International cooperation to improve the safety of European pedestrian crossings

Transcription

1 International cooperation to improve the safety of European pedestrian crossings Francesco Mazzone Head of International Assessment Programmes ACI Automobile Club d Italia Polis Conference Barcelona, 25 November 2008

2 Outline EuroTest Initiatives The Pedestrian Crossing Project - Test of pedestrian crossings - The awareness campaign 2

3 EuroTEST 18 automobile FIA clubs in 17 countries put Europe to the test for the mobile consumers A pan European independent testing programme Independent Assessments (Safety inspections) of quality and safety of Europe s mobility infrastructures and services Regular and consistent benchmarking to foster a more market driven and consumer oriented mobility infrastructure 3

4 EuroTEST and Road Safety Applying to road infrastructures the successful experience of EURONCAP Testing Informing Improving? 4

5 EuroTEST and Road Safety Testing Informing Improving 5

6 Why a project about pedestrian safety? Every day, almost 22 pedestrians are killed on European roads (about in EU-27) Pedestrians account for 15% of all road fatalities Ordinary risk : in 30% of accidents involving a pedestrian and a car travelling at 40 km/h, the pedestrian will be killed Why a project about pedestrian crossings? One in four of pedestrian fatalities occur on or close to pedestrian crossings (estimate ACI) It s a matter of behaviour, but safer crossings help better behaviours, and viceversa 6

7 Some examples.. 7

8 Pedestrian Crossings Assessment Programme : : A three-year Programme -statistical analisys -rules for pedestrians/drivers -pedestrian crossing design -Observatory on Pedestrian fatalities -Test of Pedestrian Crossings in 17 European cities -Survey on pedestrian traffic lights in Europe -Awareness Campaign Walk safe : -Observatory on Pedestrian fatalities -Full-scale test of Pedestrian Crossings -Awareness Campaign Walk safe 8

9 Objectives To highlight the potential risk of using pedestrian crossings in the different countries. To make the users (drivers and pedestrian) aware of their obligations. To highlight, in each country, the best and the worst pedestrian crossing design. To draw the attention of European, national and regional authorities to the measures urgently required to reduce fatalities and accidents occurring on pedestrian crossings. 9

10 Pedestrian fatalities Observatory Pedestrians fatality rate per million of population, ,0 18,0 15,0 10,0 5,0 13,7 13,3 12,9 12,4 11,6 11,3 11,1 10,1 9,3 8,6 8,4 Average = ,4 5,8 4,0 0,0 Slovenia Spain Austria Italy Luxembourg Belgium Great Britain Denmark Switzerland Finland Germany France Norway Sweden Netherlands - The fatality rates are 4 times higher in Slovenia than in the Netherlands - Italy has the highest number of pedestrians killed on the roads (758 in 2006) - Better ranked countries in the pedestrian fatalities analysis (Netherlands, Sweden, Norway) are also the best ones when the overall road fatalities are compared. Thi applies also to the worst situations 10

11 6,0 4,0 2,0 0,0 4,1 Pedestrian fatality rates on pedestrian crossings Year ,4 3,4 3,3 2,7 Average = 2.3 1,9 1,8 1,8 1,5 1,4 1,1 1,0 11 Luxembourg Finland Norway Italy Switzerland Austria Denmark Sweden Germany Spain Great Britain Netherlands

12 Test of pedestrian crossings 17 cities Not Signalized Pedestrian Crossing - Data Collection Form time City 1. Date: 2. Road Name: Intersection? Y N 3. Direction 1 Roundabout? Y N 4. Direction 2 n of approaches 7. Side A Photo 8. Side B Photo 9. Spatial and Temporal Design: 9.A Carriageway single dual 9.B Directions one way two-way 9.C Number of lanes [dir1] n [dir2] n 9.D Pedestrian conflict points n 9.E Pedestrian island / median Y N 9.F Pedestrian island / median width (l) m Dir Side Dir Side Reference schema 1 (main elements and measurements of pedestrian crossing) Amsterdam Barcelona Berlin Bruxelles Copenhagen Helsinki Ljubljana London Madrid Munich Oslo Paris Rome Stockholm Wien Zagreb Zurich - 17 Cities, 215 crossings, 2 checklists (with/without traffic lights) - Test Area defined on common criteria (tourism, traffic, dimensions, land-use) crossings tested per each city, selected on the ground of traffic requirements km walked by two teams of three ACI Inspectors - Daily test and night test performed for each city - Test stage: 2 July 23 September

13 The methodology Developed in cooperation with University La Sapienza of Rome 22 Safety factors selected from a detailed literature review grouped into 4 Safety categories (Spatial and temporal design, daylight visibility, night-time visibility, Accessibility) Weighting process based on crosscomparison submitted to a qualified focus group (Analytical Hierarchy Process) Validation of the results with in-depth investigation data records 4 safety indicators (one for each safety category), one overall indicator 13

