OBSERVATIONAL STUDY:PEDESTRIANS RIGHT OF

WAY

Kiera Kenney

Liz Lewallen

Jason Sarvey

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

First crosswalk signal created in 1868 in London However removed after a few months

Pedestrian crossing came 50 years later Installed where vulnerable road users

regularly cross Audible signals for the blind at crosswalks Called “Zebra Crossing”

Referring to alternate black and white stripes

DRIVER/PEDESTRIAN LAWS Section 3542. Right-of-way of pedestrians in

crosswalks.      (a) General rule.—When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within any marked crosswalk or within any unmarked crosswalk at an intersection.

 (b) Exercise of care by pedestrian.—No pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close as to constitute a hazard.

 (c) Limitation on vehicles passing.—Whenever any vehicle is stopped at any crosswalk at an intersection or at any marked crosswalk to permit a pedestrian to cross the roadway, the driver of any other vehicle approaching from the rear shall not overtake and pass the stopped vehicle.

DRIVER/PEDESTRIAN LAWS (CONT.)

o Section 3543. Pedestrians crossing at other than crosswalks.      (a) General rule.—Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a crosswalk at an intersection or any marked crosswalk shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway.

       (b) At pedestrian tunnel or overhead crossing.—Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway. (c) Between controlled intersections in urban district.—Between adjacent intersections in urban districts at which traffic-control signals are in operation pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.  (d) Crossing intersection diagonally.—No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic-control devices or at the discretion of a police officer or other appropriately attired person authorized to direct, control or regulate traffic. When authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the signal pertaining to the crossing movements.

DRIVER/PEDESTRIAN LAWS (CONC.)

Section 3552. Penalty for violation of subchapter.Any pedestrian violating any provision of this subchapter is guilty of a summary offense and shall, upon conviction, be sentenced to pay a fine of $5.

TOPIC

Determine crosswalk behaviorIn both the mall and supermarket

parking lots Determine if gender has a difference in

ability to crossMore males or more females can cross

Observe if gender of driver influences the same/opposite gender’s ability to crossMale drivers allow more females to cross,

female drivers allow more males to cross, etc.

DATA COLLECTION

Crosswalks at Montgomeryville Mall & Wegmans Supermarket40 trials at mall and 40 trials at

supermarket We (Liz, Jason, and Kiera) represented

the crossers Every 3rd car, one of us attempted to

cross the crosswalk Performed in the morning (9-11 a.m.),

afternoon (3-5 p.m.), and evening (6-8 p.m.)

TESTS WE USED

Two Proportion Z-TestComparing location (mall or

supermarket) Two Proportion Z-Test

Comparing gender’s ability to cross (male/female)

Chi-Squared Test for AssociationComparing gender of driver to

gender of crosser

ASSUMPTIONS FOR 2 PROPORTION Z-TEST

State 2 Independent SRS nmpm nm(1-pm) nsps ns(1-ps) popm ≥ 10 * nm pops ≥ 10 * ns

Check Systematic random

sample (Every 3 cars)

(40)(0.625)(40)(0.375)(40)(0.425)(40)(0.575)

popm≥ (10)(40)pops≥ (10)(40)

≥ 10≥ 10

2 PROPORTION Z-TEST Hypothesis:

Ho: Pm=Ps Ha: Pm>Ps

Test Statistic:

P-Value: P(z>1.791)= 0.0366

Conclusion: We reject Ho because our p-value, which is 0.0366 is less

than α= 0.05. We have sufficient evidence that the proportion of people

allowing crossing at the Montgomeryville mall is greater than the people allowing crossing at Wegmans Supermarket.

Z= 1.791

Overall, people have a greater chance crossing at the Montgomeryville Mall than crossing at

Wegmans.

EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS

Looking at the graphs, see that more allowed to cross at mall

Greater difference between the “N” and “Y” at the mall than at the supermarket

The supermarket tends to be busier on a daily basis

Less rushing and craziness at mall due to more parking availabilities

Time of day affects number allowed to cross

5

10

15

20

25

N Y

Allowed_to_Cross

count

Collection 2 Bar Chart

5

10

15

20

25

N Y

Allowed

count

Collection 3 Bar Chart

Montgomeryville Mall

Wegmans Supermarket

ASSUMPTIONS FOR 2 PROPORTION Z-TEST

State 2 Independent SRS nmpm nm(1-pm) nfpf nf(1-pf) popm ≥ 10 * nm popf ≥ 10 * nf

Check Systematic random

sample (Every 3 cars)

(32)(0.46875)(32)(0.53125)(48)(0.5625)(48)(0.4375)

popm≥ (10)(32)popf≥ (10)(48)

≥ 10≥ 10

2 PROPORTION Z-TEST Hypothesis:

Ho: Pm=Pf Ha: Pm<Pf

Test Statistic:

P-Value: P(z< -0.8226)= 0.2054

Conclusion: We fail to reject Ho because our p-value is greater than

α= 0.05. We have sufficient evidence that the proportion of

female crossers is equal to the proportion of males.

Z= -0.8226

Overall, there is no difference between the proportion of males and females allowed to cross

the crosswalk.

EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS

Both locations looks as more females allowed to cross

Proportions between females and males on both graphs are similar

Thought in general more females would be able to cross

Ability not really affected by gender

Could depend on amount of people in general in the parking lot

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gender_of_Crosser

F M

count

Collection 2 Bar Chart

Montgomeryville Mall

5

10

15

20

25

30

Gender_of_Crosser

F M

count

Collection 2 Bar Chart

Wegmans Supermarket

ASSUMPTIONS FOR CHI-SQUARED TEST

State 2 Independent SRS All expected counts

≥ 5

Check Systematic Random

Sample (Every 3 cars)

40 ≥ 5

CHI-SQUARED TEST FOR ASSOCIATION Hypothesis:

Ho: There is no association between the gender of the crosser and the gender of the driver.

Ha: There is an association between the gender of the crosser and the gender of the driver.

Test Statistic:

P-Value: P(χ2>0.617/df=1)= 0.4321

Conclusion: We fail to reject Ho because the p-value is greater than

α=0.05. There is no association between gender of the crosser

and gender of the driver

Χ2= 0.617

Overall, the gender of the driver does not

influence the ability of the crosser to cross the

crosswalk.

EXPLORATORY DATA ANALYSIS Chart shows percentage

of: Males allowing males to

cross (orange) Males allowing females to

cross (blue) Females allowing males to

cross (red) Females allowing females

to cross (yellow) Predicted more male

drivers would allow females to cross (largest %)

Males were most generous

MMMFFMFF

APPLICATION

Affects the population because people need to be aware of who is crossing at the different crosswalks

Although people are generally respectful of pedestrian laws and the crosswalk, others need to become more aware

GENERAL CONCLUSION

In general, drivers are pretty polite Majority obey the pedestrian laws Gender does not affect any part of pedestrian

crossing More females allowed both females and

males to cross Found that less were allowed to cross in late

afternoon/early evening Eagerness and mood of driver could affect

their willingness

BIAS AND ERROR

Time of Day More or less people out

Early Afternoon (kids in school/parents home) Rush hour Dinner time

Location Mall more relaxed Grocery store in rush to get home because food

is in car

PERSONAL OPINIONS

Assumed the Wegmans parking lot would be busier So, less pedestrians allowed to cross

Surprised that more females were not allowed to cross Amount of males and females were the same

Interesting that gender did not matter at all

SOURCES

PennDot http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Pedestrian/web/laws.h

tm

Light Guard http://www.lightguardsystems.com/companyHist

ory.shtml