Safety Science 153 (2022) 105806

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/safety

Pedestrian-vehicle interaction severity level assessment at uncontrolled

intersections using machine learning algorithms
Lalam Govinda , M.R. Sai Kiran Raju, K.V.R. Ravi Shankar *
Transportation Division, Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology, Warangal, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: As a consequence of the rapid growth of vehicular traffic, there is an increase in interactions between vehicles
Threshold values and pedestrians. The severity of these interactions varies with pedestrian, vehicle and roadway geometric
Risk indicator characteristics. In the absence of real crash data, Surrogate Safety Measures (SSMs) are used to analyse the
Surrogate safety measures
pedestrian-vehicle (P-V) interactions. The present study is intended to propose threshold risk indicator (RI)
Pedestrian-vehicle interaction
Post encroachment time
values for severe P-V interactions using both pedestrian and vehicle characteristics. A multilinear regression
Support vector machines (MLR) P-V interaction model was developed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software.
Videography method was used to collect traffic data from two 4-legged uncontrolled intersections. Pedestrian
and vehicular data were extracted from the video using DataFromSky viewer software and risk indicator was
calculated using post encroachment time and approaching vehicular speed. The interactions between pedestrians
and vehicles were classified as normal conflicts and severe conflicts based on visual observations during the data
extraction process. Python interface with support vector machines (SVM) algorithm was used to get threshold RI
values for various pedestrian (gender and speed) and vehicle (type) characteristics.
From SVM results, it was observed that the threshold RI value for severe interactions decreases as the
pedestrian crossing speed increases for the same vehicle and pedestrian characteristics. MLR results showed that
pedestrian gender, age and speed, vehicle type and speed, interaction location and crossing position have a
significant effect on RI. The results can be used to evaluate pedestrian-vehicle interaction severity level at an
uncontrolled intersection.

1. Introduction risks and there is a possibility of pedestrian interactions with different

Road traffic injury has been the eighth leading cause of deaths for all
age groups across the world with 1.35 million deaths occurring each
year due to road accidents (W. H. Organization, 2018). There is one
serious road accident occurring every minute while one death occurs
every four minutes due to a road accident in India. The GDP of any
country is highly influenced by road accidents and India loses 3% of its
GDP due to road accidents. Despite some fluctuations, the number of
road accidents and the number of persons injured were in a declining
trend from 2010 onwards (MORTH-2018, 2019).
Even though technology related to road safety has improved,
pedestrian safety at pedestrian crossings is still a major problem. This
problem is more severe in countries like India because of the aggressive
behaviour of either driver or pedestrian and mixed traffic conditions
(Lobjois et al., 2013). Due to low priority and high waiting times, while
crossing the road, pedestrians are trying to cross the road with a lot of
vehicle types. Pedestrian risk-taking behaviour can be improved with
proper pedestrian safety measures and a better understanding of the
pedestrian-vehicle (P-V) interactions.
1.1. Post encroachment time (PET) and risk indicator (RI)
An accident is a rare and random event, so it is not possible to predict
the severity of an accident. An indirect method i.e. surrogate safety
measures based on the conflict technique was used to analyse the
severity levels. PET is one of the surrogate safety measures, mostly used
to analyse the pedestrian-vehicle (P-V) interactions. It is defined as the
time difference between the first road user who leaves the conflict area
and the second road user who arrives at the conflict area (Allen and Shin,
1967). It can be calculated based on two criteria, whether pedestrian
crosses the conflict zone first or vehicle crosses the conflict zone first.
Because PET alone is insufficient to estimate or measure the injury

