyil, S. P., and C. Mallikarjuna. 2018. “Trajectory reconstruction
using locally weighted regression: A new methodology to identify the
optimum window size and polynomial order.” Transportmetrica A:
Transp. Sci. 14 (10): 881–900. https://doi.org/10.1080/23249935.2018
.1449032.
Wu, J., E. Radwan, and H. Abou-Senna. 2018. “Assessment of pedestrian-
vehicle conflicts with different potential risk factors at midblock
crossings based on driving simulator experiment.” Adv. Transp. Stud.
44 (Apr): 33–46.
Yao, J., J. Yang, and D. Otte. 2007. “Head injuries in child pedestrian
accidents in depth case analysis and reconstructions.” Traffic Inj. Prev.
8 (1): 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580600944243.
Zegeer, C., J. R. Stewart, H. H. Huang, and P. A. Lagerwey. 2001. Safety
effects of marked vs. unmarked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations:
Executive summary and recommended guidelines. Report No. FHWA-
RD-01-075. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
J. Transp. Eng., Part A: Systems