Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Evaluating the effectiveness of new-designed crosswalk markings at T

intersections in China considering vehicle-pedestrian interaction
Yang Bian, Kun Liang, Xiaohua Zhao*, Haijian Li, Liping Yang
Beijing Key Laboratory of Traffic Engineering, College of Metropolitan Transportation, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Crosswalk markings are a type of facility installed at the vehicle-pedestrian interaction locations and the
Crosswalk markings function is to warn drivers to watch out for pedestrians crossing the street and improve safety for pedestrians. In
Effectiveness Beijing, a type of new-designed crosswalk markings in China (NCMC) was installed. However, evaluating the
Interaction effectiveness of this type of crosswalk markings was not conducted. Accordingly, the objective of this paper is to
TOPSIS
evaluate the effectiveness of this type of new-designed crosswalk markings. During the evaluation process, the
Driving simulator
vehicle-pedestrian interaction was considered; standard crosswalk markings in China (SCMC) were taken as a
control group. In addition, empirical data were collected from a driving simulator, and nine evaluating in-
dicators representing vehicle operating data, drivers’ maneuvering data and drivers’ subjective evaluation were
proposed. In order to combine nine indicators, a Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal
Solution (TOPSIS) method was used in this study to achieve the premium degrees of these two types of crosswalk
markings. The evaluation result showed that, for intersections with high or low pedestrian flow, the compre-
hensive effectiveness and influences on drivers’ driving behaviors with presence of NCMC were better than those
with presence of SCMC, no matter where vehicle-pedestrian interactions occurred. For intersections with no
pedestrians, the comprehensive effectiveness and influences on drivers’ driving behaviors with presence of
NCMC were worse than those with presence of SCMC, no matter where vehicle-pedestrian interaction occurred.
These results may provide references for facility installing and future development of standards.

1. Introduction pedestrians at intersections, various pedestrian safety facilities continue

Pedestrians, as a typical group of vulnerable road users, are exposed
to a relatively unsafe walking environment. According to the Global
Status Report on Road Safety 2018, approximately 1.35 million people
die each year due to crashes, and pedestrian deaths constitute 23 % of
road traffic deaths by type of road users (World Health Organization,
2018). Nation Bureau of Statistics of China reported that about 1322
pedestrians were killed and more than 1340 were injured in traffic
accidents in 2017 (Nation Bureau of Statistics of China, 2019). The road
intersection is a specific road section where vehicles and pedestrians’
paths in different directions meet. This is one of the critical reasons why
many pedestrian crashes occur. In 2017, there were 5977 pedestrians
killed, and 18 % of them died at or near intersections in the USA
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2017). Over 30 per-
cent of the pedestrian fatalities happened at intersections between 1999
and 2014 in Canada (Transport Canada, 2020).
In order to decrease pedestrian crashes and enhance the safety of
to be developed and implemented. Crosswalk markings are a typical
type of facility, which has those functions mentioned above.
Crosswalk markings are a type of pedestrian safety facilities which
are installed at the vehicle-pedestrian interaction locations. Installing
crosswalk markings is to mark the path that allows pedestrians to cross
the road under certain conditions and to warn drivers to watch out for
pedestrians crossing the street (China National Standardization
Management Committee, 2019). In order to ascend the function men-
tioned above, highway departments in different countries and regions
developed various crosswalk marking patterns by redesigning the
geometric shape of crosswalk markings or changing colors of crosswalk
markings. Several crosswalk marking patterns are shown in Fig. 1.
The crosswalk markings in Fig. 1(d) are new-designed crosswalk
markings which were installed at signalized intersections in Fengtai
District and Haidian District, Beijing, in order to enhance the visibility
of the crosswalk (Beijing Traffic Management Bureau, 2019). However,
according to the Road Traffic Signs and Markings (China National

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bianyang@bjut.edu.cn (Y. Bian), kkkyleung@emails.bjut.edu.cn (K. Liang), zhaoxiaohua@bjut.edu.cn (X. Zhao), lihaijian@bjut.edu.cn (H. Li),
yangliping@emails.bjut.edu.cn (L. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2020.105498
Received 28 October 2019; Received in revised form 9 March 2020; Accepted 9 March 2020
Available online 13 March 2020
0001-4575/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Y. Bian, et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498

Fig. 1. Several crosswalk marking patterns in different cities.

Standardization Management Committee, 2019), the pattern of the

new-designed crosswalk markings does not comply with the relevant
provisions of China. The effectiveness evaluation of this type of cross-
walk markings was also not conducted.

2. Literature review

2.1. Vehicle-pedestrian interaction occurring time and location conditions

Vehicle-pedestrian interaction at intersections is pervasive and this

may cause a relatively high risk of crashes or collisions. Besides traffic
flow factors, such as the number of pedestrians, vehicle speed and ve-
hicle average daily traffic volume (Zegeer et al., 2002; Himanen and
Kulmala, 1988; Obeid et al., 2017), when and where the risk of vehicle-
pedestrian interactions at intersections is relatively high should also be
taken into consideration.

2.1.1. Locations where high-risk vehicle-pedestrian interactions occur

In the vast majority of cases, interactions between vehicles and
pedestrians at intersections happened on the crosswalks. Taking a four-
leg intersection as an example, this type of intersection usually has four
crosswalks for pedestrians to cross the road. When the vehicle turns left,
right or crosses the intersection, it will pass the crosswalk locations
twice, as shown in Fig. 2. According to Fu et al. (2019), the vehicle
passes the first crosswalk located on the intersection approach where it
comes from. Then, on its way to exit the intersection, the vehicle passes
a second crosswalk on the exiting street (the street that the users take to
exit the intersection), regardless of its destination (choice of exiting the
street). Therefore, pedestrian-vehicle interactions at intersections can
be put in two categories:
• Primary interactions (PI), defined as those happening at the first
pedestrian crosswalk on the approach street where vehicles enter
the intersection;
• Secondary interactions (SI), defined as those interactions occurring
at exiting streets where vehicles leave the intersection.
In Fu et al. (2019), drivers’ driving behaviors in the second inter-
action are more dangerous, indicating the significantly higher risk for
Fig. 2. Illustration of primary and secondary interactions at a four-legged in-
tersection.
pedestrians involved in secondary interactions, compared to primary
interactions. Some previous studies also indicated that secondary in-
teractions are more dangerous (Roudsari et al., 2006; Iasmin et al.,
2016). Thus, when it comes to vehicle-pedestrian interactions at in-
tersections, the locations where interactions occur should be both dis-
tinguished and considered.
2.1.2. Time when high-risk vehicle-pedestrian interactions occur
The risk level of vehicle-pedestrian interactions is also related to
vehicle real-time operation data, such as speed, distance from the
conflict location, etc. These dynamics will influence the time when
vehicles arrive at the conflict location eventually. When taking the
moment that the pedestrian arrives at the conflict location too, Time-
To-Zebra arrive (TTZarr) was proposed. TTZarr (Varhelyi, 1998) is de-
fined as the time left for the vehicle to arrive at the zebra crossing at the
moment the pedestrian arrives at the curb. TTZarr is obtained by di-
viding the distance of the vehicle from the zebra crossing by the ve-
hicle’s speed when the pedestrian arrives at the curb. According to

