Pedestrians' Crossing Behavior at Marked Crosswalks on Channelized Right-Turn Lanes at Intersections

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect ScienceDirect

Procedia online Computer 00 (2016) 000–000 Available at Science www.sciencedirect.com Procedia Computer Science 00 (2016) 000–000

ScienceDirect

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

Procedia Computer Science 109C (2017) 233–240

The 8th International Conference on Ambient Systems, Networks and Technologies (ANT 2017) The 8th International Conference on Ambient Systems, Networks and Technologies (ANT 2017)

Pedestrians’ Crossing Behavior at Marked Crosswalks on Pedestrians’ Crossing Behavior at Marked Crosswalks on Channelized Right-Turn Lanes at Intersections Channelized Right-Turn Lanes at Intersections

Deepti Muleyaa, Mohamed Kharbecheaa*, Wael Alhajyaseenaa, Mohammed Al-Salembb Deepti Muley , Mohamed Kharbeche *, Wael Alhajyaseen , Mohammed Al-Salem a Qatar Transportation and Traffic Safety Center, College of Engineering, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar Qatar Transportation andEngineering Traffic Safety Center, College of Engineering, Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar Mechanical and Industrial Department, College of Engineering,Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar b Mechanical and Industrial Engineering Department, College of Engineering,Qatar University, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar b a

Abstract Abstract Unsignalized marked crosswalks are problematic locations from pedestrians’ safety perspective. Although the priority rule at Unsignalized problematic locations Although the priorityover rulethe at such locationsmarked is clear;crosswalks pedestriansare have the absolute right offrom way pedestrians’ over vehicles,safety driverperspective. often compete with pedestrians such locations is clear; way on over vehicles, driver often compete withaspedestrians the right of way which riskspedestrians pedestrian have safetythe andabsolute impose right extra of delays pedestrians. In developing countries, concluded over in many right of way whichvehicles risks pedestrian safety on pedestrians. In developing countries, as concluded many previous studies, usually do not and giveimpose right ofextra waydelays to pedestrians, leaving them with the only choice to wait in until an previous studies, vehicles usually not give right of way to pedestrians, leaving them with the predominant only choice to waitofuntil an accepted gap is available. In Gulf do Cooperation Council (GCC) countries where vehicles are the mode travel, accepted gap is available. In Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries where vehicles are the predominant mode of travel, pedestrians are receiving lesser priority. Drivers usually hijack the right of way from pedestrians which often causes safety pedestrians are receiving lesserloose priority. usually hijackat the right of waylocations from pedestrians whichtooften safety threats. Therefore, pedestrians the Drivers reason for crossing these designed pushing them crosscauses at arbitrary threats. crossing atinfluencing these designed pushing behavior them to cross at arbitrary locationsTherefore, increasingpedestrians their safetyloose risk. the Thisreason paperfor investigates factorslocations on the crossing of pedestrians at locations increasinglocated their safety risk. This paper lanes. investigates factors on was the selected crossingfor behavior of pedestrians at marked crosswalks on dedicated right-turn A studyinfluencing site from Doha, Qatar video recording and data marked crosswalks located on dedicated right-turn lanes. A study site from Doha, Qatar was selected for video recording and data analysis. A sample of 235 pedestrian observations was used for waiting behavior, crossing speed, accepted gaps, and driver analysis. A sampleanalysis. of 235 The pedestrian observations waswaiting used for waiting crossing speed, accepted gaps, and yielding behavior results showed that the behavior wasbehavior, independent of pedestrian characteristics and driver relied yielding behavior The results showed that waiting behavior waswas independent of pedestrian characteristics and group relied only on the trafficanalysis. characteristics. In addition, the the average crossing speed 1.43m/s and the gender, distraction, and only on the traffic characteristics. addition, the average crossing pedestrians speed was 1.43m/s and the gender, group significantly affected the crossingInspeed. Beside, the distracted and pedestrians crossingdistraction, in groupsand accepted significantly larger affected thecompared crossing to speed. Beside, and the distracted pedestrians groups accepted significantly gaps undistracted individual pedestrians pedestrians. and Moreover, aboutcrossing 15% of indrivers yielded for significantly yielding larger gaps to undistracted andmainly individual pedestrians. about 15% of drivers yielded for pedestrians, wascompared irrespective of gender and affected by the Moreover, crossing direction. Consequently, innovative pedestrians, yielding was irrespective of and gender and mainly affected by thepedestrian crossing safety direction. Consequently, strategies in terms of engineering measures awareness are needed to improve at these locations. innovative strategies in terms of engineering measures and awareness are needed to improve pedestrian safety at these locations. © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. 1877-0509 2017 The Authors.by Published by Elsevier B.V. © 2016 The©Authors. Published Elsevier B.V. Peer-review Peer-review under under responsibility responsibility of of the the Conference Conference Program Program Chairs. Chairs. Peer-review under responsibility of the Conference Program Chairs. Keywords: Marked crosswalk; Exclusive right-turn lane; Crossing behavior; Pedestrians; State of Qatar. Keywords: Marked crosswalk; Exclusive right-turn lane; Crossing behavior; Pedestrians; State of Qatar.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +974-4403-4328; fax: +974-4403-4302. * E-mail Corresponding Tel.: +974-4403-4328; fax: +974-4403-4302. address:author. [email protected] E-mail address: [email protected] 1877-0509 © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. 1877-0509 ©under 2016responsibility The Authors. of Published by Elsevier B.V. Chairs. Peer-review the Conference Program Peer-review under responsibility of the Conference Program Chairs.

