PART IV: Summary of Comments - SCOR/RAC

PART IV: Summary of Comments17-May-10Reviewer Comments Distribution of Ratings■ With the requirement for countdown pedestrian signals, it seems the flashing don't walk phasing may no longer benecessary. This might solve an age old problem related to pedestrian signal phasing.■ More research is needed on pedestrian comprehension of and compliance with concurrent flashing hand especially nowsince countdown display is standard in 2009 MUTCD. (additional Richard Moeur comment): This could havesignificant operational, legal, and safety impacts - research is critically needed.■ [Rating: 5] With the growing use of pedestrian countdown signals, the flashing orange hand is now sending a "mixedmessage" to pedestrians who can walk faster than the relatively slow walking speeds used to calculate the length of theflashing orange hand. Further, many studies have shown that pedestrians have a very low understanding of the meaningof the flashing orange hand. This research is critical to ascertain whether pedestrian understanding, and thereby safety,can be enhanced by using just the countdown without the flashing orange hand.Research Advisory Committee■ referr flashing hand work to the TCD pooled fund project.■ The research statement does not appear to address an issue that would have a significant return on investment.■ This proposal may be combined with 2011-G-24, 2011-G-33 and 2011-G-17.Item #123:G-33Automated Pedestrian Safety Analysis Using Video Data(17)(46)NR 0 1 2 3 4 5SCOR 1 6 6 3 1RAC 6 10 16 10 4 3Standing Committee on Research■ While pedestrian safety data is a major need, this project would not appear to be a near-term tool to deal with thisproblem.■ Suggest this be combined with G-11, G-17, G-24, and G-36.■ Funding seems insufficient for the scope. Should be a part of a larger project on video safety analysis.■ Need exists: A lack of pedestrian crashes does not mean that conditions are safe for pedestrians. A pedestrian safetyanalysis should go beyond just looking at pedestrian crashes.■ [Rating: 3] There is very promising research on pedestrian detection that will be able to warn and detect pedestrian atintersection. This problem statement would be moderate-high to high.Research Advisory Committee■ SHRP 2 and the University of Minnesota have related projects.■ The proof-of-concept is concerning here from the standpoint of automated detection has not been proven as a viable toolin a number of research applications. So without this fundamental concept existing I am hesitant to recommend thisproject. Also, nothing is discussed in the proposal with respect to deployment and widespread use of this research inorder for a state to determine information from muliple locations, analyze, and improve them. There definitely is aproblem identifying ped problem areas based on ped crashes since they are so rare, but this just seems like it is a budgetbusterwaiting to happen without the methodologies already established. HB - 4■ WSDOT could directly benefit from this research. The cost seems to be low. The conflict model will result in pedestrianissues being examined from a different baseline than most collision history based evaluation vehicle modes. Thischanges the decision point from where "potential" collisions may occur, vs. where actual (real) collisions have occurred.■ This proposal may be combined with 2011-G-24, 2011-G-11 and 2011-G-17.■ U of MN has lots research going on in this areaIV-90