Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 149

PERCEPTIONS OF PRIORITY RULES

AT PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS BY
PEDESTRIANS AND DRIVERS
June 2004

Julie Hatfield and R.F. Soames Job,
School of Psychology,
University of Sydney.




Contact Details:

Dr J ulie Hatfield
Senior Research Fellow
NSW Injury Risk Management Research Centre
Level 8, Applied Science Building
The University of NSW, 2052
Phone: +61 +2 9385 7949
Fax: +61 +2 9385 6040
email: j.hatfield@unsw.edu.au
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of contents ...........................................................................................................1
List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................4
Executive summary.......................................................................................................7
Background.......................................................................................................................... 7
Methods ................................................................................................................................ 8
Results and discussion: Observations................................................................................ 8
Results and discussion: Survey......................................................................................... 10
Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way..............................................10
Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling in the same direction as the pedestrian and
turning left on a green light, at a 4-way intersection.................................................................10
Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling against the pedestrian and turning right on a
green light..................................................................................................................................10
Crossing on flashing Dont Walk, or Dont Walk, with traffic initially travelling in the
same direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a green light, at a 4-way intersection.......10
Pedestrian right of way in remaining situations.....................................................................11
Taking right of way in remaining situations..........................................................................11
Crossing near, but not at, a marked pedestrian crossing............................................................12
Not giving way at a paved section of road................................................................................12
Overtaking a stationary vehicle at a marked pedestrian intersection.........................................12
Beliefs about consequences of inappropriately taking right of way...........................................12
Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling in the same direction as the pedestrian and
turning left on a green light, at a 4-way intersection.................................................................13
Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling against the pedestrian and turning right on a
green light..................................................................................................................................13
Situations for starting to cross on a flashing Dont Walk signal ................................................14
Attitudes towards pedestrian road use...........................................................................................14
Perceived relative skills as a pedestrian.........................................................................................14
Comparison of Goulburn with Glebe and with Chatswood...........................................................14
Relationships of belief in pedestrian right of way in key situations with personal characteristics
.......................................................................................................................................................15
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 15
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 16
Background.................................................................................................................17
Methods .......................................................................................................................19
Design ................................................................................................................................. 19
Sample selection................................................................................................................. 20
Materials............................................................................................................................. 25
Procedures.......................................................................................................................... 37
Results: Observations..................................................................................................39
Sources of sample .............................................................................................................. 39
Sample characteristics....................................................................................................... 40
Characteristics of crossing behaviour ............................................................................. 41
Pedestrian signal at the start of crossing and attention to traffic ................................. 44
2
Pedestrian signal at the start of crossing and conflict .................................................... 45
Pedestrian signal at the start of crossing and my right of way response.............. 46
Pedestrian signal at start of crossing and pedestrian characteristics ........................... 47
Results: Survey............................................................................................................48
Sources of sample .............................................................................................................. 48
Sample characteristics: Demographic characteristics ................................................... 49
Sample characteristics: Road use..................................................................................... 51
Sample characteristics: Involvement in road-crossing incidents .................................. 53
Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way ............................ 55
Showcard 7: Depicting a person crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling in the same
direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a green light, at a 4-way intersection. ...................56
Showcard 10: Depicting person crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling against the
pedestrian and turning right on a green light.................................................................................60
Showcard 1: Depicting a person crossing on flashing Dont Walk with traffic initially travelling
in the same direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a green light, at a 4-way intersection.64
Showcard 4: Depicting a person crossing on Dont Walk with traffic initially travelling in the
same direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a green light, at a 4-way intersection...........68
Showcard 6: Depicting a person crossing on Dont Walk with traffic initially travelling
perpendicular to the pedestrian and turning left on a red light with a Left turn permitted after
stopping sign, at a 4-way intersection..........................................................................................72
Showcard 2: Depicting a person waiting at a zebra crossing with nearside traffic approaching, on
a straight stretch of road................................................................................................................76
Showcard 9: Depicting a person crossing at a zebra crossing with nearside traffic approaching, on
a straight stretch of road................................................................................................................80
Showcard 5: Depicting a person crossing at a zebra crossing with farside traffic approaching, on a
straight stretch of road...................................................................................................................84
Showcard 8: Depicting person crossing at a pedestrian island with nearside traffic approaching,
on a straight stretch of road............................................................................................................88
Showcard 3: Depicting a person crossing without a marked crossing with nearside traffic
approaching, on a straight stretch of road......................................................................................92
Beliefs about legalities related to various intersection types ......................................... 96
Crossing near, but not at, a marked pedestrian crossing................................................................96
not giving way at a paved section of road......................................................................................98
Driver overtaking a stationary vehicle at a marked crossing.......................................................101
Situations for starting to cross on a flashing Dont Walk signal ............................. 104
Attitudes regarding pedestrian road use....................................................................... 106
Perceived relative skills as a pedestrian ........................................................................ 110
Perceived danger of being a pedestrian......................................................................... 112
Relationships of personal characteristics with belief in pedestrian right of way in
key situations.................................................................................................................... 113
Summary and Discussion .........................................................................................114
Observational study ........................................................................................................ 114
Survey............................................................................................................................... 117
Limitations with the present research..........................................................................................117
Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way............................................122
Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling in the same direction as the pedestrian and
turning left on a green light, at a 4-way intersection...............................................................122
Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling against the pedestrian and turning right on a
green light................................................................................................................................123
3
Crossing on flashing Dont Walk or Dont Walk with traffic initially travelling in the same
direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a green light, at a 4-way intersection..............125
Pedestrian right of way in remaining situations...................................................................127
Taking right of way in remaining situations........................................................................127
Likelihood of getting caught in remaining situations..............................................................129
Likelihood of fine and mean fine in remaining situations.......................................................129
Likelihood of demerit points and mean demerit points in remaining situations......................130
Crossing near, but not at, a marked pedestrian crossing..........................................................132
Not giving way at a paved section of road..............................................................................133
Overtaking a stationary vehicle at a marked pedestrian intersection.......................................134
Situations for starting to cross on a flashing Dont Walk signal ..............................................136
Attitudes towards pedestrian road use.........................................................................................137
Perceived relative skills as a pedestrian.......................................................................................138
Relationships of belief in pedestrian right of way in key situations with personal characteristics
.....................................................................................................................................................139
Recommendations .....................................................................................................140
Summary....................................................................................................................143
References .................................................................................................................144
Acknowledgement .....................................................................................................144
Appendix A: Observation sheet ................................................................................145
Appendix B: Pedestrian questionnaire.....................................................................146
Appendix C: Driver questionnaire ...........................................................................147
Appendix D: Carpark record sheet...........................................................................148