1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. Peer-review under responsibility of the Conference Program Chairs. 10.1016/j.procs.2017.05.339

234 2

Deepti Muley et al. / Procedia Computer Science 109C (2017) 233–240 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

1. Introduction Marked crosswalks are common pedestrian crossing facilities at dedicated right-turn lanes at intersections. These crosswalks are rarely controlled by traffic signals. Generally, standard road markings (zebra marking) are used to define the pedestrian crossing area and warning signs are installed to alert drivers as they approach to designated crossing location. Globally, pedestrians have priority at these crosswalks and drivers are expected to yield to pedestrians. In the State of Qatar, drivers should stop before the crosswalk to allow safe crossing by the pedestrians as per Qatar Traffic Law1. The drivers may face a fine of 300 QAR if they do not yield to the waiting/crossing pedestrians2. However, in reality drivers compete with pedestrians over the right of way. Hence, pedestrians commonly have to wait for an appropriate gap to cross at these locations. Because of that, these marked crosswalks do not function properly and force pedestrians to cross at undesignated locations which impose more safety risks. In common with many rapidly growing countries, the State of Qatar is facing a high percentage of pedestrian fatalities. Between 2008 and 2010, around 33% of total road fatalities were pedestrians 3. This paper aims at analyzing the crossing behavior of pedestrians at marked crosswalks located at channelized right-turn lanes. This study is part of a national research project to investigate pedestrian safety in the State of Qatar and to develop innovative control policies and recommendations for crosswalks to improve their safety. Many studies address pedestrian crossing behavior at marked crosswalks including signalized4,5 and unsignalized6,7 ones. Alhajyaseen analyzed pedestrian crossing behavior at signalized crosswalks concentrating on crossing speed8. It was indicated that few studies have addressed the issue of pedestrian speed at crosswalks (signalized and unsignalized), which have significantly different operating and surrounding conditions compared to the others facilities like walkways and sidewalks. Therefore, this study is followed by other studies that analyze the impact of crosswalk geometry and signal timing parameters on pedestrian crossing decision and speed at signalized crosswalks4,9,10. It was concluded that pedestrian maneuvers are widely varying and they are significantly affected by control type (signal timing and indication), crosswalk length, presence of conflicting vehicles, and others. In a recent study, the pedestrian sudden behavioral changes while crossing at signalized crosswalks were analyzed11. They empirically found that the pedestrians do change their crossing behavior in terms of speed and direction due to combination of factors (long crossing distance, change in signal indication, etc.) without paying attention to the surrounding conditions. This may magnify safety risks since drivers cannot predict such behavioral changes. Various studies analyzed crossing behavior of pedestrians at signalized crosswalks, considering different parameters such as crossing choice, waiting time, initial reaction time, walking speed, violations and difference between individuals and groups12,13,14. Pedestrian safety, considering gap acceptance and speed profiles, was assessed with conflicting left turning vehicles at signalized intersections15,16. Koh and Wong studied violating behavior of pedestrians at various phases of signal cycle and relationship with pedestrians’ personal characteristics, waiting time, number of lanes, and traffic volume at midblock and junctions17. Further, pedestrians’ gap acceptance behavior at marked midblock crosswalks was studied18,19. The driver yielding behavior with pedestrians’ gestures, smile, advance yield markings, and low cost engineering improvements were studied by Zhuang & Wu20, Gueguen et al.21, Samuel et al.22 and Sandt et al.23 respectively. Many studies have assessed the crossing speed at marked crosswalks at junctions and midblock. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are few studies on pedestrian crossing behavior at crosswalks located at channelized right-turn lanes at intersections. Chen et al. presented a methodology to determine pedestrian delays for different vehicle arrival rate at exclusive right-turn lane at an intersection. Rules of conflict models were proposed for pedestrian delay and pedestrian capacity were proposed for two traffic conditions. Erlang distribution was fitted for vehicles’ headway distribution for unsaturated and saturated release period using 213 continuous headways (108 saturated and 102 for unsaturated release period) observed for at an exclusive right-turn lane in China24. This study explores the pedestrians crossing behavior at marked crosswalks on channelized right-turn lanes. The characteristics of pedestrians’ crossing behavior, such as waiting time, crossing speed, and accepted gaps, are analyzed along with the driver yielding behavior.