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: lalamgovinda2246@student.nitw.ac.in (L. Govinda), ravikvr@nitw.ac.in (K.V.R. Ravi Shankar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105806
Received 9 March 2021; Received in revised form 22 April 2022; Accepted 26 April 2022
Available online 2 May 2022
0925-7535/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Govinda et al.
risk of a potential collision, a novel surrogate safety indicator i.e. risk
indicator was used involving approaching vehicle speeds and post
encroachment time (Scholl et al., 2019). Risk indicator (RI) is defined as
the ratio of approaching vehicle speed over post encroachment time.
Approaching Vehicle Speed
Risk Indicator = (1)
Post Encroachment Time
2. Background
Conducting traffic conflict studies could be an effective alternative
for safety analysis because of the high correlation between the historical
crash data and the observed traffic conflicts (Qi and Yuan, 2012). A large
number of studies on pedestrian safety and risk behaviour identified
factors which influence pedestrian safety. Previous studies identified
various pedestrian, vehicle, road, and environmental factors that influ­
ence pedestrian safety and risk-taking behaviour while crossing the
road. Pedestrian age has the most significant effect while gender has a
small effect on pedestrian walking speeds (Gates et al., 2006; Rav­
ishankar and Nair, 2018). Female and older pedestrians take lower risk
compared to other pedestrians (Harrell, 1991; Jain et al., 2014; Ols­
zewski et al., 2015). Around 80% of fatal accidents occur in the case of
elderly pedestrians, drunk pedestrians, and pedestrians in hours of
darkness (Jensen, 1999). Pedestrians involved in past traffic accidents
take lower risk and the risk is low for the pedestrian near to the curb
rather than the one close to the central refuse island (Hamed, 2001). The
risk associated with the presence of median would be more compared to
that without median (Jimenez-Mejias et al., 2016; Olszewski et al.,
2015) and the risk behaviour for right-turning vehicles was relatively
high compared to other vehicles (Chen et al., 2017). The risk of injury
was significantly lower in case of a pedestrian crossing at zebra crossings
than one crossing at other places (Keall, 1995). Number of lanes, the
proportion of young male pedestrians and land use patterns had a sig­
nificant effect on the severity of P-V interactions (Sandt and Zegeer,
2006). Width of opposing direction, opposing through vehicle volume,
left turn vehicle volume, and pedestrian volume were the significant
factors that affect pedestrian safety (Qi and Yuan, 2012).
In the absence of real crash data, surrogate safety measures (SSMs)
were used to analyse P-V interactions using videography data. Most
commonly used SSMs to analyse P-V interactions are Time To Collision
(TTC), Post Encroachment Time (PET), Time Difference To Collision
(TDTC), and Gap time (GT) etc. Most of the previous studies analysed P-
V interactions using SSMs but very few studies have proposed threshold
values of SSMs for different P-V interaction severity levels. The fre­
quency of conflicts within the crosswalk (PET < 3 s) was much more
than those of outside crosswalk indicating less risk of crossing within the
crosswalk (Chen et al., 2017). T-intersections were more dangerous than
Cross intersections due to high conflict rate and there was a possibility of
conflict between pedestrian and vehicle when TTC < 1.5 s and PET <
3.0 s (Lord, 1996). (Almodfer et al., 2016) developed a novel indicator
(Lane based Post Encroachment Time (LPET)) to evaluate pedestrian-
vehicle conflict analysis. It was observed that pedestrian-vehicle lane-
based conflicts were not evenly distributed and far lanes contributed to
serious conflicts than nearer lanes. The number of severe conflicts de­
creases as the waiting time of pedestrian increases and the severity of
conflicts was not affected by the lane position and the stages of the
crossing.
(Scholl et al., 2019) proposed a novel surrogate safety measure i.e.
risk index or risk indicator (RI) using post encroachment time and
approaching vehicle speed and the proposed threshold ln(RI) values for
high, moderate, and low-risk interactions were 3.97, 2.94, and 2.26
respectively. (Fu et al., 2016) classified PET < 1.5 s as dangerous con­
flicts and found that these conflicts were higher at night time compared
to day. Pedestrian safety is lower at night compared to day. (Mar­