2
Y. Bian, et al.
Várhelyi’s (1998) and Bella and Silvestri’s (2015) research, TTZarr can
be divided into three situations, and the driver’s behavior and the pe-
destrian’s behavior are different in these three situations:
• TTZarr < 1 s, when the pedestrian reaches the curb, the vehicle is
very close to the conflict point. Thus, the driver will not be able to
stop, and the pedestrian will not start to cross, allowing the vehicle
to continue without being forced to brake;
• 1 s ≤ TTZarr ≤ 4 s, the pedestrian could reach the conflict point
before the driver and force him to brake. The driver accelerates, in
order to take priority in passing the crosswalk before the pedestrian.
• TTZarr > 4 s, the pedestrian has enough time to pass the conflict
point safely. The driver realizes that he cannot pass before the pe-
destrian and, thus, adopts a lower speed.
According to the descriptions of three situations of TTZarr, when 1 s
≤ TTZarr ≤ 4 s, the driver and the pedestrian both want to take priority
in passing the crosswalk. During this period, the pedestrian’s behavior
and the driver’s behavior have high uncertainty. Thus, when TTZarr is in
this range, the probability of crash between vehicle and pedestrian is
relatively high.
2.2. Evaluation of the effectiveness of crosswalk markings
Evaluation of the effectiveness of crosswalk markings is an indis-
pensable part of traffic facilities using. In Table 1, researches on the
effectiveness of crosswalk markings from the 1970s until recently are
summarized. The data collection method of these researches was the
field test. Early studies focus on the effectiveness of marked crosswalk
and unmarked crosswalk (crosswalk installed crosswalk markings or
not). The effectiveness of marked crosswalk and unmarked crosswalk
obtained by these previous studies is not consistent, which may be
caused by inconsistent external environmental conditions. Recent stu-
dies shifted the focus to the effectiveness of different types of crosswalk
markings. The researchers found that different types of crosswalk
markings caused different drivers’ behavior, and that drivers had dif-
ferent preferences for different types of crosswalk markings.
As is shown in Table 1, evaluation indicators, including crash data,
traffic conflict data, and accident field observation data, have been
extensively used to check the effectiveness of the safety of this type of
pedestrian facilities. However, these data can only be collected after
crashes or conflicts occurred. Due to this reason, it takes a long time to
collect these data, and it may also cause the uncertainty of the sample
size. Additionally, these crashes may cause pedestrians or researchers to
be injured or even killed.
Compared to field tests, a driving simulation study has some es-
sential advantages. For example, it is safer and there is more effective
control on experiments. Besides, a driving simulator can collect real-
time performance data, such as data of the throttle, the brake and the
steering wheel, which are more difficult to acquire in a field test (Zhao
et al., 2018a, 2018b;Zhao et al., 2019). the validity of the Beijing
University of Technology driving simulator was validated (Xu, 2012;
Ding et al., 2013, 2014, 2015; Zhao et al., 2018a, b; Huang et al., 2019)
These previous studies found that the driving simulator was relatively
effective in terms of speeds and achieving drivers’ physiological para-
meters.
Although few studies conducted a driving simulation study to
evaluate the effectiveness of different crosswalk marking patterns, the
effects of some other pedestrian safety facilities were also explored by
this method. Fisher and Garay-Vega (2012) studied drivers’ behaviors,
including the yielding behavior and the percentage of drivers looking to
target zone, on advance yield markings at marked mid-block crosswalks
in multi-threat scenarios. Salamati et al. (2012) explored the effects of
three different crosswalk treatments at the exit leg of multilane
roundabouts according to drivers’ yielding rate and eye tracker results.
Bella and Silvestri (2015) studied the effects of three different safety
3
Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498
measures on drivers’ speed behavior at pedestrian crossings.
In summary, the distinguished feature of this paper is to conduct a
driving simulator experiment, which can control independent variables
strictly, to evaluate the effectiveness of the new-designed crosswalk
markings, considering the occurring time and location conditions of
vehicle-pedestrian interactions. The drivers’ maneuvering behavior
data and vehicle operating data obtained from the driving simulator to
explain how crosswalk markings influence driving behavior and then
evaluate the effectiveness of crosswalk markings. The conclusions of
evaluation serve as the basis for this facility installing and standards.
3. Methods
The study was conducted using the advanced driving simulator of
the Beijing University of Technology in China. Three independent
variables were considered in this experiment:
• Two different crosswalk markings (Standard Crosswalk Markings in
China (SCMC) and New-designed Crosswalk Markings in China
(NCMC)).
• Two different vehicle-pedestrian interaction locations (primary in-
teraction and secondary interaction).
• Three different levels of the pedestrian number (0, 1 or 5).
Therefore, this experiment followed a full factorial design: 2
(crosswalk markings) × 2 (vehicle-pedestrian interaction locations) ×
3 (levels of the pedestrian number). The hypotheses of the study were
as follows:
Hypothesis 1. Drivers would be more likely to experience unhealthy
tension (may cause dizziness, nausea, or anxiety) when they see the
NCMC.
Hypothesis 2. In respect of drivers, NCMC would be more conspicuous,
which will lead to a better warning, and it would make driving behavior
more predictable and drivers’ speed control awareness stronger.
Hypothesis 3. The effectiveness of different crosswalk markings on
driving behavior is not absolute. Other external conditions (vehicle-
pedestrian interaction locations or levels of the pedestrian number)
would also influence the effectiveness of crosswalk markings.
According to hypotheses above, the objective of this paper is to
evaluate the effectiveness of this new-designed crosswalk markings at
signalized intersections when vehicle-pedestrian interactions occur in
different time and location.
3.1. Scenarios and vehicle-pedestrian interaction design
In light of the practical applications and suggestions from relevant
experts in Beijing Municipal Institute of City Planning & Design, the
scenarios used in this driving simulator experiment were designed as
follows.
Twelve factors combined scenarios were developed based on a sig-
nalized intersection, where two crossing roads are composed of four-
lane urban roads of totally about 1600 m long. This road was 24 m wide
formed by four 3.50 m wide lanes, two 2 m wide bicycle lanes, two 1 m
wide lane separators and two 2 m wide sidewalks. Two of four lanes
were left turn lanes, and another two lanes were used for straight and
right-turning traffic. The distance between the signalized intersection
and the starting point equals to 800 m, which allowed the drivers to
reach a congruous speed for the simulated urban scenario. The posted
speed limit was 60 km/h.
According to the Road Traffic Signs and Markings (China National
Standardization Management Committee, 2019), the design para-
meters, including size, installed location and RGB color, of Standard
Crosswalk Markings in China (SCMC) were confirmed. The design
parameters of NCMC are determined based on a field investigation in a
 Y. Bian, et al.