Deepti Muley et al. / Procedia Computer Science 109C (2017) 233–240 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

235 3

City Center Mall

5.5

Conference Center Street

3m

0m

Diplomatic Street

N

Fig. 1. (a) Schematic intersection layout; (b) Selected crosswalk. Table 1. Vehicle and pedestrian traffic data. Date Wednesday, 5 October 2016 th

Time

Vd

Δhv (s) (min, max)

Pd

Δhp (s) (min, max)

Afternoon, 12pm to 1pm

534

7.00 (0.72, 38.76)

123

29.98 (0, 33.66)

Evening, 4:30pm to 5:30pm

545

6.86 (1.16, 47.08)

113

32.52 (0, 160.76)

Note: Vd is number of right turning vehicles, Δhv is average right turning vehicle headway, Pd is number of pedestrians, Δhp is average pedestrian headway (s)

2. Data Collection and Processing A marked crosswalk located at the channelized right turn lane of the north approach of the signalized intersection formed by the intersection of Conference Center Street and Diplomatic Street was chosen for this study. The intersection layout is shown in Fig. 1(a) and the selected crosswalk is shown in Fig. 1(b). The length and the width of the crosswalk are 5.5m and 3m respectively. The intersection is located in front of the main shopping mall in the CBD of Doha City (City Center Mall). Pedestrian and vehicle movements were videotaped on the 5th of October 2016 from seventh floor of an adjacent multistory building for twelve hours from 9am to 9pm. Peak pedestrian hours were determined and noted as 12pm to 1pm and 4:30pm to 5:30pm (Table 1). Pedestrians’ demographic/personal characteristics and crossing characteristics were recorded for each pedestrian during peak periods. Pedestrian age is considered in three categories, young, middle-age and elderly. Based on appearance and walking style, each pedestrian was classified into one of the defined age groups. In order to compute the waiting time and the crossing time, arrival time of pedestrian was taken as the time at which the pedestrian’s both feet are at rest on the sidewalk or island. The departure time was defined as the time at which the pedestrian lifts his/her feet to initiate crossing maneuver. The time for completion of crossing was defined as the time at which the pedestrian’s both feet are on the curb. Further, the pedestrians hand movements, face direction were used to judge whether pedestrians walking in group were talking with each other or not. The data extraction process of pedestrian attributes and related crossing characteristics were performed manually by observing the recorded videos. The headways of right turning vehicles and pedestrians were extracted from video record. An overview of vehicle and pedestrian traffic characteristics is shown in the Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. Average right turning vehicle headways in the afternoon and evening peak hours are estimated as 7.0s (534 vehicle) and 6.85s (545 vehicle) respectively. The observed average pedestrian headways in the afternoon and evening peak hours are 29.98s (123 pedestrian) and 32.52s (113 pedestrian) respectively. Table 2 shows that more than 81% of observed pedestrians were male while more than 75% of observed pedestrians were in middle age group. Around 45% of the observed pedestrians were wearing casual outfit followed by business attire (about 39%) and blue collar workers’ clothes (about 13.5%). Generally, pedestrians wearing casual clothes were on a shopping or recreation trip while those in formal and workers’ clothes were walking to/from work to buy food/drink or to get a taxi in front of the City Center Shopping Mall. The analysis of pedestrian wearing was intended to investigate the effects of traditional cloths on