isamynathan and Vedagiri, 2020) developed threshold PET values for
highly dangerous conflicts, dangerous conflicts, and no conflicts for
2
Safety Science 153 (2022) 105806
different vehicle types based on the cumulative frequency distribution.
There is no chance of interaction between pedestrian and vehicle when
PET value is greater than 5.5 s and highly dangerous conflict is possible
when the PET value is less than or equal to 2.0 sec. The threshold PET
value for highly dangerous conflict was 2.5 s, 3.06 s, 3.83 s, 2.37 s, and
2.25 s for car, two-wheeler, LCV (light commercial vehicle), HCV (heavy
commercial vehicle), and auto respectively.
Most of the previous studies have focused on the analysis and
modelling of P-V interactions but very few studies have proposed
threshold values of SSMs to classify the P-V interactions severity levels.
Some studies classified interactions based on vehicular speeds (Scholl
et al., 2019) while other studies classified interactions using pedestrian
gender, speed and vehicle type (Marisamynathan and Vedagiri, 2020).
These studies did not include both pedestrian and vehicular speeds at a
time to classify P-V interaction severity levels. The present study was
intended to develop the threshold values of SSMs using both pedestrian
(gender and speed) and vehicle (type and speed) characteristics. Also, it
intended to develop a multilinear P-V interaction model.
3. Data collection and extraction
The present study was conducted at two 4-legged uncontrolled in­
tersections in Warangal and Nagpur cities in India. These two locations
were selected because of the rapid growth in population and traffic over
the past two decades. Mixed land use characteristics were observed at
both study locations. The video-based data collection system was more
appropriate to analyse P-V interactions and dilemma zone. Two high-
resolution cameras were fixed at an elevation in such a way that both
pedestrian movement and vehicle movement could be captured. 4 h
(morning and evening time during peak periods) traffic data was
collected from each study location in February 2019. Video recording
mainly focused on the movement of vehicles and pedestrian road
crossing behaviour. The geometric details of selected study locations
measured from the field and the location view are shown in Fig. 1 below.
Warangal intersection has a two-lane divided road with 3.5 m lane width
along the major road and minor roads. Nagpur intersection has a two-
lane divided road along major road and a two-lane undivided road
along the minor road with 3.5 m lane width. The width of the median at
both intersections was observed to be 1.0 m.
DataFromSky viewer software was used to extract pedestrian and
vehicle parameters from the video. It can be used to extract parameters
like speed, acceleration/deceleration and trajectories of both vehicles
and pedestrians, PET, traffic volume counts, vehicle type, and travel
distance etc. High accuracy of data was obtained with this software and
the data extraction process was also quite easy. A screenshot of Data­
FromSky viewer software is shown in Fig. 2.
The pedestrian age is classified based on the visual observation
during the data extraction process. The pedestrian age is classified as
child pedestrians (<=15 years), young pedestrians (16–30 years),
middle age pedestrians (31–60) years and old pedestrians (>60 years)
(Patra et al., 2017). The interactions were classified as normal or severe
based on the visual observation during the data extraction process and
the definitions of severe and normal interactions for visual classification
wareere given below. 2954P-V interactions were extracted from the
video and the compositions of pedestrians and vehicles are shown in
Fig. 3 below. 47% of total P-V interactions were observed in the case of
two-wheelers (2W) and the percentage of interactions with
three-wheelers (3W) and cars were 26% and 22% respectively. LCVs and
HCVs were not considered in the analysis due to a limited number of P-V
interactions (3% of LCVs and 2% HCVs). 56% of extracted samples were
related to middle age pedestrians and only 1% of extracted samples were
related to child pedestrian interactions.
Severe conflict: Both or one of the two road users must stop or
change their speeds to avoid the accident. The possibility of an accident
is high in this situation.
Normal conflict: Both pedestrian and vehicle move at their normal
L. Govinda et al. Safety Science 153 (2022) 105806