Table 1
Researches on the Effectiveness of Crosswalk Markings.
Year Researchers Object Location Measure of effectiveness Results

1972 Herms (1972) Marked crosswalk vs. unmarked Unsignalized intersections Crash rates Unmarked crosswalks were better
crosswalk
1994 Gibby et al. (1994) Marked crosswalk vs. unmarked Unsignalized highway Crash rates Unmarked crosswalks were better
crosswalk intersections
2000 Jones and Tomcheck (2000) Marked crosswalk vs. unmarked Unsignalized arterial Crash rates Unmarked crosswalks were better
crosswalk intersections
2000 Knoblauch and Raymond (2000) Marked crosswalk vs. unmarked Unsignalized locations Vehicle speed Drivers respond to crosswalk markings more or less.
crosswalk
2001 Knoblauch et al. (2001) Marked crosswalk vs. unmarked Uncontrolled intersection Yielding behavior No difference between marked crosswalks and unmarked
crosswalk crosswalks.
2001 Nitzburg and Knoblauch (2001) High-visibility crosswalk markings Unsignalized intersections Yielding rate Drivers were more likely to yield at the high-visibility
crosswalk
2002 Zegeer et al. (2002) 1.Marked crosswalk vs. unmarked Uncontrolled intersection Crash rates 1.No statistically significant difference between marked

4
crosswalk crosswalks and unmarked crosswalks
2.Different crosswalk marking pattern 2. No statistically significant difference between different
crosswalk marking pattern
2005 Chicago Department of yellow/green crosswalk markings Elementary school zone Drivers’ speed behavior Had an insignificant effect
Transportation (2019)
2011 Fitzpatrick et al. (2011) Transverse Lines, Continental Experiment locations Drivers’ preference Continental markings and bar pairs were better than transverse
Markings, and Bar Pairs markings.
2011 Iragavarapu et al. (2011) Transverse Lines, Continental Experiment locations Detection distances Bar pairs and continental markings were similar, and they were
Markings, and Bar Pairs better than the transverse markings
2012 Pulugartha et al. (2012) High-visibility crosswalk 1.pedestrians trapped in the street Significant increase in the distance at which drivers yielded to
2.pedestrians looking for vehicles before beginning pedestrians.
to cross
3.pedestrians looking for vehicles before crossing
the second half of the street
4.percent of captured or diverted pedestrians
5.driver yield behavior and distance
6.drivers blocking the crosswalk
Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498
Y. Bian, et al.
Fig. 3. Scenarios and vehicle-pedestrian interaction design.
signalized intersection in Fengtai District. Detailed design parameters of
SCMC and NCMC are shown in Fig. 3(a) and (b).
In Beijing, China, most traffic signals at intersections have protected
left-turn phases. Pedestrians in all directions are prohibited to cross the
road when this phase is green. Nevertheless, right-turning traffic signals
are designed to be either combined with the phase of straight traffic
movement or kept free of traffic signals. The right-turning vehicles in
Beijing may have both primary interactions and secondary interactions
with the crossing pedestrians. Thus, this study chose right turn as a
typical situation in this driving simulator and two types of vehicle-pe-
destrian interactions at intersections, shown in Fig. 3(c) and (d), were
both taken into consideration. The color of traffic lights in each sig-
nalized intersection did not change, in order to avoid drivers seeing
different signals because of different speeds. Accordingly, the signal
phase settings, which can ensure vehicle-pedestrian interactions occur
at primary location or secondary location, are also shown in Fig. 3(c)
and (d).
Another variable that was also controlled in the experiment is the
number of crossing pedestrians. Obeid et al. (2017) analyzed driver-
pedestrian interaction in a mixed-street environment using a driving
simulator. In their study, number of pedestrians crossing (0, 1 and 3)
was set as an independent variable, and the results show that drivers
are more cautious and their driving is less aggressive when more pe-
destrians are crossing. Therefore, three levels of pedestrian presence (0,
1 and 5) were adopted in this study. The aim of selecting three levels of
pedestrian presence in this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of
5
Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498
NCMC and SCMC in different levels of pedestrian presence and to ex-
plore whether the three evaluation results are different. Considering the
difference between the signal phase when primary interaction occurs
and that when secondary interaction occurs, this study set the primary
interaction and the secondary interaction as two of 12 scenarios when
the pedestrian was absent.
Concerning the time when vehicle-pedestrian interaction occurs, 1 s
≤ TTZarr ≤ 4 s is the most dangerous time left for the vehicle to arrive
at the zebra crossing at the moment the pedestrian arrives at the curb,
according to Bella and Silvestri’s research. Besides, they concluded that
1 s ≤ TTZarr ≤ 4 s, TTZarr ≤ 1 s and TTZarr ≥ 4 s are three different
time ranges of vehicle-pedestrian interaction and set 1 s, 2.5 s and 4 s as
the theoretical values of TTZarr. 2.5 s is the median between 1 s and 4 s.
While, 1 s is the boundary value of the interval [1 s, 4 s] and the in-
terval [0 s,1 s]. Similarly, 4 s is the boundary value of the interval [1 s,
4 s] and the interval [4 s,+∞]. Thus, the specific values of TTZarr were
set as 2.5 s. Therefore, the pedestrian was triggered when the driver was
34.7 m. In addition, the pedestrian speed was set as 1.2 m/s, according
to the literature (Shan, 2019).
During the experimental process, each scenario was characterized
by low traffic volume. In this way, the experimental vehicle would not
encounter interference while in operation.
3.2. Apparatus
A fixed-base driving simulator at Beijing University of Technology
Y. Bian, et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498

Table 2
Summary of Dependent Variables.
Variables Description

Average speed Average speed in the key impact area. It reflects the overall effectiveness of the crosswalk markings. Lower average
speed in the key influence range indicated the better effectiveness of crosswalk markings.
The SD of acceleration The average value of standard deviation (SD) of acceleration in the key impact area. It is used to evaluate speed as
an indirect evaluation indicator, which depicts the stability of speed reduction in the key impact area. Lower SD of
acceleration in the key influence range indicated the better stability of speed reduction influenced by crosswalk
markings.
Gas pedal power PGPP = ∫T f(t)dt . Where f(t) was the function of the pressing intensity of the gas pedal over time, ranging from 0 to 1;
t was the travel time, in s; and PGPP was the gas pedal power. The gas pedal power not only measured the intensity or
force of drivers’ pressure on the throttle pedal but also considered the duration and frequency of drivers’ use of the
throttle pedals. More gas pedal power in the key influence range indicated that drivers were aroused vigilantly and
control throttles consciously.
Relative speed contrast (θ ) v 2 − v1
θ= . Where v1 –the entering speed, denoting the vehicle speed upon the entering point of each section, in km/
v1
h; v 2 –the minimum speed, denoting the minimum speed in the key impact area, in km/h; and θ–the relative speed
contrast. The relative speed contrast was used to evaluate the decelerating effects of crosswalk markings. If this
indicator was negative, it meant that the vehicle decelerated while traveling in the section, and vice versa. Higher
relative speed contrast in the key influence range indicated the better effectiveness of crosswalk markings.
Minimum speed (Vmin) The minimum speed value in the key impact area. Lower Vmin in the key influence range indicated the better
effectiveness of crosswalk markings.
Distance from zebra crossing where the speed reduced to Distance from zebra crossing where the speed reduced to the minimum. Higher Dvmin in the key influence range
the minimum (Dvmin) indicated the better effectiveness of crosswalk markings.