Deepti Muley et al. / Procedia Computer Science 109C (2017) 233–240 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

236 4

Table 2. Pedestrian characteristics at study site. Characteristic

Classification

Frequency

Percentage

Gender

Male

191

81.28

Female

44

18.72

Young

54

22.98

Middle

178

75.74

Elder

3

1.28

Formal

91

38.72

Casual

105

44.69

Worker

32

13.62

Traditional

7

2.98

Yes

110

46.81

No

125

53.19

Yes

95

40.43

No

140

59.57

Yes

27

11.49

No

208

88.51

Yes

20

8.51

No

215

91.49

Distracted

86

36.60

No distraction

149

63.40

Age group

Type of clothes

Baggage Group Mobileuse_Waiting Mobileuse_Crossing Distraction

crossing behavior in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. It is expected that the common traditional cloths for male and female limit walking speed. Unfortunately, at the study site few pedestrians with traditional cloths were observed. Moreover, observation indicated that almost half of the pedestrians were carrying something like baggage or goods, which may affect their crossing behavior. Around 40% of observed pedestrians were crossing in groups where the maximum group size was six. Out of them 63.15%, 15.78%, and 21.05% were crossing in group of two, three and four or more respectively. Pedestrian distractions increase safety risks considerably25,26, for the study site 36.60% of observed pedestrians were distracted while crossing. The causes of distraction were talking in groups (56.97%), texting or calling using mobile phones (23.25%), grooming (9.30%), and other (10.48%). It is important to note that the distraction item in Table 2 includes mobile usage. 3. Data Analysis 3.1. Pedestrians’ crossing characteristics Table 3 summarizes the characteristics of pedestrian and vehicle behavior at the study site. The direction of pedestrian crossing at the marked crosswalk indicated that more than 60% pedestrians crossed towards the intersection (upstream) to access the facilities at the shopping center. As shown in Table 3, nearly 60% of observed pedestrians crossed at the designated crosswalk and remaining pedestrians crossed near or away from crosswalk. Crossing at other locations rather than the designated crosswalks increases the safety risks. The analysis indicated a problem when addressing pedestrian right of way. Only 15.4% of observed right turners who faced crossing pedestrians yielded and gave the way. This low yielding rate at marked unsignalized crosswalks is in accordance with many other studies in the literature. For instance, in China, yielding rates between 3.5% and 8.6% were reported20. Nevertheless, in France, it was observed that 50.1% of observed drivers did not stop for



Deepti Muley et al. / Procedia Computer Science 109C (2017) 233–240 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

237 5

Table 3. Characteristics of vehicle and pedestrians crossing behavior at study site. Characteristic

Classification

Frequency

Percentage

Direction

Towards intersection

150

63.83

Away from intersection

85

36.17

Perpendicular

39

16.60

Oblique

176

74.89

Other

20

8.51

At crosswalk

138

58.72

Near crosswalk

67

28.51

Away from crosswalk

30

12.77

Yes

53

22.55

No

103

43.83

NA (In queue or did not face pedestrians)

79

33.62

Path Location

Right Turning Yielding Behavior

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of pedestrians’ crossing behavior at study site Characteristic

Average

Minimum

Maximum

Waiting time (s)

5.97

0.04

72.4

Crossing time (s)

4.49

2.00

9.76

Crossing speed (m/s)

1.43

0.64

3.13

Accepted gap (s)

