[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-608204-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-608204-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","safety-effects-of-marked-versus-unmarked-crosswalks-at-uncontrolled-locations-final-report-and-recommended-guidelines","Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations - Final Report and Recommended Guidelines","","Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system and must be able to cross streets safely. The study determines whether marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks across varied traffic and roadway conditions, and provides recommendations for pedestrian crossing improvements. Analysis uses five years of pedestrian crash data from 1,000 marked crosswalk sites and 1,000 matched unmarked comparison locations with no traffic signal or stop sign at approaches, including traffic volume, exposure, lanes, median type, speed limit, and other variables. Poisson and negative binomial regression models support findings that vary by road type and traffic volume.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/safety-effects-of-marked-versus-unmarked-crosswalks-at-uncontrolled-locations-final-report-and-recommended-guidelines/608204/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/safety-effects-of-marked-versus-unmarked-crosswalks-at-uncontrolled-locations-final-report-and-recommended-guidelines/608204.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Marglet","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-03","2026-10-17",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",10,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is the purpose of the study on crosswalk markings at uncontrolled locations?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The study evaluates whether marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks under different traffic and roadway conditions and provides recommendations for safer pedestrian crossings.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How was the study data collected and analyzed?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"Researchers analyzed five years of pedestrian crashes from 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 matched unmarked comparison sites with no traffic signal or stop sign at approaches. Variables included traffic volume, pedestrian exposure, number of lanes, median type, speed limit, and other site factors, using Poisson and negative binomial regression models.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What were the main safety findings for marked versus unmarked crosswalks?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"On two-lane roads, a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location showed no difference in pedestrian crash rate compared with an unmarked crosswalk. On multilane roads with traffic volumes above about 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk alone was associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate after controlling for site factors.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},608204,1792452680,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,120,123,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":117,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":119},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":118,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":118,"slug":122},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":125},"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},2336477982702,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_9964176cb1d06d4a9deccf72a44ae3dc","Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations  \nFinal Report and  \nRecommended Guidelines  \nFHWA PUBLICATION NUMBER: HRT-04-100 SEPTEMBER 2005  \nResearch, Development, and Technology Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 6300 Georgetown Pike  \nMcLean, VA 22101-2296  \nFOREWORD  \nThe Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program’s overall goal is to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety and mobility. From better crosswalks, sidewalks, and pedestrian technologies to expanding public educational and safety programs, FHWA’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Program strives to pave the way for a more walkable future. The following document presents the results of a study that examined the safety of pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks and provides recommended guidelines for pedestrian crossings. The crosswalk study was part of a large FHWA study,“Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities,” that has produced a number of other documents regarding the safety of pedestrian crossings and the effectiveness of innovative engineering treatments on pedestrian safety. It is hoped that readers also will read the reports documenting the results of the related pedestrian safety studies. The results of this research will be useful to transportation engineers, planners, and safety professionals who are involved in improving pedestrian safety and mobility.  \nMichael F. Trentacoste  \nDirector, Office of Safety Research and Development  \nNOTICE  \nThis document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.  \nThe U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document.  \nQUALITY ASSURANCE STATEMENT  \nThe Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.  \nTechnical Report Documentation Page  \n\n| 1. Report No.\u003Cbr>FHWA–HRT–04–100 | 2. Government Accession No. |  | 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. |  |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| 4. Title and Subtitle\u003Cbr>Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations: Final Report and Recommended Guidelines |  |  | 5. Report Date August 2005 |  |\n|  |  |  | 6. Performing Organization Code |  |\n| 7. Author(s): Charles V. Zegeer, J. Richard Stewart, Herman H. Huang, Peter A. Lagerwey, John Feaganes, and B.J. Campbell |  |  | 8. Performing Organization Report No. |  |\n| 9. Performing Organization Name and Address\u003Cbr>University of North Carolina\u003Cbr>Highway Safety Research Center\u003Cbr>730 Airport Rd., CB \\# 3430\u003Cbr>Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3430 |  |  | 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) |  |\n|  |  |  | 11. Contract or Grant No.\u003Cbr>DTFH61–92–C–00138 |  |\n| 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address\u003Cbr>Office of Safety Research and Development\u003Cbr>Federal Highway Administration\u003Cbr>6300 Georgetown Pike\u003Cbr>McLean, VA 22101-2296 |  |  | 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Final Report: October 1996–March 2001 |  |\n|  |  |  | 14. Sponsoring Agency Code |  |\n| 15. Supplementary Notes\u003Cbr>This report is part of a larger study for FHWA entitled “Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities.” FHWA Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives (COTRs): Carol Tan and Ann Do, HRDS. |  |  |  |  |\n| 16. Abstract\u003Cbr>Pedestrians are legitimate users of the transportation system, and they should, therefore, be able to use this sys","cbCaimh2IyyI7WZ6","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaimh2IyyI7WZ6","pdf",3374112,114,"English","# Foreword\n# Notice\n# Quality Assurance Statement\n# Technical Report Documentation Page\n## Report Overview and Purpose\n## Study Design and Data\n## Key Findings\n## Recommended Improvements","[{\"question\":\"What is the purpose of the study on crosswalk markings at uncontrolled locations?\",\"answer\":\"The study evaluates whether marked crosswalks at uncontrolled locations are safer than unmarked crosswalks under different traffic and roadway conditions and provides recommendations for safer pedestrian crossings.\"},{\"question\":\"How was the study data collected and analyzed?\",\"answer\":\"Researchers analyzed five years of pedestrian crashes from 1,000 marked crosswalks and 1,000 matched unmarked comparison sites with no traffic signal or stop sign at approaches. Variables included traffic volume, pedestrian exposure, number of lanes, median type, speed limit, and other site factors, using Poisson and negative binomial regression models.\"},{\"question\":\"What were the main safety findings for marked versus unmarked crosswalks?\",\"answer\":\"On two-lane roads, a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location showed no difference in pedestrian crash rate compared with an unmarked crosswalk. On multilane roads with traffic volumes above about 12,000 vehicles per day, having a marked crosswalk alone was associated with a higher pedestrian crash rate after controlling for site factors.\"}]","Safety Effects of Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations - Final Report and Recommended Guidelines | PDF",1792223255,287]