Evaluating current and future pedestrian mid-block crossing safety treatments using virtual reality simulation
Austin Valentine Angulo,Erin Robartes,Xiang Guo,T Donna Chen,Arsalan Heydarian,Brian L Smith
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2024.107715
Abstract:Virtual reality (VR) simulation offers a proactive, cost effective, immersive, and low risk platform for studying pedestrian safety. Within immersive virtual environments (IVEs), existing and alternative design conditions and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) technologies can be directly compared, prior to real-world implementation, to assess the impacts alternatives may have on pedestrian safety, perception, and behavior. Environmental factors can be controlled within IVEs so that test trials are replicable and directly comparable. Coupled with stated preference feedback, participants' observed preferences and behavior provide a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of proposed design alternatives. This research presents a case study of pedestrian behavior with three different mid-block crossing safety treatments modeled within a one-to-one scale IVE replication of a real-world location in Charlottesville, Virginia. The three safety treatments consider both passive and active collision avoidance designs and technologies, including (1) the existing painted crosswalk, (2) the addition of rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), and (3) a pedestrian to everything (P2X) ITS phone application. Additionally, this paper demonstrates a VR simulation experimental design and framework for testing pedestrian safety treatments within naturalistic and replicable IVEs to assess both stated and observed preferences and behaviors of pedestrians. Repeated measures ANOVA indicated changes in both accepted gap size (p = 0.001) and crossing speed (p < 0.001) with alternative safety treatments. Generalized mixed models showed that pedestrians waited for statistically larger gap sizes (p = 0.02) without the assistance of alternative safety technologies (RRFBs and P2X application) and pedestrians crossed the street significantly faster (p = 0.001) without the alternative safety technologies, leading to unsafe dashing behavior. Through post-experiment surveys, it was found that participants perceived the As Built environment to be the least safe of the three treatments and that their sense of risk within the IVE was realistic. Considering both the observed crossing behavior and stated feedback, pedestrians exhibited intentionally unsafe darting behavior without assistive safety technology. This study demonstrates how VR simulation may be leveraged to study both stated preferences and observed behavior for understanding the safety implications of alternative roadway designs, providing a proactive approach for assessing and designing for pedestrian safety.