Fig. 1. 4-legged uncontrolled intersection at (a) Warangal (b) Nagpur.

Fig. 2. Pedestrian and vehicle path tracking in DataFromSky viewer software.

Fig. 3. (a) Vehicle composition (b) Pedestrian composition with respect to age.

3
L. Govinda et al. Safety Science 153 (2022) 105806

speeds. The possibility of an accident is very low in this situation.

3.1. Statistical analysis

Point biserial correlation, logistic regression, and Kruskal Wallis H

tests (t-test or ANOVA) were used to know the statistical correlation
between the categorical and continuous variables. In the present study, a
one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) at 95% significance level was
carried out in Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 20)
software to mathematically analyse whether there is a significant dif­
ference in pedestrian crossing speeds with respect to age and gender and
vehicular speeds with respect to the type of vehicle. Also, it was to
analyse whether there was a significant difference in risk indicators with
respect to pedestrian age, gender, vehicle type and location of P-V
interactions.
From ANOVA analysis, there was a significant difference between
the crossing speed of pedestrians with respect to pedestrian gender (p =
0.023) and age (p = 0.009). The crossing speeds of male and young
pedestrians were higher than that of female and other age group pe­
destrians respectively. Also, significant differences were observed in Fig. 5. Approaching vehicular speeds with respect to vehicle type.
approaching speeds of different vehicles with respect to vehicle type.
The approaching speeds of two-wheelers were observed to be higher location of P-V interaction respectively.
compared to other vehicle types. Easy manoeuvre at higher speeds due
to size benefit was the reason for higher approaching speeds for two- 4. Classification of P-V interaction severity levels
wheelers. Higher risk-taking behaviour in case of young male pedes­
trians was the reason for higher pedestrian crossing speeds (Govinda The support vector machines (SVM) method was used to develop the
et al., 2020). Various crossing speeds of pedestrians with respect to age threshold RI values for different combinations of pedestrian and vehicle
and gender are represented by box plots in Fig. 4 while Fig. 5 represents parameters based on pedestrian speeds. It is a machine learning algo­
the approaching vehicular speeds with respect to vehicle type. rithm, mostly used for regression and classification purposes. Randomly
ANOVA results indicate that significant differences in risk indicators it selects 70% data as training data for algorithm and the remaining 30%
of pedestrian gender (p = 0.017) and age (p = 0.001). The average risk as testing data for validation purpose. In this method, a plot between
indicator of young pedestrians was observed to be higher than that of pedestrian speeds on y-axis and risk indicator on the x-axis was plotted
middle age, child and old age pedestrians respectively. Significant dif­ on a coordinated system and the threshold value for severe conflicts was
ferences were observed in risk indicators between different vehicle types taken corresponding to different pedestrian speeds.
(p = 0.000) and location of P-V interaction (p = 0.000).The average RI Figs. 8-10 show classified P-V interaction plots using SVM classifi­
was observed to be higher in the case of two-wheelers compared to other cation technique in python interface. A linear classification was done
vehicle types. Also, average RI was observed to be higher when a using the linear kernel function in SVC (support vector classification).
pedestrian crosses the near side of the road and vehicles enter the The severity of a particular P-V interaction was classified based on the
intersection. Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show the average RI values of P-V in­ pedestrian gender, speed and vehicle type. The value of RI directly
teractions with respect to pedestrian gender, age, vehicle type and

Fig. 4. Pedestrian crossing speeds with respect to (a) pedestrian gender (b) pedestrian age.

4
L. Govinda et al. Safety Science 153 (2022) 105806

Fig. 6. Average RI of P-V interaction with respect to (a) pedestrian age (b) pedestrian gender.

Fig. 7. Average RI of P-V interaction with respect to (a) vehicle type (b) location of P-V interactions.

Fig. 8. Classification of P-V interactions for (a) male-2W (b) female-2W.

5
L. Govinda et al. Safety Science 153 (2022) 105806

Fig. 9. Classification of P-V interactions for (a) male- 3W (b) female- 3W.

Fig. 10. Classification of P-V interactions for (a) male-car (b) female- car.

correlated with the severity of P-V interactions as it is inverse of PET.

The severity of P-V interaction is higher at higher values of RI. For a
male pedestrian crossing the road with 0.8 m/s speed and having an
interaction with a two-wheeler there is a possibility of severe interaction
when RI is more than 8.4. The severity of P-V interaction decreases with
increase in pedestrian crossing speed for the same pedestrian gender and
vehicle type. The P-V interaction severity level for male pedestrians
would be higher compared to female pedestrians for the same vehicle
type and pedestrian crossing speed. The severity of interaction will be
higher in the case of two-wheelers for the same pedestrian gender and
crossing speed. The threshold values of RI derived from SVM technique
for various pedestrian and vehicle characteristics are shown in Table 1.
The performance of classified data was described using the confusion
matrix and the accuracy of the classified data was estimated using true
positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives from the
matrix and the mathematical form of accuracy definition is shown in
equation (2). Confusion matrix and the accuracy of each classification is
shown in Table 2 below. In all the cases, the test results predict with an
accuracy of more than 80 percentage.
5. Pedestrian-Vehicle (P-V) interaction model
SPSS software package was used to develop a multilinear regression
(MLR) model between the dependent and independent variables. Among
2954P-V interactions, randomly 75% data was used for model devel­
opment and the remaining 25% data used to validate the model. The
independent variables which correlated with the dependent variable
(RI) were included in the regression analysis. List of variables used for
regression analysis is shown in Table 3.
The output obtained from the regression analysis after considering 6
parameters (Pedestrian age, gender, speed, vehicle type, P-V interaction
location and crossing side) yielded a model from SPSS 20.0 as depicted
in Table 4. The change in the standard deviation of the output variable
due to change in input variable is represented by coefficient B in Table 4
and increase or decrease in the output value due to change in the input
variable is indicated by the positive or negative sign of coefficient B. The

True Positives + True Negatives

Accuracy = (2)
True Positives + False Positives + True Negatives + False Negatives

6
L. Govinda et al. Safety Science 153 (2022) 105806

Table 1
Threshold values of risk indicator for severe interactions based on pedestrian and vehicle attributes.
Category of P-V interaction Pedestrian crossing speeds (m/s)

0.6–0.8 0.8–1.0 1.0–1.2 1.2–1.4 1.4–1.6 1.6–1.8

Thresholds for risk indicator (RI) M-2W 8.8–8.4 8.4–8.0 8.0–7.7 7.7–7.4 7.4–7.1 7.1–6.8
M-3W 7.5–7.0 7.0–6.7 6.7–6.4 6.4–6.0 6.0–5.6 5.6–5.1
M-Car 5.8–5.5 5.5–5.2 5.2–4.8 4.8–4.4 4.4–3.9 3.9–3.4
F-2W 7.9–7.4 7.4–7.0 7.0–6.6 6.6–6.2 6.2–5.8 5.8–5.4
F-3W 7.3–7.0 7.0–6.7 6.7–6.5 6.5–6.2 6.2–6.0 6.0–5.7
F-Car 6.0–5.7 5.7–5.4 5.4–5.1 5.1–4.8 4.8–4.5 4.5–4.3

Note: M: male, F: female, 2W: two-wheeler, 3W: three-wheeler.

Table 2
Confusion matrices for testing data based on SVM.

variables with p < 0.05 were included in the model. Pedestrian age (p- development of any model. Validation shows the realistic representation
value 0.007), gender (p-value 0.002), speed (p-value 0.012), vehicle of the actual system. For the present study, 25% of data was used for
type (p-value 0.003), lane position of P-V interaction (p-value 0.001), validation of the proposed MLR model. A graph was plotted between
interaction location (p-value 0.007), and crossing type (p-value 0.001) observed RI values on the x-axis and predicted/expected RI values y-axis
have significant effect with the risk indicator. The mode developed after and shown in Fig. 11. The closeness of the data points to the 45-degree
considering 6 independent variables is shown in equation (3). line indicates the validation of the model. A good level of confidence (R2
= 0.637) was observed between the observed and expected RI values.
RI = 12.99 − 0.722 × Gen − 0.850 × Age − 1.062 × PS − 0.352
× VT − 0.361 × IL − 1.277 × CP (3) 6. Conclusions
All the six independent variables (gender, age, PS, VT, IL, and CP)
Most of the previous studies (Almodfer et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2017;
show a negative correlation with the risk indicator. The severity of P-V
Fu et al., 2016; Lord, 1996; Scholl et al., 2019) analysed P-V interactions
interactions decreases with a decrease in RI value. The value of RI de­
using SSMs but very few studies (Marisamynathan and Vedagiri, 2020;
creases with increase in pedestrian age and gender. Also, it decreases
Shah and Vedagiri, 2017) have proposed threshold values for P-V
when the interaction occurs between male pedestrian and two-wheeler.
interaction severity levels using either pedestrian or vehicle character­
The severity levels of P-V interactions are higher when an interaction
istics. In the present study, the severity level of P-V interactions was
occurs at near side of pedestrians and entry point to vehicles (Near_­
classified based on visual observation during data extraction from video
Entry) compared to the far side of pedestrians and exit to vehicles
and proposed threshold values for severe P-V interactions using both
(Far_Exit). Higher approaching vehicular speeds at the entry point
pedestrian and vehicle characteristics. Videography data was collected
compared to the exit point is the reason for higher levels of severity.
from two 4-legged uncontrolled intersections and the required pedes­
Severity levels are lower when the pedestrians cross the road at cross­
trian and vehicle data was extracted from video using DataFromSky
walk compared to crossing outside crosswalk. Also, it was observed that
software.
the severity levels are higher when the conflicting vehicle is 2W
Python interface with SVM coding was used to estimate the threshold
compared to other vehicle types.
values of RI for different combinations of pedestrian gender, speed and
Calibration and validation are two important aspects for the
vehicle type. The severity level of P-V interaction inversely correlated

7
L. Govinda et al. Safety Science 153 (2022) 105806

Table 3
Dependent and independent variables for the MLR model.
S. Variable Description
No
1 Risk indicator The ratio of approaching
(RI) vehicular speed to the post
encroachment time
2 Pedestrian Based on visual appearance
gender (Gen) classified as Male and Female
3 Pedestrian age Based on visual appearance
(Age) classified as Child (<10 years)
Young (10–25 years), Middle
(20–60 years) and Old (>60
years)
4 Pedestrian Crossing speeds of pedestrians
speed (PS)
5 Vehicle type Classified based on visual
(VT) appearance as Two-wheelers
(2w), Three wheelers (3w), Car,
Light Commercial Vehicle (LCV)
or Bus
6 Interaction Whether the pedestrian-vehicle
location (IL) interaction occurs at entry or exit
of the intersection
7 Crossing Whether the pedestrian-vehicle
position(CP) interaction occurs within the
crosswalk or away from the
crosswalk
were observed due to the flexibility of pedestrians to change their speeds
with respect to vehicle speed and position. The influence of speed and
Category/Units/Code vehicle size on pedestrian perception for risk-taking behaviour is the
reason for higher severity levels in case of two-wheelers. The perfor­
Dependent variable mance of classified data was described using confusion matrix and ac­
curacy was found to be more than 80% in all cases (from Table 2).
SPSS 20 software was used to carry out multilinear regression anal­
Male-1, Female-2 ysis at 95% confidence interval and the variables with t-value more than
Child-1, Young age-2,
t-critical (1.895) were included in the model. From the MLR model, it
Middle age-3, Old was concluded that the risk indicator mostly depends on pedestrian age,
age-4 gender, crossing speed, crossing type, vehicle type, lane position, and
interaction location. The proposed model can be used to estimate the
value of RI for different pedestrian and vehicle characteristics. The
Ped speed(m/s)
severity of P-V interaction is classified by comparing the model results
Two-wheeler-1, with the table value (threshold RI values proposed in Table 1). The
Three-wheeler-2, Car- proposed model was validated on a 45-degree line and it showed a good
3, LCV-4, HCV-5 level of confidence (R2 = 0.637) between the observed and the expected
RI values.
Near_Entry-1, The present study was limited to estimating the threshold RI values
Near_Exit-2, for two-wheelers, three-wheelers and cars due to fewer number of LCVs
Far_Entry-3, Far_Exit- and HCVs. The inclusion of threshold values for these two vehicle types
4
would give better information towards P-V interaction analysis. The
Within-1, Away-2
present study classified the threshold values based on pedestrian gender,
speed and vehicle type. In future, it can be extended to define the
threshold values of SSMs based on the pedestrian age as well.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Table 4
The output from SPSS 20.0 showing MLR model results. Lalam Govinda: Writing – original draft, Validation, Methodology,
Coefficientsa
Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Software. M.R. Sai Kiran
Raju: . K.V.R. Ravi Shankar: .
Model B Std. Error t Sig.