14 The evaluation process Not Signalized Pedestrian Crossing - Data Collection Form Single crossings 1. Date: time City 2. Road Name: Intersection? Y N 3. Direction 1 Roundabout? 4. Direction 2 Y N n of approaches 7. Side A Photo 8. Side B Photo 9. Spatial and Temporal Design: 9.A Carriageway single dual 9.B Directions one way two-way 9.C Number of lanes [dir1] n [dir2] n 9.D Pedestrian conflict points n 9.E Pedestrian island / median Y N 9.F Pedestrian island / median width (l) m Dir Side Dir Side Reference schema 1 (main elements and measurements of pedestrian crossing) From the inspections to the single results Qualitative evaluation for each safety category (very good to very poor) Qualitative overall evaluation Pictures supporting the single evaluation Pedestrian Crossing 1 2a 2b 3a 3b a b LONDON Spatial and OVERALL Visibility DAYTIME Visibility NIGHTTIME Accessibility Temporal Design EVALUATION Poor Very Good Good Good Good o Acceptable Very Good Good Good Good Good Very Good Good Good Good o + Good Very Good Good Acceptable Good + Good ++ 7Very Good + Good + Good + Good Good Very Good Very Good Very Good Very Good o Acceptable Very Good Good Good Good o Acceptable Very Good Very Good Good Good o 9 Acceptable o Acceptable - Poor o Acceptable - Poor o o + Acceptable Very Good Very Good Acceptable Good Good Very Good Very Good Good Very Good o Acceptable Very Good Good Poor Good o Acceptable Very Good Good Good Good o ++ + o + Acceptable Very Good Good Acceptable Good ALL PEDESTRIAN o CROSSING Acceptable Very Good Good Good Good City results City ranking Best and worst crossings Main deficiencies detected 14

15 The test results 28 crossings out of 215 (one in 8) failed the test, achieving a poor rating. Just more than half crossings (118) were rated positively. Only two crossings earned a very good rating. 69 crossings were considered Acceptable. Worst crossing found in Brussels (the European Capital!), the best one in London. In Rome the least accessible crossings. Number of crossing and rating classes Overall results 100% n. of crossings 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Overall rating Spatial and temporal design Visibility Daytime Visibility Night time Accessibility ++ + o

16 The city comparison Number of crossings and rating groups o n. crossings London Oslo Copenaghen Amsterdam Helsinki Paris Stockholm Wien Zagreb Zurich Barcelona Ljubljana Berlin Madrid Munich Rome Brussels

17 Keyword: Improving! The comparison among different situations is aimed at fostering improvements. 17

18 The results variability A marked finding of this survey was the very wide degree of variation in the quality of the pedestrian crossings examined in each city, as reflected in the range of ratings given. This was mainly due to the presence of obstacles reducing the visibility even in the well designed layouts! 18

19 The main deficiences Pedestrian phases at traffic lights, missing refuge islands (Spatial and Temporal Design) Parked vehicles behind crossings, reduced sight distance for the turning vehicles (Daylight Visibility and Nighttime Visibility) Lighting conditions and road marking visibility at night (Night-time Visibility) Obstacles reducing accessibility to visually impaired and disabled users (Accessibility) Limited adoption of advanced technology (intelligent pedestrian traffic lights, countdown devices, smart lighting systems, etc.) 19

20 The pan-european crossings In Germany zebra crossings are not adopted In some Spanish cities zebra crossing are being deleted at signalized pedcross In Switzerland yellow zebra markings are used Different solutions for pedestrian traffic lights (colours and more ) Different Behavioural rules (eg: right of way on crossings) Different design standards (parking bans behind crossings) 20

21 Available deliverables Overall ranking (215 crossings) Ranking for each safety indicator City outline with strenghts and weaknesses Complete city dossiers for each tested city (single crossing results and pictures) Recommendations fo authorities on how to make safer crossings Report on pedestrian traffic lights (colours, exclusive phases, transition times, mandatory red, etc.). Top 10 Ranking City ID crossing Spatial and temporal design Daylight visibility Nighttime visibility Accessibility Overall rating 1 London London Berlin 07 o Zurich 01 o Wien 06 o London 06 o London 03b London 09 o o + 9 Ljubljana London 07 o Spatial and Worst ten Daylight Nighttime City ID crossing temporal Accessibility Overall rating Ranking visibility visibility design 206 Copenaghen o Madrid 09 o Berlin 09 o - -- o Amsterdam Berlin 11 o Brussels o Munich Brussels Brussels Brussels

22 The awareness campaign Walk safe 22

23 The pedestrian safety leaflet Developed by the ACI with the cooperation of all the 18 EuroTEST partners On-going translation in 12 languages Behavioural tips beyond the single national rules Specific sections targeted to: pedestrians, pedestrians crossing the road, drivers Information section on very important figures (Did you know?) Key tips. 23

24 Some key tips 24

25 Conclusions Excellent experience of international cooperation aimed at improving pedestrian safety Large room for improvement of pedestrian crossings (visibility and accessibility as key issues!): safer crossings save lives Behavioral aspects should be targeted with growing intensity (Walk Safe Campaign) Common behavioral rules to be adopted Europe wide 25

26 Thank you! Francesco Mazzone EuroTest links: