Observational Study: Pedestrians Right of Way

1. Observational Study:Pedestrians Right of Way Kiera Kenney Liz Lewallen Jason Sarvey

2. 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

3. 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.

4. Driver/Pedestrian Laws (Cont.) • 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.

5. 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.

6. Topic • Determine crosswalk behavior • In both the mall and supermarket parking lots • Determine if gender has a difference in ability to cross • More males or more females can cross • Observe if gender of driver influences the same/opposite gender’s ability to cross • Male drivers allow more females to cross, female drivers allow more males to cross, etc.

7. Data Collection • Crosswalks at Montgomeryville Mall & Wegmans Supermarket • 40 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.)

8. Tests We Used • Two Proportion Z-Test • Comparing location (mall or supermarket) • Two Proportion Z-Test • Comparing gender’s ability to cross (male/female) • Chi-Squared Test for Association • Comparing gender of driver to gender of crosser

9. 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

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

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

12. Exploratory Data Analysis Montgomeryville Mall • 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 malldue to more parking availabilities • Time of day affects number allowed to cross Wegmans Supermarket

13. 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

14. 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

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

16. Exploratory data Analysis Montgomeryville Mall • 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 Wegmans Supermarket

17. Assumptions for Chi-Squared Test State • 2 Independent SRS • All expected counts ≥ 5 Check • Systematic Random Sample (Every 3 cars) • 40 ≥ 5

18. 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

19. Overall, the gender of the driver does not influence the ability of the crosser to cross the crosswalk.

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. Sources • PennDot • http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Pedestrian/web/laws.htm • Light Guard • http://www.lightguardsystems.com/companyHistory.shtml