4

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1: Diagram of location in Glebe showing intersection of Glebe Point Rd and
St Johns Rd where observations and interviews were conducted, and Broadway
Shopping Centre carpark where interviews were conducted. ...................................21
Figure 2: Diagram of location in Chatswood showing intersection of Albert Ave
and Victor St where observations and interviews were conducted, and carparks on
Albert St and at Chatswood Chase where interviews were conducted. .....................22
Figure 3: Diagram of location in Goulburn showing intersection of Auburn St with
Clifford St and Montague St where observations and interviews were conducted,
and carparks on Auburn St and at malls where interviews were conducted............23
Figure 4: Showcard 7 depicting a person crossing on Walk with traffic initially
travelling in the same direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a green light,
at a 4-way intersection. ...............................................................................................28
Figure 5: Showcard 10 depicting person crossing on Walk with traffic initially
travelling against the pedestrian and turning right on a green light........................28
Figure 6: Showcard 1 depicting a person crossing on flashing Dont Walk with
traffic initially travelling in the same direction as the pedestrian and turning left on
a green light, at a 4-way intersection. ........................................................................29
Figure 7: Showcard 4 depicting a person crossing on Dont Walk with traffic
initially travelling in the same direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a
green light, at a 4-way intersection. ...........................................................................29
Figure 8: Showcard 6 depicting a person crossing on Dont Walk with traffic
initially travelling perpendicular to the pedestrian and turning left on a red light
with a Left turn permitted after stopping sign, at a 4-way intersection. ...............30
Figure 9: Showcard 2 depicting a person waiting at a zebra crossing with nearside
traffic approaching, on a straight stretch of road. ....................................................30
Figure 11: Showcard 5 depicting a person crossing at a zebra crossing with farside
traffic approaching, on a straight stretch of road. ....................................................31
Figure 12: Showcard 8 depicting person crossing at a pedestrian island with
nearside traffic approaching, on a straight stretch of road.......................................32
Figure 13: Showcard 3 depicting a person crossing without a marked crossing with
nearside traffic approaching, on a straight stretch of road.......................................32
Figure 14: Question template applied to each of the situations depicted in the first
ten showcards, from the driver version of the interview........................................34
Figure 15: Showcard 11 depicting a paved section of road that may be mistaken for
a pedestrian crossing...................................................................................................35
Table 1: Number of respondents observed at each location in Metropolitan Sydney;
Glebe and Chatswood, and a NSW Regional Centre; Goulburn. .............................39
Table 2: Demographic characteristics of pedestrians observed at intersection sites
5
in Metropolitan Sydney; Glebe and Chatswood, and a NSW Regional Centre;
Goulburn. ....................................................................................................................40
Table 3: Crossing behaviour of respondents observed at intersection sites in
Metropolitan Sydney: Glebe and Chatswood, and a NSW Regional Centre;
Goulburn. ....................................................................................................................42
Table 4: Observed attention to traffic amongst pedestrians who began crossing on a
Walk signal, a Dont Walk signal and a Dont Walk-Flashing signal in
situations where the parallel traffic signal was green. ..............................................44
Table 5: Observed conflict involvement of pedestrians who began crossing on a
Walk signal, a Dont Walk-Flashing signal and a Dont Walk signal in
situations where the parallel traffic signal was green. ..............................................45
Table 6: Observed my right response from drivers and pedestrians when
pedestrians began crossing on a Walk signal, a Dont Walk-Flashing signal
and a Dont Walk signal in situations where the parallel traffic signal was green.
......................................................................................................................................46
Table 7: Characteristics of observed pedestrians who began crossing on a Walk
signal, a flashing Dont Walk signal and a Dont Walk signal in situations
where the adjacent traffic signal was green...............................................................47
Table 8: Number of respondents who completed the pedestrian and driver versions
of the questionnaires at intersection and carpark sites in Glebe, Chatswood, and
Goulburn, (showing % of nondrivers for Pedestrian Questionnaire). .....................48
Table 9: Demographic characteristics of respondents interviewed at locations in
Glebe, Chatswood and Goulbourn. ............................................................................49
Table 10: Road Use profiles of Pedestrian and Driver respondents sampled at
