Pedestrian Signal Safety - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

• a PCD signal with both the countdown and the flashing hand during the FDW interval;
• a PCD signal with the countdown but without the flashing hand during the FDW interval; and
• a traditional signal with only the flashing hand during the FDW interval.
In the laboratory study, participants were shown pictures of five different crossing scenarios for each
of the three types of signals and were asked to provide the correct pedestrian behavior for each of the
scenarios. Singer and Lerner found that:
• The PCD signal without the flashing hand caused the least amount of confusion, followed by
the countdown signal with the flashing hand.
• The traditional signal with only the flashing hand caused the most confusion among
study participants.
• When asked about their preference, participants were divided between the two types of PCD
signals but preferred them to the traditional signal because they offered more information
(Singer and Lerner 2005).
The TAC Traffic Operation and Management Standing Committee conducted a detailed literature
review to determine the state of the practice of PCD signals. The various reviewed studies reported
that between 26 percent and 80 percent of all pedestrians did not understand the meaning of the
conventional FDW display. Conversely, these studies reported that 50 percent to 97 percent of
pedestrians understood the meaning of PCD signals and 78 percent to 94 percent of pedestrians
found PCD signals easier to understand than conventional signals. The overwhelming majority (80
percent to 92 percent) preferred PCD signals. The reported percentages came from various studies
reviewed as part of TAC’s effort. The studies likely were conducted in different regions of North
America. As such, understanding of the signal indications likely varied by location (An Informational
Report on Pedestrian Countdown Signals 2004).
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) conducted market research of PCD signals at
five intersections in the Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota area. MnDOT also surveyed pedestrians
about their understanding of PCD signals. Definitions were developed to identify if a pedestrian was
successfully serviced by the TPS and PCD signals.
For TPS, successful service was defined as: 1) a person who started crossing and completed
crossing when the walking person/WALK was showing, or 2) a person who started crossing when
the walking person/WALK was showing and completed crossing when the flashing hand/FDW was
showing.
For PCD signals, successful service was defined as: 1) a person who started crossing and
completed crossing when the walking person was showing, or 2) a person who started crossing
when the walking person was showing and completed crossing when the flashing hand with numeric
countdown was showing (Farraher 1999).
As shown in Table 2, 12 percent of pedestrians overall and 19 percent of pedestrians within the
senior age group were successfully serviced by PCD signals. The teenage group showed the largest
increase in successful service (38 percent) with the PCD signals in place.
33