Comparing two countdown pedestrian signal displays in the District of Columbia

Arhin, Stephen; Noel, E C; Lakew, Mesfin

doi:10.1109/itsc.2011.6083038

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, Arhin et al suggested the possible use of countdown displays throughout the pedestrian phase (i.e., "Walk" and FDW) and demonstrated no significant differences in the crossing behaviors of normally sighted pedestrians at crossings in Washington, D.C., with and without the countdown presented during the "Walk" interval in addition to during the FDW interval (5). In their report, the majority of pedestrians and drivers surveyed indicated a preference for the CPS signal that displayed the countdown starting with "Walk."…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Countdown pedestrian signals (CPS), which are required for crossings with a pedestrian change interval-also referred to as the "flashing 'Don't Walk' " (FDW) interval-of more than 7 s, inform pedestrians of the time remaining in the pedestrian change interval (4, Section 4E.07, Paragraph 01). Such countdowns are only to be displayed during the pedestrian change interval, although initiation of the countdown display with the onset of the "Walk" signal has been advocated (5). Currently, the CPS is required to be presented simultaneously with the flashing upraised hand symbol during the pedestrian change interval (4, Section 4E.07, Paragraph 03).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Countdown-Only Pedestrian Change Interval Displays

Scott

Swenson

Bentzen³

et al. 2013

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effect of visual pedestrian signal displays on the ability of persons with reduced visual acuity to accurately and confidently identify the pedestrian interval. While watching video clips of actual intersections presented on a 42-in. monitor under simulated visual impairment, participants attempted to determine the pedestrian interval (“Walk,” flashing “Don't Walk,” or steady “Don't Walk”) and provided confidence ratings for each judgment. Participants in Experiment 1 experienced simulated acuities of 20/70, 20/100, and 20/200; participants in Experiment 2 experienced approximate acuities of 20/20, 20/50, and 20/300. The study made a critical comparison of two methods of signaling the pedestrian change interval (i.e., flashing “Don't Walk”): (a) simultaneous presentation of a countdown and a flashing upraised hand symbol and (b) a countdown-only display without the flashing upraised hand. With the exception of performance in the 20/300 vision category, participants' accuracy on the interval discrimination task was, overall, rather high. However, under simulated visual impairment of 20/70 or worse, participants' success in correctly determining the pedestrian interval was, on average, 21.5 percentage points lower for the countdown display presented without the flashing upraised hand than for the countdown display with the upraised hand. The participants' average reported confidence in their judgment was also lower for the countdown-only condition, and their interval judgment response times also showed a negative effect of the countdown-only display. Implications of the study findings with regard to visual impairment and signal displays for the pedestrian change interval are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%