Pedestrian Signal Safety - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

58
Table 8. Mean walking speeds for pedestrians with impairments, stratified by impairment.
Observed impairment Pedestrians
Mobility impaired (walked with a
cane, crutch, limp, or push cart)
MWS
(ft./sec.)
93 3.3
Motorized wheelchair 28 5.1
Non-motorized wheelchair 9 4.5
Visually impaired 21 4.3
Other impairments 3 4.2
Compliance with the Pedestrian Signal
Pedestrian compliance with the pedestrian signal indication varied widely by intersection leg and
was likely a result of the different volume levels and available crossing gaps at intersections. That is,
compliance is likely to be lower at a low-volume minor street approach (major pedestrian movement
crossing the minor street vehicle approach) than at a high-volume major street approach because
there are fewer cars and, therefore, more gaps. This makes it difficult to attribute differences in signal
compliance to the different pedestrian signal indications.
Tables 9 and 10 show the percentage of younger pedestrians and pedestrians age 65 and older
entering on WALK, FDW, and DW at the study intersections in each jurisdiction. The traditional
crossings and the PCD crossings were combined in each jurisdiction. The sample size for each
jurisdiction was greater than 30 observations, with the exception of Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
(for the population group age 65 and older).
Table 9. Pedestrian signal compliance for younger pedestrians by jurisdiction for traditional and
pedestrian countdown signals.
Jurisdiction
Pedestrians entering intersection under different
signal indications (percent)
Traditional Countdown
W FDW DW W FDW DW
Broward County, Florida 55 4 42 61 9 30
Minneapolis/St. Paul,
Minnesota
Montgomery County,
Maryland
72 13 15 62 12 26
44 13 43 67 11 22
Orange County, California 71 9 20 46 13 41
Salt Lake City, Utah 82 13 5 73 18 9
White Plains, New York 63 16 21 53 11 36