was used in this experiment. The road scenario was projected onto three
large screens to provide a 130-degree field of view. The vehicle oper-
ating data (e.g., braking force, acceleration, speed, lateral placement,
lane number, and turning angle of the steering wheel) were recorded 30
times per second.
3.3. Participant
According to Central Limit Theorem, if a sum of random variables is
normally distributed, a large sample size obtained from those variables
also fits normal distribution. Besides, the sample size of no less than 20
is acceptable (Ben-Bassat and Shinar, 2011; Van Der Horst and De
Ridder, 2007; Horberry et al., 2006). Accordingly, a total of 27 healthy
participants were recruited by advertisement, including 9 females and
18 males. The average age was 35.6 years old (SD = 9.1, range =
23–49 years old). All participants were provided with written informed
consents before joining the experiment. Drivers could not participate in
the training until informed consents are provided.
“Q1: What do you think of the conspicuity of Standard Crosswalk
Markings in China?” (from very inconspicuous to very conspicuous), “Q2:
What do you think of the conspicuity of New-designed Crosswalk
Markings in China?” (from very inconspicuous to very conspicuous), “Q3:
Which level of your vigilance to risk (be aware that a pedestrian may be
crossing the crosswalk, and a collision may occur if they do not slow
down) ahead do you think Standard Crosswalk Markings in China can
arouse?” (from very low to very high), “Q4: Which level of your vigilance
to risk ahead do you think New-designed Crosswalk Markings in China
can arouse?” (from very low to very high), “Q5: Which level of your
unhealthy tension (may cause dizziness, nausea, or anxiety) do you
think Standard Crosswalk Markings in China can arouse?” (from very
high to very low), “Q6: Which level of your unhealthy tension do you
think New-designed Crosswalk Markings in China can arouse?” (from
very high to very low). Finally, another questionnaire was also required
to be finished by the participant to report his or her subjective eva-
luation of the driving simulator, together with post-experiment phy-
siological and psychological conditions.

3.4. Procedures
Participants were required to fill out a questionnaire before the
experiment, which collected their basic information (age, gender,
driving experience, etc.) as well as their physiological and psycholo-
gical conditions. Then participants were required to perform a test
driving for 5−10 min on a specific scenario in order to become familiar
with the driving simulator.
After the test driving, participants started the formal driving ex-
periment, in which the vehicle maneuvering and drivers’ operational
performance data were collected. Each participant needs to complete
12 scenarios in an entirely random order. In each scenario, participants
were required to drive from the starting point and turn right to arrive at
the ending point. The entire driving experiment lasted approximately
20 min on average. When the formal experiment was finished, each
participant left the driving simulator and filled out a scene authenticity
evaluation questionnaire and a questionnaire about the perceived ef-
fectiveness of the two different crosswalk markings. The scene au-
thenticity evaluation questionnaire consisted of scale that rated the
authenticity of various elements in the scene, including trees, dividers,
street lights, pedestrians, signs and markings, road surface, and traffic
lights. The answers range from 1 to 10, representing the worst to the
best. Another questionnaire consisted of six items and each item was
rated by participants on a 5-point unipolar scale ranging from 1 to 5:
3.5. Dependent variables
The two different crosswalk markings with six different vehicle-
pedestrian interactions were defined as the independent variables.
Researchers chose six driving behavior indicators, which were closely
related to the speed, as the dependent variables: average speed, the
standard deviation (SD) of acceleration, gas pedal power, relative speed
contrast (θ), minimum speed (Vmin) and distance from zebra crossing
where the speed reduced to the minimum (Dvmin) (Obeid et al., 2017;
Bella and Silvestri, 2015; Zhao et al., 2016, 2018b). According to the
maximum display distance of crosswalk markings in the driving simu-
lator, this paper regarded the section from the 100 m prior to crosswalk
markings to 20 m post to the stop line to crosswalk markings as the key
impact area. The six dependent variables were listed in Table 2
4. Results
From the driving simulator experiment, driving behavior indicators,
including vehicle operating data, drivers’ maneuvering data, and dri-
vers’ subjective evaluation results, were collected. Then the effective-
ness of NCMC was analyzed. The evaluation of effectiveness was di-
vided into the following three aspects.

6
Y. Bian, et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498

Table 3 4.2.2. The standard deviation of acceleration

Results of the Scene Authenticity Evaluation.
Element Trees Dividers Street Pedestrians Signs and Road
lights markings surface
Result 9.2 9.3 9.3 8.7 9.2 9.5
4.1. Results of scene authenticity evaluation
The results of the scene authenticity evaluation questionnaire were
showed in the following table:
As is shown in Table 3, the evaluation scores of the scene authen-
ticity evaluation are all above 8.5. It means that the experiment scene in
this experiment is close to reality and vehicle maneuvering and the
drivers’ operational performance data are valid.
4.2. Influences on driving behaviors
A repeated-measure analysis of variances (rANOVA) of six driving
behavior indicators was performed. The influence of two different
crosswalk markings was analyzed under different vehicle-pedestrian
interaction locations (PI, SI) and different levels of the pedestrian
number (0, 1, 5) and these results represented the crosswalk markings’
relative effectiveness under different conditions, rather than the abso-
lute effectiveness. Results were shown in Table 4 and Fig. 4.
4.2.1. Average speed
When the pedestrian was absent, the effect of two types of crosswalk
markings on average speed was not statistically significant both at PI
situation (p = 0.725) and SI situation (p = 0.844). The results in-
dicated that the average speed of NCMC was significantly lower than
that of SCMC when pedestrians were present (Ped.1/PI - p = 0.086;
Ped.1/SI - p = 0.011; Ped.5/PI - p = 0.022; Ped.5/SI - p = 0.076).
When there was one pedestrian present, the standard deviation of
Traffic acceleration was significantly influenced by different crosswalk mark-
lights ings (Ped.1/PI - p = 0.097; Ped.1/SI - p = 0.009). The standard de-
viation of acceleration of NCMC is higher than that of SCMC. When
9.5
there were five pedestrians present or the pedestrian was absent, the
effect of two types of crosswalk markings on the standard deviation of
acceleration was not statistically significant. (Ped.0/PI - p = 0.772;
Ped.0/SI - p = 0.235; Ped.5/PI - p = 0.489; Ped.5/SI - p = 0.888)
4.2.3. Gas pedal power
When there was one pedestrian present, gas pedal power was sig-
nificantly influenced by different crosswalk markings. The gas pedal
power of NCMC was higher than that of SCMC at PI situation (p =
0.028), whereas at SI situation, it is the opposite (p = 0.079). When
there were five pedestrians present, the gas pedal power of NCMC was
significantly higher than that of SCMC at PI situation (p = 0.011).
Nevertheless, the gas pedal power was not significantly influenced by
different crosswalk markings at SI situation (p = 0.755). When the
pedestrian was absent, the effect of different crosswalk markings on gas
pedal power was insignificant.
4.2.4. Relative speed contrast
When there were five pedestrians present, relative speed contrast
was significantly influenced by different crosswalk markings, and the
relative speed contrast of NCMC was higher than that of SCMC at PI
situation (p = 0.025) and SI situation (p = 0.085). When there was one
pedestrian present or the pedestrian was absent, the effect of two types
of crosswalk markings on Relative speed contrast was not statistically
significant (Ped.0/PI - p = 0.444; Ped.0/SI - p = 0.317; Ped.1/PI - p =
0.374; Ped.1/SI - p = 0.174).
4.2.5. Minimum speed
When there were five pedestrians present, minimum speed was

