<\/div><\/p>\n
Abstract:<\/h2>\n
Background\/Context: Intersection crashes involving turning vehicles hitting pedestrians is an issue that is not fully understood or given sufficient attention.<\/p>\n
Aims\/Objectives: We sought to compare the frequency of left- and right-turning single vehicle-pedestrian crashes versus other single vehicle-pedestrian crash configurations. We also sought to identify crash countermeasures that can respond to these crash situations.<\/p>\n
Methods\/Targets: We used police crash reports in British Columbia between January 2004 and December 2015 to determine the count and proportion of crashes, injuries, and fatalities for single-vehicle versus pedestrian crashes. We explored several factors that contribute to pedestrian injury or fatality, including (1) driver pre-collision action (left or right turn), (2) accident location (at\/between signalized or non-signalized intersection) (3) road type (number of lanes, divided\/undivided, speed limit), and (4) driver impairment or distraction. We calculated odds ratios through univariate logistic regression. We also undertook literature and inter-jurisdictional reviews to identify corresponding crash countermeasures.<\/p>\n
Results\/Activities: Over the total study period there were 3,878 crashes with a serious pedestrian injury or fatality. Of these crashes, road conditions were typically dry (62.8%) and clear (49.5%), most occurred in a 50 km\/h speed zone (68.4%), many occurred during daylight hours (45.1%), and just over half occurred at an intersection (52.3%).<\/p>\n
Of single-vehicle serious injury and fatal pedestrian crashes at intersections, the three most common crash configurations involved a left-turning vehicle (36.0%), a vehicle going straight (48.2%), and a right-turning vehicle (9.4%). The largest portion of these crashes occurred at a signalized control when the driver had a green light (37.4%), followed by situations where there was no traffic control (26.8%). Of all factors examined, the three highest unadjusted odds ratios for fatality or serious injury were driver impairment (OR= 2.37, 95% CI: 1.92, 2.91), the presence of three or more traffic lanes compared to one lane (OR=1.95, 95% CI: 1.51, 2.55), and nighttime (9 PM - 6 AM) compared to daytime (12 PM - 6 PM) conditions (OR= 1.71, 95% CI: 1.49, 1.97).<\/p>\n
Discussion\/Deliverables: Serious injury and fatality left-turn vehicle-pedestrian crashes are almost four times more likely to occur than right-turn ones. Most pedestrians when stuck were proceeding in a legal manner underscoring the need for road design solutions.<\/p>\n
Indeed, many low-cost solutions to this problem exist at intersections including: changing signalization from permissive to protected-only phasing, banning the right-turn-on-red, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian scrambles, tighter turning radius, better lighting, innovative protected intersection designs, and many other measures.<\/p>\n
Our study relied on police-reports. However, police are not required to attend all motor vehicle crashes, including pedestrian-involved ones, and as a result there is under-reporting. Other research using non-police data (e.g., hospital or ambulance data) would be beneficial to further understand the problem.<\/p>\n
Conclusions: Serious injury and fatal left-turn vehicle-pedestrian crashes happen at a rate almost four times that of right-turn vehicle-pedestrian crashes. Each of these turning configurations, however, comprise a problem and each, paradoxically, has many low-cost solutions available that have often been unimplemented or under-implemented.'<\/p>\n
<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Arason, Erdelyi, Chan, Phillips, Brubacher<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_kad_post_transparent":"default","_kad_post_title":"default","_kad_post_layout":"default","_kad_post_sidebar_id":"","_kad_post_content_style":"default","_kad_post_vertical_padding":"default","_kad_post_feature":"","_kad_post_feature_position":"","_kad_post_header":false,"_kad_post_footer":false,"_kad_post_classname":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[343,346],"tags":[387,384,372,393],"class_list":["post-16985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-carsp-conference-acpser-calgary-2019","category-research-and-evaluation","tag-injury-prevention","tag-intersection-safety","tag-pedestrians","tag-traffic-engineering-road-design"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16985","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16985"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16985\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":20595,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16985\/revisions\/20595"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}