1 (Constant) 12.991 1.243 10.449 0.000 Declaration of Competing Interest

Ped_Gender -0.722 0.302 − 2.389 0.017
Ped_Age -0.850 0.212 − 3.999 0.000
Ped_Speed − 1.062 0.461 − 2.303 0.021
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
Veh_Type -0.352 0.144 − 2.449 0.014 interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
Interaction_Location -0.361 0.140 − 2.589 0.010 the work reported in this paper.
Crossing_Position − 1.277 0.330 − 3.865 0.000
a
Dependent Variable: Risk_Indicator. Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the research assistance

provided by the Department of Science and Technology, Government of
India. The authors would like to thank the DataFromSky team for timely
help in extracting video data and related academic agreement with the
institute.

References

Allen, B.L., Shin, B.T., 1967. Analysis of Traffic Conflicts and Collisions. Transp. Res. Rec.
67–74.
Almodfer, R., Xiong, S., Fang, Z., Kong, X., Zheng, S., 2016. Quantitative analysis of lane-
based pedestrian-vehicle conflict at a non-signalized marked crosswalk. Transport.
Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 42, 468–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trf.2015.07.004.
Chen, P., Zeng, W., Yu, G., Wang, Y., 2017. Surrogate Safety Analysis of Pedestrian-
Vehicle Conflict at Intersections Using Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Videos. J. Adv.
Transport. 2017, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5202150.
Fu, T., Miranda-Moreno, L., Saunier, N., 2016. Pedestrian crosswalk safety at
nonsignalized crossings during nighttime: Use of thermal video data and surrogate
safety measures. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board 2586 (1), 90–99.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2586-10.
Gates, B.T.J., Noyce, D.A., Bill, A.R., Van Ee, N., Gates, T.J., 2006. Recommended
Fig. 11. Validation of the MLR model. Walking Speeds for Pedestrian Clearance Timing Based on Pedestrian
Characteristics. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board 1982, 38–47.
Govinda, L., Abhigna, D., Nair, P.M., Ravishankar, K.V.R., 2020. Comparative Study of
with PET and directly correlated with risk indicator. The severity level Pedestrian Crossing Behaviour at Uncontrolled Intersection and Midblock Locations.
was higher when male pedestrians were involved in the interactions due Transp. Res. Procedia 48, 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.070.
Hamed, M.M., 2001. Analysis of pedestrians’ behavior at pedestrian crossings. Saf. Sci.
to higher risk-taking behaviour. The severity level decreases with in­ 38 (1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00058-8.
crease in pedestrian crossing speed for the same pedestrian gender and
vehicle type. Lower interaction severity levels at higher crossing speeds