Table 4
rANOVA Results of Six Driving Behavior Indicators.
Average speed The SD of acceleration Gas pedal power Relative speed contrast Vmin Dvmin

Ped.0 PI SCMC Mean 37.847 0.309 0.297 −0.410 28.532 6.733

SD 6.411 0.146 0.078 0.194 9.149 4.721
NCMC Mean 38.358 0.320 0.268 −0.378 30.364 4.189
SD 7.519 0.163 0.080 0.202 10.691 6.622
p-value 　 0.725 0.772 0.100 0.444 0.377 0.081*
Ped.0 SI SCMC Mean 39.859 0.312 0.278 −0.387 31.089 8.296
SD 7.726 0.161 0.095 0.197 10.974 9.403
NCMC Mean 39.575 0.269 0.283 −0.358 31.219 4.372
SD 6.844 0.145 0.070 0.226 10.750 4.286
p-value 　 0.844 0.235 0.800 0.317 0.933 0.060*
Ped.1 PI SCMC Mean 34.761 0.444 0.365 −0.659 17.249 8.825
SD 7.781 0.176 0.137 0.286 14.555 6.248
NCMC Mean 31.610 0.514 0.419 −0.697 14.568 16.425
SD 7.203 0.171 0.129 0.247 11.927 14.379
p-value 　 0.086* 0.097* 0.028** 0.374 0.262 0.017**
Ped.1 SI SCMC Mean 38.057 0.396 0.375 −0.655 18.243 3.690
SD 7.203 0.132 0.142 0.208 9.454 7.647
NCMC Mean 33.581 0.499 0.325 −0.593 17.383 4.759
SD 4.314 0.161 0.080 0.224 11.166 7.581
p-value 　 0.011** 0.009** 0.079** 0.174 0.745 0.611
Ped.5 PI SCMC Mean 32.276 0.462 0.421 −0.694 14.092 10.304
SD 8.460 0.158 0.123 0.328 16.054 11.224
NCMC Mean 27.977 0.495 0.495 −0.843 6.899 16.237
SD 8.060 0.183 0.104 0.122 6.706 7.016
p-value 　 0.022** 0.489 0.011** 0.025** 0.026** 0.022**
Ped.5 SI SCMC Mean 35.657 0.466 0.332 −0.593 21.166 2.406
SD 8.207 0.147 0.108 0.213 11.787 3.946
NCMC Mean 32.898 0.470 0.339 −0.656 17.868 5.105
SD 7.776 0.157 0.093 0.273 13.260 6.858
p-value 　 0.076* 0.888 0.755 0.085* 0.072* 0.095*

* p < 0.1, **p < 0.05.

7
Y. Bian, et al.
Fig. 4. Six driving behavior indicators.
significantly influenced by different crosswalk markings, and the
minimum speed of NCMC was lower than that of SCMC at PI situation
(p = 0.026) and SI situation (p = 0.072). When there was one pe-
destrian present or the pedestrian was absent, the effect of two cross-
walk markings on relative speed contrast was not statistically sig-
nificant (Ped.0/PI - p = 0.377; Ped.0/SI - p = 0.933; Ped.1/PI - p =
0.262; Ped.1/SI - p = 0.745).
4.2.6. Distance from zebra crossing where the speed reduced to the
minimum
When there were five pedestrians present or the pedestrian was
absent, Dvmin was significantly influenced by different crosswalk
markings. The Dvmin of NCMC was significantly higher than that of
SCMC at PI situation (p = 0.022) and SI situation (p = 0.095).
Nevertheless, the Dvmin of NCMC was lower than that of SCMC at PI
situation (p = 0.081) and SI situation (p = 0.060). When there was one
pedestrian present, the Dvmin of NCMC was significantly higher than
that of SCMC at PI situation (p = 0.017), while it was not significant at
SI situation (p = 0.611).
8
Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498
4.3. Outcomes of the subjective questionnaires
The results of the questionnaire on the perceived effectiveness of the
two types of crosswalk markings were shown in Fig. 5. In Fig. 5(a), the
conspicuity scores of SCMC and NCMC obtained by participants’ sub-
jective evaluation are 3.296 and 3.963. It indicated that drivers thought
that the conspicuity of NCMC was better than that of SCMC. The results
of the level of drivers’ vigilance to risk ahead aroused by SCMC and
NCMC, shown in Fig. 5(b), are 3.222 and 3.481. Accordingly, this il-
lustrates that the warning effect of NCMC is better than that of SCMC.
With respect to the unhealthy tension caused by two different crosswalk
markings, the score of SCMC is higher than that of NCMC. It means that
NCMC is more likely to cause drivers’ unhealthy nervousness, which is
consistent with Hypothesis 1.
4.4. Comprehensive evaluation of different crosswalk markings in different
vehicle-pedestrian interactions
In fact, the influences of two types of crosswalk markings on in-
dicators were different in the six conditions of vehicle-pedestrian
Y. Bian, et al.
Fig. 5. Outcomes of the subjective questionnaires.
interactions. Thus, the Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity
to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) was used in this research. TOPSIS was a
method for multi-criteria decision analysis, which could evaluate a few
schemes with many indicators by calculating the premium degree of
each scheme (Qin et al., 2018). In order to determine weights of nine
indicators used in TOPSIS, this paper adopted the entropy weight
method, which was the most objective method of weight assignment.
According to the literature (Li et al., 2014), information entropy was
introduced into information theory in 1948 by C. E. Shannon based on
entropy (a thermodynamic concept). Shannon information entropy,
which is an objective and applicable method for the determination of
weight value, was introduced into the comprehensive assessment.
Therefore, TOPSIS with the combination of coefficient of entropy
weight was used to get premium degrees of the two types of crosswalk
markings in the six situations of vehicle-pedestrian interactions.
4.4.1. TOPSIS algorithm
The nine indicators were used as the evaluation indices for the two
crosswalk markings in the six situations of vehicle-pedestrian interac-
tions. Thus, the multiple objective decision matrix of TOPSIS was
formed as X = (X)mn (m = 2, n = 9) in the six situations of vehicle-
pedestrian interactions.
TOPSIS method required that all indicators should work in the same
direction so that it could help explain the final result. Therefore,
transformation consistency was performed on the indicators. A new
multiple objective decision matrix (X #IJ ) was formed. Then, the nor-
malized matrix X *ij was obtained according to the Eq. (1)
X IJ#
X ij* = n
, When there were five pedestrians present, the premium degrees of
∑i = 1 (Xij# )2 (1)
The entropy weight method was used. The information entropy Hj
was obtained according to the Eq. (2)
m
Hj = −k∑ pij lnpij,
i= 1 (2)
xij 1
Where pij = ∑im= 1 xij
,k= lnm
The entropy weight was obtained according to the Eq. (3)
9
Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498
1 − Hj
Wj = n ,
∑ j = 1 (1 − Hj ) (3)
Index weights (Wj) were acquired on account of the former matrix
X *ij. The values of these weights demonstrated that nine indicators had
different effects on the comprehensive efficiency of the two different
crosswalk markings. Then, the weighted normalized matrix was ob-
tained according to the Eq. (4):
Uij = W*X *
j ij, (4)
The maximum and minimum indicators from matrix Uij were used to
form two ideal solution vectors, U+ and U-. For the evaluation units of
two crosswalk markings, their distance to the U+ formed the best dis-
tance vector Di+; their distance to the U- formed the worst distance
vector Di-. Finally, the premium degrees (Ci*) of the two types of
crosswalk markings were obtained according to the Eq. (5):
Di+
Ci* = ,
Di+ + Di− (5)
The value of premium degrees was 0-1. A premium degree closer to
1 was associated with better efficiency of the scheme.
4.4.2. Results of TOPSIS in different crosswalk markings in different
vehicle-pedestrian interaction situations
The weights of nine indicators in the six situations of vehicle-pe-
destrian interactions were obtained, shown in Table 5.
The premium degrees of two crosswalk markings in different ve-
hicle-pedestrian interactions were also calculated, as shown in Fig. 6.
NCMC are higher than those of SCMC, no matter where the vehicle-
pedestrian interaction occurred. When there was one pedestrian present
in scenarios, which was basically consistent with five pedestrians’ si-
tuations, the premium degrees of NCMC are higher than those of SCMC.
While the difference of the premium degrees between SCMC and NCMC
when there was one pedestrian is relatively lower than that when there
were five pedestrians. When the pedestrian was absent, the premium
degrees of NCMC are lower than those of SCMC. The results mentioned
above is consistent with Hypothesis 3.
Y. Bian, et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498

