27-09-2016, 02:34 PM
Car drivers’ attitudes towards non-signalised zebra
crossings and their impact on behaviour
1456383700-BergerHoessingerCardriversattitudestowardsnonsig.pdf (Size: 402.75 KB / Downloads: 10)
Abstract
In Austria, pedestrians have right of way over cars at non-signalised zebra crossings as soon as
they noticeably indicate their intention to cross the street. This rule is in place since 15 years.
Within this period however, the number of accidents involving pedestrians at non-signalised zebra
crossings has increased continuously.
A recently finished research project focused on the Not yielding to pedestrians at zebra crossings.
This particular traffic offence was one of three examples, which were suggested for investigation
in two focus groups, one consisting of drivers who admitted that they ignored traffic regulations
now and then, the other of experts for various traffic issues.
Data collection included 438 in-depth interviews with drivers who admitted exceeding speed limits
at least sometimes. They were selected from some 2,000 telephone survey participants from
conurbations, outskirts of conurbations and rural areas. The face-to-face interviewees were
exposed to series of photos showing a pedestrian using a zebra crossing. With the help of these
photos the drivers' knowledge of the respective traffic rules, their attitude to the rules, and the
impact of the rules on their behaviour were investigated. Moreover, survey participants were
provided with detailed information about the rule to test the acceptance of the information and its
impact on the drivers' behaviour.
The results show that the rule is well known and highly accepted in general. However, drivers are
uncertain about the detailed interpretation; there was even some disagreement among experts.
Most drivers claim they would behalf very pedestrian-friendly. Other drivers are at least presumed
to obstruct pedestrians, but they are hardly assumed to endanger them knowingly. Endangering
pedestrians at zebra crossings is considered a serious offence and a violation of social norms.
Mainly for this reason and not for fear of penalties drivers do not want to commit this offence. If
pedestrians are being endangered even higher fines than currently meted out seem acceptable,
but if pedestrians are only obstructed current fines seem somewhat high.
The absence of a clear objective interpretation makes the drivers' behaviour at zebra crossings
dependent on their subjective assessment whether they might obstruct or even endanger a
pedestrian. In consequence, the respective regulation should provide clearer objective guidelines
for drivers and make penalties for each kind of offence easier to understand.
Introduction
In Austria, the number of 'non-signalised' zebra crossings, i.e. zebra crossings without any traffic
lights, is high. These crossings are characterised by 0.5 m wide longitudinal stripes on the road
and the blue and white "zebra crossing road sign" (Figure 1). Frequently, a further road sign is
used as an early alert for drivers and additional measures are meant to improve the conspicuity of
the zebra crossing, for example a dark frame for the white stripes or the pedestrian's pictogram on
the road, but this is not a must. According to the Austrian road traffic regulations (StVO 1960, §9)
until 1993 pedestrians had to step onto the zebra crossing (i.e. the road) to assert their right of
way over vehicles; since 1994 they have this right even if they only noticeably indicate their
intention to cross the street. But still drivers only have to stop at a zebra crossing 'if necessary'.
Shortly after this change in law Aust (1997) showed that only every tenth driver let a pedestrian
actually cross, who indicated that he wanted to cross the road but had not yet stepped onto the
zebra crossing, and roughly every second driver did if the pedestrian had already.
Since the late 1990s, the number of accidents involving pedestrians at non-signalised zebra
crossings has increased continuously, from about 600 per year prior to the new law to about 750
nowadays, while the number of accidents at signalised zebra crossings has remained stable at
about 350 to 400 per year (Figure 2). The relative difference is even more staggering if one looks
at the number of pedestrians killed in road accidents. While about 15 die every year on nonsignalised
zebra crossings there are only about five deaths per year on signalised crossings. In the
whole of Austria about one in seven of all pedestrians killed in traffic accidents dies when using a
non-signalised zebra crossing, and one in five of all pedestrians injured is injured there.
The authors are not aware of any systematic investigation of the question why drivers pay little
attention to the right of way of pedestrians, nor of any surveys about the effects of enforcements
and sanctions upon the safety of pedestrians on zebra crossings. Neither the most recent 25 issues
of the Safety Monitor of the European Transport Safety Council (2005-2010) provide any
indication, nor does the Enforcement Monitor (ETSC 2004-2006), which reports details about
enforcement and sanctions in Europe.