Intersections and Carpark sites ..................................................................................51
Table 11: Prevalence and Profile of Road-Crossing Incidents of Pedestrian and
Driver respondents sampled at intersection and carpark sites..................................53
Table 12: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 7, by questionnaire version, and site. .....................57
Table 13: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 10, by questionnaire version, and site. ...................61
Table 14: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 1, by questionnaire version, and site. .....................65
Table 15: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 4, by questionnaire version, and site. .....................69
Table 16: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 6, by questionnaire version, and site. .....................73
Table 17: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 2, by questionnaire version, and site. .....................77
Table 18: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 9, by questionnaire version, and site. .....................81
Table 19: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
6
situation depicted in Showcard 5, by questionnaire version, and site. .....................85
Table 20: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 8, by questionnaire version, and site. .....................89
Table 21: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 3, by questionnaire version, and site. .....................93
Table 22: Beliefs about legalities related to crossing near, but not at, a marked
pedestrian crossing, by questionnaire version, and site. .........................................96
Table 23: Beliefs about legalities related to not giving way to a pedestrian at a
paved section of road, by questionnaire version, and site. ......................................98
Table 24: Beliefs about legalities related to overtaking a stationary vehicle at a
marked crossing, by questionnaire version, and site. ............................................101
Table 25: Percentage of respondents who would begin crossing on a flashing
Dont Walk signal, by questionnaire version and site. ........................................104
Table 26: Mean rating of agreement with statements expressing attitudes regarding
pedestrian road use, by questionnaire version and site...........................................106
Table 27: Mean rating of perceived relative skills as a pedestrian compared to the
average pedestrian by questionnaire version and site .............................................110
Table 28: Mean estimate of the number of pedestrians killed each year in NSW by
questionnaire version and site. .................................................................................112
Table 29: Summary of descriptives, by questionnaire version (Ped=pedestrian
versus driver) where appropriate, for questions regarding situations in Showcards
1-10. ...........................................................................................................................119
Table 30: Summary of differences between questionnaire version (P=pedestrian
versus D=driver), site (I=intersection versus C=carpark), & location (G=Goulburn,
Gl=Glebe, C=Chatswood), for questions regarding the situations in Showcards 1-10
....................................................................................................................................120
Table 31: Summary of descriptives, by questionnaire version (Ped=pedestrian
versus driver) where appropriate, for questions regarding legality of 3 situations.
....................................................................................................................................131
Table 32: Summary of differences between questionnaire version (P=pedestrian
versus D=driver), site (I=intersection versus C=carpark), & location (G=Goulburn,
Gl=Glebe, C=Chatswood), for questions regarding legality of 3 situations ...........132

7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

BACKGROUND
Pedestrian casualties represent a substantial proportion of road trauma, especially
amongst the elderly. Further, pedestrian casualties tend to be relatively severe.
Of crashes involving pedestrians in 2000, at least 79.3% occurred while the pedestrian
was crossing the road. About 2.7% of pedestrian deaths and 6.4% of pedestrian injuries
occurred in collisions with vehicles turning left and right at traffic light controlled
intersections (RTA, 2001).
Crashes involving pedestrians who are crossing the road may result from poor
understanding of priority rules, especially at signalized intersections. Job (1998) found
that a significant minority of drivers believed they had an automatic right of way when
facing a green light, but turning left or right. In this situation, drivers may be turning
across pedestrians who are facing a green Walk signal that indicates right of way to
the pedestrians. In fact, drivers are required to give way to pedestrians when making a
turn, and at all times to give way to pedestrians if there is a danger of colliding with them
(RTA, Road User's Handbook, 2000).
Any confusion surrounding right of way in the situation described above may be
exacerbated by people endorsing different priority behaviours when driving versus
walking.
The present study aimed to redress the lack of research investigating road-users beliefs
and attitudes relating to priority rules at signalized intersections (as well as other forms of
crossing), in order to inform countermeasures designed to reduce pedestrian road
trauma.