Table 5
The Weights of Nine Indicators in the Six Situations of Vehicle-pedestrian Interactions.
Ped.0 / PI Ped.0 / SI Ped.1 / PI Ped.1 / SI Ped.5 / PI Ped.5 / SI

Speed 0.00057 0.00010 0.01715 0.06444 0.02407 0.00995

SD of acceleration 0.00388 0.04403 0.04041 0.21881 0.00542 0.00016
Gas pedal power 0.03287 0.00051 0.03576 0.08303 0.03098 0.00062
θ 0.02036 0.01234 0.00600 0.04146 0.04439 0.01532
Vmin 0.01215 0.00004 0.05409 0.00960 0.56605 0.04394
Dvmin 0.68817 0.78740 0.70002 0.26486 0.23808 0.81159
Conspicuity 0.10609 0.06820 0.06425 0.13931 0.03989 0.05191
Vigilance 0.01879 0.01208 0.01138 0.02468 0.00707 0.00920
Unhealthy tension 0.11713 0.07530 0.07094 0.15381 0.04405 0.05731

crosswalk markings ahead, and then they were alerted by crosswalk

markings and turned their attention to pedestrians on the street. When
drivers did not find pedestrians, who were crossing or tended to cross
the road, their behavior may not be influenced by crosswalk markings,
and they may maintain a speed, which they thought was relatively safe
and efficient to drive across intersections. Similar speed behavior was
also found in Bella and Silvestri’s study (2015). In addition, as is shown
in Fig. 5 (c), NCMC was more likely to arouse drivers’ unhealthy ten-
sion, which supports Hypothesis 1. This phenomenon may be raised by
the striking color of NCMC and an optical illusion of stereoscopic vision
caused by the combination of blocks. In order to eliminate the dis-
comfort as soon as possible, drivers may tend to drive across the in-
Fig. 6. Premium degrees of two crosswalk markings in different vehicle-pe-
tersection faster. Therefore, the situation where approaching drivers
destrian interactions. cannot see pedestrians at intersections should be taken into con-
sideration when NCMC is installed in the practical application. For
example, drivers' views may be obscured at intersections.
5. Discussion
In terms of the situation where there were five pedestrians present,
the premium degrees of NCMC were better than those of SCMC when
In the current study, a driving simulator experiment was conducted
vehicle-pedestrian interaction occurred at two interaction locations. It
to evaluate the effectiveness of this new-designed crosswalk markings
indicated that NCMC has a relatively better influence on the speed
at signalized intersections, considering when and where vehicle-pe-
behaviors of drivers at intersections when the pedestrian flow was high,
destrian interaction occurs. Based on the results of driving behaviors,
compared with SCMC. The rANOVA results of driving behaviors in-
subjective questionnaires, and comprehensive evaluation, there were
dicated that average speed, relative speed contrast, gas pedal power,
some implications about the effectiveness of NCMC.
minimum speed and Dvmin of NCMC were significantly better than those
From the results of subjective questionnaires, NCMC are more
of SCMC. When pedestrian flow was high, the NCMC affected drivers to
conspicuous, and it can arouse drivers’ vigilance to risk better. As for
decelerate to a lower minimum speed and decelerate to minimum speed
driving behavior, Hypothesis 2 is proved in most cases. Drivers’ pre-
earlier, due to the striking color of NCMC and an optical illusion of
dictability of potential threats (crossing pedestrians), which was re-
stereoscopic vision caused by the combination of blocks. Although
presented by Dvmin, was better when NCMC were installed. Besides,
NCMC’s characteristics aroused drivers’ unhealthy tension, they had a
drivers’ speed control awareness under NCMC (represented by average
much more positive effect on drivers’ behaviors of approaching inter-
speed, the standard deviation of acceleration, gas pedal power and
sections. The mean speed profiles in Fig. 8 also depict the vehicle op-
minimum speed) was relatively better, compared with that under
eration process influenced by NCMC and SCMC. The mean speed of
SCMC.
NCMC at 100 m from crosswalk was almost the same as that of SCMC.
The results of TOPSIS supports Hypothesis 3 that other external
The mean speed difference between NCMC and SCMC gradually in-
conditions (vehicle-pedestrian interaction locations or levels of the
creased until it reached the minimum value of both. Besides, drivers’
pedestrian number) would also influence the effectiveness of crosswalk
subjective evaluation of NCMC’s conspicuity and level of drivers’ vigi-
markings. Interpretation of TOPSIS results under different other ex-
lance to risk ahead aroused by NCMC were also better compared with
ternal condition is shown below. Two conditions when pedestrian was
SCMC.
absent were illustrated in Fig. 7. As is shown in Figs. 3 and 7, scenario
In the case of one pedestrian present, the premium degrees of NCMC
elements in Condition A shown in Fig. 3(c) are same with those in
were also better than those of SCMC. The rANOVA results of driving
Condition PI shown in Fig. 7(a), except the pedestrian numbers. Also,
behaviors indicated that average speed of NCMC was better than that of
scenario elements shown in Fig. 3(d) in Condition B are same with those
SCMC, while the standard deviation of acceleration achieved the op-
show in Fig. 7(b) in Condition SI, except the pedestrian numbers.
posite. The difference between NCMC’s premium degrees and SCMC’s
Therefore, two conditions when pedestrian was absent were also named
premium degrees at primary interaction conditions is large. Whereas,
as PI and SI in this study
the difference between NCMC’s premium degrees and SCMC’s premium
According to the results shown in Fig. 6, the premium degrees
degrees at secondary interaction conditions is relatively small. This may
showed that the comprehensive effectiveness of NCMC was worse than
be due to the fact that in the case of PI, the direction of pedestrians
that of SCMC in the case of Ped.0/PI and Ped.0/SI. The rANOVA results
crossing is approximately perpendicular to the vehicle’s direction.
of driving behaviors indicated that most driving behaviors of NCMC
While, the direction of pedestrians crossing is along the vehicle’s di-
were not significantly different from those of SCMC. While Dvmin of
rection in the case of SI. This may make it harder for drivers to see
NCMC in these two situations was significantly lower than that of
crossing pedestrians in the case of SI. Therefore, whether or not to in-
SCMC. This result can be interpreted as follows. If there was no pe-
stall NCMC at intersections with the low pedestrian flow should be
destrian walking on the crosswalk, drivers might first see different