Austria, 1990 – 2009; (data sources: BMVIT 2009, p. 22; KfV 2009, p. 18; KfV 2010, p. 18)
Obviously the offence of disregarding the right of way of pedestrians is hardly ever punished. In
the survey, which is the basis for this article (Hössinger et al., 2009) 1190 of 1596 interviewed car
drivers admitted that they had already received some penalty for a traffic offence (excluding
parking offences), but disregarding the right of way of pedestrians at zebra crossings was only
mentioned eight times (0.7%). The key questions this survey focused on were: How aware are car
drivers of the regulation? What is their attitude to this regulation? How do they behave, depending
on their attitude to and their assessment of the obstruction or endangering of pedestrians? Is it
possible to improve the behaviour with the help of information about the regulation and potential
penalties?
Methodology
As a first step, a qualitative analysis based on focus groups with car drivers and experts was
conducted. The findings were used to design a quantitative survey. In its first phase, telephone
interviews were conducted with 1938 people from three specific areas: 'conurbations', 'outskirts of
conurbations' and 'rural areas'. About half (812) of the 1596 car drivers admitted that on occasion
they did exceed speed limits in such a way that in case of enforcement they would have to expect
a fine. A total of 438 of these 'self-proclaimed speeders' participated in the in-depth interactive
interviews of the second phase of the survey. Among others, they were asked 12 questions about
the regulation governing pedestrian crossings, supported by several information sheets which were
used throughout the interview.
The answers of the respondents were doubly weighted. Firstly the respondents of the telephone
interviews were weighted by sex and age group within their respective area; then the
characteristics of the self-proclaimed speeders included in the in-depth interviews were weighted
according to those in the telephone interviews.
The weighted data were analysed with the help of a bivariate Pearson's correlation (it provides the
coefficient of correlation -1 ≤ r ≤ 1 and the respective significance level p) or a comparison of
means (provides the significance level p). The results were called significant at p ≤ 0.050 (= 5
percent level of error probability).
The respondents' frequency of speeding, which was asked for in the interviews, shows no
significant correlation with the general attitude to pedestrians' right of way (r = -0.02, p = 0.621)
and also not with the respondents' behaviour at zebra crossing as shown in Figure 7 (r = 0.03, p =
0.573). Therefore the assumption holds that the results are valid also for drivers who claimed that
they are never speeding
- 5 -
Results
Findings from the focus groups
In the focus group with drivers (covering the broad subject 'Reasons for obeying or disregarding
traffic regulations') not much was said about the right of way of pedestrians on zebra crossings: All
participants agreed that they (i) virtually never disregarded the respective regulation because (ii)
they felt that it made sense. In the group with experts there was widespread agreement that a
disregard of the respective regulation 'rarely happened'. But it was mentioned and criticized that
the rule is 'rather difficult to understand and complicated'. This was said to lead frequently to 'a
lack of awareness of wrongdoing' among drivers when they obstruct pedestrians and to 'a lack of
motivation' among the police force to hand out traffic tickets for such offences.
Awareness of and attitude to the right of way of pedestrians at zebra crossings
All respondents (100%) were well aware of the fact that pedestrians have right of way at zebra
crossings, und nearly four out of five support this rule (Figure 3). The average level of agreement
is 90% (calculated from a four point scale, with 1 = completely disagree = 0% consent to 4 = fully
agree = 100% consent).
Behaviour before reaching a zebra crossing
The behaviour of drivers approaching a non-signalised zebra crossing was investigated with the
help of a picture series (Figure 8). The photos show a pedestrian in different stages of
approaching and crossing the road from the perspective of a car driver at a distance of 25 m. The
respondents were asked to imagine themselves as drivers at a speed of 50 km/h and to state from
which photo onward
- they themselves would brake or stop to allow the pedestrian to cross the street ('own
behaviour'),
- they thought that most other drivers would brake or stop ('behaviour of others') and
- they assumed that it would be an offence to continue driving without braking ('offence').