Pedestrian Signal Safety - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

110
Significant comments relating to whether there are fewer people in the crosswalk when the traffic
signal phase changes and if there is a need to revise Section 4E.02 of MUTCD are summarized
below:
• No, leave the section as is.
• Being from Canada, I am not sure about MUTCD. However, I don’t think a change in this
regulation will have any impact on pedestrian safety or crossing habits.
• Even with the countdown timer associated with the pedestrian head, the use of “hand” and
“man” is still confusing to many pedestrians. Yes, we should look at revising.
• Yes. We are considering passing an ordinance similar to Salt Lake City that allows entering the
crosswalk during a pedestrian clearance phase if there is a countdown signal present.
• No. Maybe research into a whole new approach for pedestrians to replace the current WALK/
FDW/DW approach that is not well understood.
POSSIBLE ERRONEOUS INDICATIONS OF CROSSING TIME REMAINING FOR
PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNALS
Question 21 asked, “Has the countdown signal ever provided an erroneous indication of the crossing
time remaining?” Question 22 attempted to identify the possible reasons for erroneous countdown
indications. Figure A-11 illustrates overwhelmingly (80 percent) that PCD signals did not provide
erroneous indications of crossing time remaining (N = 82). For the 20 percent of respondents who
indicated that they had seen erroneous indications, key responses are summarized below:
• Timing plan changes when WALK is included.
• When WALK included time varied at the actuated intersection.
• Preemption of the intersection.
• Not set correctly; subsequently fixed; equipment malfunction; solved.
• Device must learn the clearance for the first cycle.
• Once a change to the countdown or cycle is made, it will provide an erroneous indication of the
crossing time remaining one time only.
• Phase re-service at fully actuated signal.
• Any transitioning of the intersection.