12.37

2.28

38.72

Number of conflicting vehicles

0.89

0

18

pedestrian at marked unsignalized crosswalks21. These low compliance rates with pedestrian right of way highlights the importance to develop innovative countermeasures to improve pedestrian safety at marked crosswalks. Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of pedestrians’ crossing behavior at the study site. The waiting time analysis showed that more than 60% of observed pedestrians waited before initiating crossing maneuver. The average, minimum and maximum waiting time for pedestrians was 5.97s, 0.04s, and 72.4s respectively (Table 4). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test showed that the waiting time followed a Fatigue Life (3P) distribution with test statistic of 0.04333 and significance of 0.9388. The parameters of the distribution were α=1.3901, β=3.1453, γ=0.1974. The crossing time in Table 4 is defined as the time from a pedestrian initiates crossing till he/she completes the crossing. The crossing speed was estimated by dividing crossing distance by the observed crossing time. The observed average crossing speed was 1.43 m/s while the 15 th percentile crossing speed was 1.14 m/s. A study by Chen et al. found that the average crossing speed on a crosswalk at channelized right turn lane as 1.30m/s, much lower than what was observed in this study24. The crossing speed followed a Log-Logistic distribution (statistic=0.032, p=0.9634) with the distribution parameters of α=8.0715, β=1.3933. The size of gap/lag was noted for pedestrians who crossed when traffic was moving. Pedestrians who crossed with no traffic or queued traffic were excluded for calculation of gaps. In total, 148 pedestrians accepted gap/lag with minimum, average and maximum values of 2.28s, 12.37s, and 38.72s respectively. The accepted gaps followed a Pearson5 distribution (statistic=0.06095, p=0.6192) with the distribution parameters of α=3.6451, β=33.715. 3.2. Analysis of crossing behavior This section presents results of statistical analysis for waiting behavior, crossing speed, size of accepted gaps/lags, and driver yielding behavior. Since the number of observation for elderly was very few (Table 2), age group was excluded from statistical analysis. Furthermore, due to limited sample size of pedestrians with traditional

238 6

Deepti Muley et al. / Procedia Computer Science 109C (2017) 233–240 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

cloths, type of clothes variable was also excluded from analysis. Chi-square tests were conducted between various subgroups to check whether the dependent parameters are related to pedestrian characteristics. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was undertaken using non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests because the distribution of waiting time, crossing speed, and accepted gaps was not normal. All statistical analysis was undertaken using IBM SPSS Statistics 23.0. An evaluation version of EasyFit 5.6 was used to find out distribution fit. Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test was used to assess distribution fit. 3.2.1. Waiting behavior This section presents the analysis of pedestrians’ waiting behavior in two parts; factors affecting pedestrians waiting decision and differences in waiting time between various subgroups. The decision to wait is important to analyze because low yielding rates are observed at the marked crosswalks20,21. Chi-square tests were conducted between various subgroups to check whether the decision to wait or not is related to pedestrian characteristics. The results suggested that the waiting decision was not related to pedestrian characteristics; gender (χ2=1.922, p=0.166), distraction (χ2=0.007, p=0.933), group (χ2=0.046, p=0.830), mobile usage (χ2=1.063, p=0.303), but was related with baggage (χ2=4.156, p=0.041, ϕ=0.133) with a weak association. The waiting decision was strongly dependent on the traffic conditions, which is obvious since it can be explained by the fact that pedestrians do not expect drivers to give way (χ2=66.08, p=0.001, ϕ=0.53) and the direction of crossings (χ2=6.411, p=0.011, ϕ=0.165). Similar findings were obtained by Chen et al.24. The analysis of waiting time of pedestrians indicated that there was statistically significant difference between waiting time of male and female (Z=-3.524, p=0.001), and distracted and non-distracted pedestrians (Z=-2.107, p=0.035). The average waiting time was 87.48% and 50.40% more for female and distracted pedestrians respectively compared to their counterparts. On the other hand, the waiting time did not have significant difference for crossing direction, group, mobile use, baggage, and crossing location. In fact, females are observed as safe pedestrians27, which is also reflected here from their higher waiting time. 3.2.2. Crossing speed The results of ANOVA for various subgroups indicated that there was statistically significant difference in crossing speed for gender (Z=-2.55, p=0.011), distracted pedestrians (Z=-2.656, p=0.008), and group (Z=-3.1, p=0.002). The average crossing speed for male pedestrians was 8.96% higher than female pedestrians. Similarly, the average crossing speed for non-distracted pedestrians was 9.63% higher than distracted pedestrians. Slower crossing speeds means longer crossing times which leads to larger exposure to conflicts with vehicles causing more safety threats. Furthermore, pedestrians crossing alone were 10.37% faster than pedestrians crossing in groups. On the other hand, the analysis revealed that there is no significant effect of crossing direction, waiting, mobile, baggage, crossing path, crossing location, and crossing in presence of conflict. 3.2.3. Size of accepted gaps The analysis of size of accepted gaps showed that the average accepted gap for pedestrians crossing in groups was 19.08% higher compared to pedestrians crossing alone, with a statistically significant difference. The accepted gap size for distracted pedestrians was significantly different (23.73% higher) compared to non-distracted pedestrians. It is expected to have significant difference between observed accepted gaps/lags by female and male pedestrians. However, the analysis revealed the opposite results, which can be explained by the small sample size. Similar discussion applies on the impact of mobile usage and crossing direction. Moreover, no significant impact was concluded for waiting, baggage, and crossing location. Collecting more data at various sites with different traffic and geometric characteristics is needed to have generalized conclusions. 3.2.4. Yielding behavior The yielding behavior of drivers was assessed with respect to various subgroups of pedestrians. The yielding rate was related to direction of crossing of pedestrian (i.e. inner kerb or outer kerb) (χ 2=7.999, p=0.005, ϕ=0.226). The drivers showed higher yielding rate (42% compared to 19.64%) to pedestrians waiting at the sidewalk compared to those waiting at the channelized island. The drivers’ yielding behavior was also related to whether a pedestrian carried baggage or not (χ2=5.861, p=0.015, ϕ=-0.194). The yielding behavior of drivers was not affected by gender,