10
Y. Bian, et al.
Fig. 7. Two conditions when pedestrian was absent.
Fig. 8. Mean speed profile when there were five pedestrians present.
considered.
In brief, the changes in driving behavior and driving psychology
brought by NCMC may allow drivers to better judge the behavior of
pedestrians crossing the road. Meanwhile, this driving behavior may
give pedestrians a signal that the vehicle will yield to them, thereby
enhancing their sense of safety across the road.
In future studies, there is still much work to do. First, this research
only examined the effects of NCMC, considering different vehicle-pe-
destrian interactions. In future researches, external environmental
conditions, including the number of lanes, vehicle volume, high or low
visibility, day or night time light conditions etc., should also be taken
into consideration. Second, pedestrians’ reactions to oncoming vehicles
are more complex. The future studies on the effectiveness evaluation of
pedestrian safety facilities should improve the interaction between
virtual pedestrians and vehicles, in order to achieve a more realistic
evaluation result. In addition, crosswalk markings affect not only dri-
vers but also pedestrians. Future studies may consider the combined
effect of these two different groups.
6. Conclusion
This study conducted a driving simulator experiment to examine the
effectiveness of NCMC at signalized intersections in different vehicle-
11
Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498
pedestrian interaction occurring time and location conditions. The
above hypothesis was verified, and this study included the following
findings:
• Compared with SCMC, NCMC have significant impacts on most of
the six indicators more or less. For intersections with the high pe-
destrian flow, the effect of NCMC on average speed, relative speed
contrast, Vmin and Dvmin was significantly better than that of
SCMC. For intersections with the low pedestrian flow, the effect of
NCMC on average speed was significantly better than that of SCMC.
While the effect of NCMC on gas pedal power was significantly
worse than that of SCMC. For intersections with no pedestrians, the
effect of NCMC on Dvmin was significantly worse than that of
SCMC.
• For intersections with the high or low pedestrian flow, the com-
prehensive effectiveness and influences on driving behavior of
NCMC were better than those of SCMC, no matter where vehicle-
pedestrian interactions occurred. The comprehensive effectiveness
of NCMC was slightly better than that of SCMC at Ped.1/SI condi-
tion.
• For intersections with no pedestrians, the comprehensive effective-
ness and influences on driving behavior of NCMC were worse than
those of SCMC, no matter where vehicle-pedestrian interactions
occurred.
The main contributions of this study included two aspects: First, the
comprehensive effectiveness of NCMC was evaluated, which may pro-
vide a reference for the future development of standards. Second, the
comprehensive evaluation of driver dynamic operation data combined
with subjective perception data is applied, which may lay a foundation
for evaluating the effectiveness of pedestrian safety facilities from dif-
ferent subjects in the future.
Author contributions
The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: study
conception and design: Yang Bian, Kun Liang; data collection: Kun
Liang, Liping Yang; analysis and interpretation of results: Yang Bian,
Kun Liang, Xiaohua Zhao, Haijian Li, Liping Yang; draft manuscript
preparation: Yang Bian, Kun Liang, Xiaohua Zhao, Haijian Li. All au-
thors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the
manuscript.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Y. Bian, et al.
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by International Science & Technology
Cooperation Program of China (NO.2017YFE0134500).
References
Beijing Traffic Management Bureau, 2019. Three-dimensional Crosswalk Appeared
Beijing Street. White, Blue and Yellow 3 Color Markings Were Conspicuous. jtgl.
beijing.gov.cn/jgj/95332/527905/index.html.
Bella, F., Silvestri, M., 2015. Effects of safety measures on driver’s speed behavior at
pedestrian crossings. Accid. Anal. Prev. 83, 111–124.
Ben-Bassat, T., Shinar, D., 2011. Effect of shoulder width, guardrail and roadway geo-
metry on driver perception and behavior. Accid. Anal. Prev. 43 (6), 2142–2152.
Chicago Department of Transportation, 2019. Evaluation of School Traffic Safety Program
Traffic Control Measure Effectiveness. Accessed May 15, 2019. mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/
resources/policy/ygcrosswalkmarking/chicagostudy/index.htm.
China National Standardization Management Committee, 2019. National Standards of the
People’s Republic of China: Road Traffic Signs and Markings-Part 3: Road Traffic
Markings. Accessed April 15, 2019. www.gb688.cn/bzgk/gb/newGbInfo?hcno=
DC7BD0612CD48B8B3C81DD3EFCEA18D7.
Ding, H., Zhao, X., Rong, J., Ma, J., 2013. Experimental research on the eff ;ectiveness of
speed reduction markings based on driving simulation: a case study. Accid. Anal.
Prev. 60, 211–218.
Ding, H., Zhao, X., Rong, J., Ma, J., 2014. Experimental Research on the Eff ;ectiveness of
Speed Reduction Markings Based on Driver’s Operating Performance: A Driving
Simulation Study. Research Report in Transportation Research Center in Beijing
University of Technology.
Ding, H., Zhao, X., Rong, J., Ma, J., 2015. Experimental research on the eff ;ectiveness and
adaptability of speed reduction markings in downgrade sections on urban roads: a
driving simulation study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 75, 119–127.
Fisher, D., Garay-Vega, L., 2012. Advance yield markings and drivers’ performance in
response to multiple-threat scenarios at mid-block crosswalks. Accid. Anal. Prev. 44
(1), 35–41.
