Pedestrian Safety at Crosswalks - Examining Driver Yielding Behavior at Crosswalks with GM1 and OF Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pedestrian crossing control is one of the most critical elements in providing a safe pedestrian network. This paper evaluates and compares the safety of pedestrians at crosswalks with side-mounted passive signs (GM1 systems) and crosswalks with overhead flashing devices (OF systems) by examining driver yielding behavior in Winnipeg. Past research indicates that driver yielding at uncontrolled marked crosswalks (similar treatments to GM1 systems) tends to be low, as these crosswalks do not have flashing lights or other devices that provide the driver with information about when they need to stop. Previous research on crosswalks with overhead flashing beacons (similar treatments to OF systems) has shown that flashing beacons increase driver awareness, yet exhibit a wide range of driver yielding rates. Furthermore, there is limited research on pedestrian safety at crosswalks in winter, which is a concern for Winnipeg during almost half of the year. This paper presents results of a collision analysis, environmental scan, and field investigations on driver yielding behaviour to evaluate the safety of pedestrians at crosswalks with GM1 or OF systems in Winnipeg. The collision analysis reflects City of Winnipeg police-reported collision data from 2001 to 2010. The data was analyzed to identify temporal trends and collision frequency by traffic control type and severity. The environmental scan includes a review of literature on driver yielding behavior at crosswalks with similar treatments to GM1 and OF systems, as well as a survey of major Canadian jurisdictions regarding the design and implementation of GM1 and OF systems. The field investigation involved collecting data during off-peak hours on driver yielding behaviour at eight crosswalks with GM1 or OF systems on roadways with two lanes per direction and a raised refuge. The data was analyzed to compare driver yielding at GM1 and OF crosswalks and evaluate the effect of weather and site specific characteristics on driver yielding behavior. TAC’s Pedestrian Crossing Control Guide (PCC Guide) recommends that OF systems be implemented on roadways with two lanes per direction and a raised refuge for a range of traffic volumes and speed limits; however, GM1 crosswalks are still widely used across Canada under these circumstances. This paper provides evidence of a significant difference in driver yielding behavior and ultimately pedestrian safety at crosswalks with OF systems compared to crosswalks with GM1 systems, supporting the PCC Guide's recommendation that OF systems be implemented on roadways with two lanes per direction and a raised refuge.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".