Deepti Muley et al. / Procedia Computer Science 109C (2017) 233–240 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

239 7

distraction, group, and mobile use. Regarding the impact of gender, the results of this study contradicts with what Gueguen et al.21 reported where drivers had higher yielding rates to female pedestrians compared to male pedestrians. 4. Conclusion This study analyzes the crossing behavior of 235 pedestrians at a marked crosswalk located at a channelized right turn lane of a signalized intersection in the CBD area of Doha city. The results showed that the waiting behavior was dependent only on the volume of traffic and crossing direction; the decision to wait was independent of pedestrian characteristics such as age, gender, distraction and use of mobile. Distractions was a vital parameter affecting the crossing behavior of pedestrians at marked crosswalk, specially waiting time, crossing speed, and size of accepted gap. The gap acceptance was also influenced by whether the pedestrian was crossing alone or in a group. The driver yielding behavior showed very low rates, which was significantly affected by pedestrian’s direction of crossing. Pedestrians crossing from the sidewalk towards the intersection waited more frequently and subsequently received higher yielding rates. Small number of pedestrians crossing from the raised island stopped before starting the crossing maneuver, which can be attributed to wider visibility of oncoming right turning vehicles. Consequently, various strategies need to be applied to improve driver-yielding behavior to provide safe crossing for pedestrians. For instance, advanced yield markings have proven to improve the driver scanning for pedestrians and reduce the conflicts between vehicle and pedestrians at marked crosswalks22,28. Several studies highlighted that pedestrians’ gestures, smile, and stare do improve driver yielding rates20,21,29. On the other hand, awareness campaigns addressing the impacts of distraction while walking especially using gadgets while crossing roads is highly needed to encourage safe crossing maneuvers especially among pedestrians. The findings of this study are based on limited sample size, which was extracted from one site only. Therefore, it is necessary to collect more data from different locations to produce reliable results that can be generalized. Acknowledgements This publication was made possible by an NPRP award [NPRP 8-365-2-150] from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation). The statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors. References 1. QTL. Qatar Traffic Law 19-2007. State of Qatar, 2007. Accessed at http://www.almeezan.qa/LawPage.aspx?id=3993&language=en on January 17, 2017. 2. MOI. List of traffic violations that can be settled by paying fines. Ministry of Interior, General Traffic Directorate, 2007. Accessed at https://www.moi.gov.qa/site/english/departments/traffic/violations/point2.doc on January 2nd, 2017. 3. NRSS. National Road Safety Strategy 2013-2022. National Traffic Safety Committee, State of Qatar, 2013. 4. Ren G, Zhou Z, Wang W, Zhang Y, Wang W. Crossing behaviors of pedestrians at signalized intersections: observational study and survey in China. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2011;2264:65-73. 5. Lipovac K, Vujanic M, Maric B, & Nesic M. Pedestrian behavior at signalized pedestrian crossings. Journal of transportation engineering 2013;139(2):165-172. 6. Jiang X, Wang W, Bengler K, Guo W. Analyses of pedestrian behavior on mid-block signalized crosswalk comparing Chinese and German cases. Advances in Mechanical Engineering 2015;7(11):1687814015610468. 7. Li P, Bian Y, Rong J, Zhao L, Shu S. Pedestrian Crossing Behavior at Unsignalized Mid-block Crosswalks Around the Primary School. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 2013;96:442-450. 8. Alhajyaseen, W. Pedestrian Speed at Signalized Crosswalks; Analysis and Influencing Factors. International Journal of Engineering Management and Economics, 2015;5( ¾):258-272. 9. Iryo-Asano M, Alhajyaseen W, Nakamura H. Analysis and Modeling of Pedestrian Crossing Behavior during Pedestrian Flashing Green Interval. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems 2014;16(2):958-969. 10. Iryo-Asano M, Alhajyaseen W. Analysis of pedestrian clearance time at signalized crosswalks in Japan. Proc. Comp. Sci., 2014;32,301–308. 11. Alhajyaseen W, Iryo-Asano M. Studying Critical Pedestrian Behavioral Changes for the Safety Assessment at Signalized Crosswalks. Safety Science 2017;91:351-360.