Fitzpatrick, K., Chrysler, S.T., Iragavarapu, V., Park, E.S., 2011. Detection distances to
crosswalk markings: transverse lines, continental markings, and bar pairs. Transp.
Res. Rec. 2250 (1), 1–10.
Fu, T., Hu, W., Miranda-Moreno, L., Saunier, N., 2019. Investigating secondary pedes-
trian-vehicle interactions at non-signalized intersections using vision-based trajectory
data. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 105, 222–240.
Gibby, A.R., Stites, J.L., Thurgood, G.S., Ferrara, T.C., 1994. Evaluation of Marked and
Unmarked Crosswalks at Intersections in California. Publication FHWA/CA/TO-94/1.
Chico State University.
Herms, B.F., 1972. Pedestrian crosswalk study: accidents in painted and unpainted
crosswalks. Highway Res. Rec. 406, 1–13.
Himanen, V., Kulmala, R., 1988. An application of logit models in analysing the beha-
viour of pedestrians and car drivers on pedestrian crossings. Accid. Anal. Prev. 20 (3),
187–197.
Horberry, T., Anderson, J., Regan, M.A., 2006. The possible safety benefits of enhanced
road markings: a driving simulator evaluation. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol.
Behav. 9 (1), 77–87.
Huang, L., Zhao, X., Li, Y., Rong, J., 2019. Evaluation research of the effects of dia-
grammatic guide signs with different complexities on driving behavior. Cogn.
Technol. Work. 1–18.
Iasmin, H., Kojima, A., Kubota, H., 2016. Safety effectiveness of pavement design treat-
ment at intersections: left turning vehicles and pedestrians on crosswalks. Iatss Res.
40 (1), 47–55.
12
Accident Analysis and Prevention 139 (2020) 105498
Iragavarapu, V., Fitzpatrick, K., Chrysler, S.T., 2011. Driver preference for crosswalk
marking patterns. Transp. Res. Rec. 2250 (1), 57–64.
Jones, T.L., Tomcheck, P., 2000. Pedestrian accidents in marked and unmarked cross-
walks: a quantitative study. ITE J. 70 (9), 42–46.
Knoblauch, R.L., Raymond, P.D., 2000. The Effect of Crosswalk Markings on Vehicle
Speeds in Maryland, Virginia, and Arizona. Publication FHWA-RD-00-101. Center for
Applied Research, Inc., Great Falls, VA.
Knoblauch, R.L., Nitzburg, M., Seifert, R.F., 2001. Pedestrian Crosswalk Case Studies:
Richmond, Virginia; Buffalo, New York; Stillwater, Minnesota. Publication FHWA-
RD-00-103, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Li, Y., Zhao, L., Suo, J., 2014. Comprehensive assessment on sustainable development of
highway transportation capacity based on entropy weight and TOPSIS. Sustainability
6 (7), 4685–4693.
Nation Bureau of Statistics of China, 2019. China Statistical Yearbook-2018. Accessed
Feb. 9, 2019. www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2018/indexch.htm.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Pedestrians, 2017. Data (Traffic Safety
Facts). Accessed May 23, 2019. crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/
ViewPublication/812681.
Nitzburg, M., Knoblauch, R., 2001. An Evaluation of High-Visibility Crosswalk
Treatments—Clearwater. Publication FHWA-RD-00-105, FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Florida.
Obeid, H., Abkarian, H., Abou-Zeid, M., Kaysi, I., 2017. Analyzing driver-pedestrian in-
teraction in a mixed-street environment using a driving simulator. Accid. Anal. Prev.
108, 56–65.
Pulugartha, S.S., Vasudevan, V., Nambisan, S.S., Dangeti, M.R., 2012. Evaluating the
effectiveness on infrastructure-based countermeasures on pedestrian safety. In:
Presented at the 91st Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board.
Washington, D.C..
Qin, Z., Chen, G., Li, T., Sun, W., Fu, B., 2018. CW-TOPSIS mine internal caused fire
evaluation model of “AHP + entropy weight method”. J. Xi’an Univ. Sci. Technol. 38
(2), 193–201.
Roudsari, B., Kaufman, R., Koepsell, T., 2006. Turning at intersections and pedestrian
injuries. Traffic Inj. Prev. 7 (3), 283–289.
Salamati, K., Schroeder, B., Rouphail, N.M., Cunningham, C., Zhang, Y., Kaber, D., 2012.
Simulator study of driver responses to pedestrian treatments at multilane round-
abouts. Transp. Res. Rec. 2312 (1), 67–75.
Shan, D., 2019. Study on Configuration and Type-selecting of Pedestrian Crossing
Facilities. www.doc88.com/p-131713600860.html.
Transport Canada, 2020. National Collision Database (NCDB). open.canada.ca/data/en/
dataset/1eb9eba7-71d1-4b30-9fb1-30cbdab7e63a. Accessed May 23, 2019. .
Van Der Horst, R., De Ridder, S., 2007. Influence of roadside infrastructure on driving
behavior: driving simulator study. Transp. Res. Rec. 2018 (1), 36–44.
Varhelyi, A., 1998. Drivers’ speed behaviour at a zebra crossing: a case study. Accid. Anal.
Prev. 30 (6), 731–743.
World Health Organization, 2018. Global Status Report on Road Safety. Accessed Feb. 9,
2019. www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2018/en/.
Xu, S., 2012. The Study on the Discriminating Method of Driving Fatigue Based on
Physiological Signal. Master Thesis. Beijing University of Technology, Beijing.
Zegeer, C.V., Stewart, R., Huang, H., Lagerwey, P., 2002. Safety Effects of Marked Versus
Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Executive Summary and
Recommended Guidelines. Publication FHWA-RD-01-075, FHWA, U.S. Department of
Transportation.
Zhao, X., Li, J., Ma, J., Rong, J., 2016. Evaluation of the effects of school zone signs and
markings on speed reduction: a driving simulator study. SpringerPlus 5 (1), 789.
Zhao, N., Zhao, X., Lin, Z., Song, Y., 2018a. Advance cuide sign design considering the
guidance demand of indirect reached freeway information. J. Beijing Univ. Technol.
44 (8), 1129–1135.
Zhao, X., Ding, H., Lin, Z., Ma, J., Rong, J., 2018b. Effects of longitudinal speed reduction
markings on left-turn direct connectors. Accid. Anal. Prev. 115, 41–52.
Zhao, X., Xu, W., Ma, J., Li, H., Chen, Y., 2019. An analysis of the relationship between
driver characteristics and driving safety using structural equation models. Transp.
Res. Part F 62, 529–545.