The evaluation of pedestrian crossing safety

The evaluation process
•Single crossing:
- From the inspections to the single results
- Qualitative evaluation for each of 4 safety
categories (5 rating classes: Very good; Good;
Acceptable; Poor; Very poor)
Rb(m)
g(m)
hb(m)
Rsb(m)
f(m)
i sbb %
Rsa(m)
g+f+e+d= ___ (m)
d(m)
i sab %
e(m)
a+b+c+d= ___ (m)
A(m)
b(m)
c(m) d(m)
Do(m)
i b %
hsbb(m)
i sba %
hsba(m)
hsab(m)
i saa %
hsaa(m)
Mb(m)
Lb(m)
Lsb(m)
Lc(m)
Lsa(m)
La(m)
Lo(m)
- Qualitative overall evaluation
- Pictures supporting the single evaluation
- All the assessment issues are referred only to the
tested sites
a(m)
ha(m)
Ra(m)
i a %
Ma(m)
SK survey ROAD INTERSECTION v. 3.0 - p. 1/2
- Points of strength and weakness of each crossing
- Recommended actions to improve crossing safety
LONDON
Spatial and
OVERALL
Pedestrian Crossing
Visibility DAYTIME Visibility NIGHTTIME Accessibility
Temporal Design
EVALUATION
- ++ + + +
1
Poor Very Good Good Good Good
o ++ + + +
2a
Acceptable Very Good Good Good Good
+ ++ + + +
2b
14
Good Very Good Good Good Good
+ ++ + o +
3a
Good Very Good Good Acceptable Good
3
7Very + ++ + + +
3b
Good Good Good Good Good
+ ++ ++ ++ ++
4
13
Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good
o ++ + + +
6
Acceptable Very Good Good Good Good
11
o ++ ++ + +
7
Acceptable Very Good Very Good Good Good
10 9
Acceptable
o o - o -
8
Acceptable Poor Acceptable Poor
6
o ++ ++ o +
9
Acceptable Very Good Very Good Acceptable Good
+ ++ ++ + ++
10
Good Very Good Very Good Good Very Good
12
++
Good
++
-10-
Good
o + - +
11
Acceptable Very Good Poor Good
o + + +
12a
Acceptable Very Good Good Good
o ++ + o +
12b
Acceptable Very Good Good Acceptable Good
ALL PEDESTRIAN o ++ + + +
CROSSING Acceptable Very Good Good Good Good
• City result:
- City ranking
- Best and worst crossing
-Main deficiencies detected