240 8

Deepti Muley et al. / Procedia Computer Science 109C (2017) 233–240 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2015) 000–000

12. Yang X, Abdel-Aty M, Huan M, Peng Y, Gao Z. An accelerated failure time model for investigating pedestrian crossing behavior and waiting times at signalized intersections. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2015;82:154-162. 13. Peters D, Kim L, Zaman R, Haas G, Cheng J, Ahmed S. Pedestrian Crossing Behavior at Signalized Intersections in New York City. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2015;2519:179-188. 14. Rosenbloom T. Crossing at a red light: Behavior of individuals and groups. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior 2009;12(5),389-394. 15. Alhajyaseen W, Asano M, Nakamura H. Left-turn gap acceptance models considering pedestrian movement characteristics. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2013;50:175-185. 16. Alhajyaseen WK, Asano M, Nakamura H. Estimation of left-turning vehicle maneuvers for the assessment of pedestrian safety at intersections. IATSS research 2012;36(1):66-74. 17. Koh PP, Wong YD. Gap acceptance of violators at signalised pedestrian crossings. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2014;62:178-185. 18. Arman MA, Rafe A, Kretz T. Pedestrian Gap Acceptance Behavior, A Case Study: Tehran. In Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting 2015;No.15-2217. 19. Pawar D S, Patil G R. Pedestrian temporal and spatial gap acceptance at mid-block street crossing in developing world. Journal of safety research 2015;52:39-46. 20. Zhuang X, Wu C. Pedestrian gestures increase driver yielding at uncontrolled mid-block road crossings. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2014;70:235-244. 21. Guéguen N, Eyssartier C, Meineri S. A pedestrian's smile and drivers' behavior: When a smile increases careful driving. Journal of safety research 2016;56:83-88. 22. Samuel S, Romoser M, Gerardino L, Hamid M, Gómez R, Knodler M, Collura J, Fisher D. Effect of advance yield markings and symbolic signs on vehicle-pedestrian conflicts: field evaluation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2013;2393:139-146. 23. Sandt LS, Marshall SW, Rodriguez DA, Evenson KR, Ennett ST, Robinson WR. Effect of a community-based pedestrian injury prevention program on driver yielding behavior at marked crosswalks. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2016;93:169-178. 24. Chen YH, Zhang H, Qu ZW, Cao NB, & Wei ML. Pedestrian Crossing Characteristics on Exclusive Right-Turn Lane with Island. In Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting 2015;No.15-2019. 25. Mwakalonge J, Siuhi S, White J. Distracted walking: Examining the extent to pedestrian safety problems. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition) 2015;2(5):327-337. 26. Schwebel DC, Stavrinos D, Byington KW, Davis T, O’Neal EE, De Jong D. Distraction and pedestrian safety: how talking on the phone, texting, and listening to music impact crossing the street. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2012;45:266-271. 27. Holland C, Hill R. The effect of age, gender and driver status on pedestrians’ intentions to cross the road in risky situations. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2007;39(2):224-237. 28. Gómez R, Samuel S, Gerardino L, Romoser M, Collura J, Knodler M, Fisher D. Do advance yield markings increase safe driver behaviors at signalized, marked midblock crosswalks? Driving simulator study. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2011;2264:27-33. 29. Guéguen N, Meineri S, Eyssartier C. A pedestrian’s stare and drivers’ stopping behavior: A field experiment at the pedestrian crossing. Safety Science 2015;75:87-89.