8
L. Govinda et al.
Harrell, W.A., 1991. Factors influencing pedestrian cautiousness in crossing streets.
J. Soc. Psychol. 131 (3), 367–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00224545.1991.9713863.
Jain, A., Gupta, A., Rastogi, R., 2014. Pedestrian crossing behaviour analysis at
intersections. Int. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 4 (1), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.7708/
ijtte.2014.4(1).08.
Jensen, S., 1999. Pedestrian safety in Denmark. Transp. Res. Rec. 1674 (1), 61–69.
https://doi.org/10.3141/1674-09.
Jimenez-Mejias, E., Martinez-Ruiz, V., Amezcua-Prieto, C., Olmedo-Requena, R., Luna-
Del-Castillo, J.D.D., Lardelli-Claret, P., 2016. Pedestrian- and driver-related factors
associated with the risk of causing collisions involving pedestrians in Spain. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 92, 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.03.021.
Keall, M.D., 1995. Pedestrian exposure to risk of road accident in New Zealand. Accid.
Anal. Prev. 27 (5), 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(95)00019-V.
Lobjois, R., Benguigui, N., Cavallo, V., 2013. The effects of age and traffic density on
street-crossing behavior. Accid. Anal. Prev. 53, 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2012.12.028.
Lord, D., 1996. Analysis of pedestrian conflicts with left-turning traffic. Transp. Res. Rec.
1538, 61–67. https://doi.org/10.3141/1538-08.
Marisamynathan, S., Vedagiri, P., 2020. Pedestrian Safety Evaluation of Signalized
Intersections using Surrogate Safety Measures. Transport 35, 48–56. https://doi.org/
10.3846/transport.2020.12157.
MORTH-2018, 2019. Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MORTH)(2018)-Road
Accidents in India 2018, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways ,Transport
Research Wing, Government of India.
Safety Science 153 (2022) 105806
Olszewski, P., Szagała, P., Wolański, M., Zielińska, A., 2015. Pedestrian fatality risk in
accidents at unsignalized zebra crosswalks in Poland. Accid. Anal. Prev. 84, 83–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.08.008.
Patra, M, Sala, E., Ravishankar, K.V.R., 2017. Evaluation of pedestrian flow
characteristics across different facilities inside a railway station. Transp. Res.
Procedia 25, 4763–4770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.488.
Qi, Y.i., Yuan, P., 2012. Pedestrian safety at intersections under control of permissive
left-turn signal. Transp. Res. Rec. 2299 (1), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.3141/2299-
10.
Ravishankar, K.V.R., Nair, P.M., 2018. Pedestrian risk analysis at uncontrolled midblock
and unsignalised intersections. J. Traffic Transport. Eng. (Engl. Ed.) 5 (2), 137–147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2017.06.005.
Sandt, L., Zegeer, C.V., 2006. Characteristics related to midblock pedestrian-vehicle
crashes and potential treatments. Transport. Res. Rec.: J. Transport. Res. Board
1982, 113–121. https://doi.org/10.3141/1982-16.
Scholl, L., Elagaty, M., Ledezma-Navarro, B., Zamora, E., Miranda-Moreno, L., 2019.
A surrogate video-based safety methodology for diagnosis and evaluation of low-cost
pedestrian-safety countermeasures: The case of Cochabamba, Bolivia. Sustainability
11, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11174737.
Shah, H., Vedagiri, P., 2017. Evaluation of Pedestrian Safety at Unsignalised Intersection
under Mix Traffic Condition Using Surrogate Safety Measures. University of South
Australia, Adeliade.
W. H. Organization, 2018. WHO global status report on road safety 2018. World Heal.
Organization, Geneva, pp. 1–424.