8
METHODS
Pedestrians were observed and/or interviewed at intersections in Goulburn, Glebe, and
Chatswood. Interviews with drivers were conducted at nearby carparks.
Observers recorded characteristics of the pedestrian (e.g. gender and age) and their
crossing (e.g. the signal at the start of crossing for the pedestrian and intersecting traffic,
whether the pedestrian looked for traffic or waited for traffic to stop before starting to
cross, whether the pedestrian experienced conflict with traffic, and details of such
conflict).
Two versions of the structured interview were employed in similar number at each site.
One aimed to focus respondents on the pedestrian role (for example, by asking them to
imagine themselves in the pedestrian role). The other version of the questionnaire aimed
to focus respondents on the driver role in a similar manner.
The interview assessed demographic variables, exposure and experience as a pedestrian
and as a driver (order depending on the version of the questionnaire), beliefs about
right of way in several situations displayed on showcards (e.g. a driver facing a green
disk turns left across a pedestrian facing a green Walk signal; see Figures 4 to 13), and
attitudes towards drivers and pedestrians (e.g. pedestrians often cross dangerously,
drivers are inconsiderate of pedestrians). Respondents also identified situations in
which they would start crossing against a flashing Dont Walk signal, and compared
themselves to their average peer in terms of agility, ability to cross the road safely,
walking speed, and ability to judge the distance and speed of cars. Respondents estimated
the number of pedestrians killed in NSW each year, and identified whether they
themselves had ever been hit by a vehicle while crossing the road (and details of any such
incident).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: OBSERVATIONS
2,836 pedestrians were observed at intersections in Glebe, Chatswood, and Goulburn.
The majority of observed pedestrians started crossing on a pedestrian Walk signal.
Nonetheless, in both Glebe and Goulburn a sizeable proportion of the sample started
9
crossing on a pedestrian Dont Walk signal. The majority of pedestrians started
crossing while the traffic signal facing parallel traffic was green, including 1987
pedestrians who crossed on Walk (versus 253 who crossed on one of the Dont
Walk signals).
Rates of looking at traffic and waiting for traffic to stop before crossing were reasonably
high in Glebe and Goulburn, but low to moderate in Chatswood.
Pedestrians observed in Goulburn were less likely than those observed in Glebe to look
at traffic before crossing (and more likely to cross while the signal facing parallel traffic
was red).
Very little conflict between pedestrians and vehicles was observed in any location, and
less in Goulburn than in Sydney. Thus, conflicts and potential conflicts were combined
for remaining analysis, however detailed analysis of conflict situations still lacks statistical
power, and real effects may not reach significance. In 3 of 12 instances of potential
conflict for which vehicle movements were recorded the traffic was facing a green signal
and the pedestrian a green Walk. In two further cases, the traffic was facing a green
signal (and turning left or right) and the pedestrian a flashing Dont Walk.
Pedestrians who began crossing on a Walk signal were less likely to look at the traffic
before crossing, or during crossing, than pedestrians who began crossing on a flashing
Dont Walk , or a Dont Walk signal. However, pedestrians who began crossing on a
Walk signal were more likely to wait for traffic to stop before crossing, possibly because
traffic has already stopped when the pedestrian is facing one of the Dont Walk
signals.
Respondents who began crossing on a Walk signal were significantly older than
respondents who began crossing on either Dont Walk signal, but males and females
did not differ in this respect.
10

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: SURVEY
BELIEFS ABOUT, AND SELF-REPORTED INTENTIONS TOWARDS, RIGHT OF
WAY
In the key situations pedestrian right of way was generally recognised, but some drivers
reported an intention to take right of way nonetheless.
Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling in the same direction as the
pedestrian and turning left on a green light, at a 4-way intersection
The pedestrian was recognised to have right of way by 95.4% of respondents,
independently of whether respondents had just been walking or driving, or were cast in
the role of pedestrian or driver.
Nonetheless only 12.2% of respondents cast in the role of pedestrian reported that they
would take right of way, and 12.4% of respondents cast in the role of driver, reported
that they would.
Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling against the pedestrian and
turning right on a green light
96.6% of respondents recognised that the pedestrian has right of way. Again this did
not differ according to interview site or questionnaire version.
90.9% of respondents cast in the role of pedestrian reported that they would take right
of way, which is substantially more than when the traffic is turning left. However,
12.2% of respondents cast in the role of driver still reported that they would take right
of way, particularly those interviewed at carpark sites.
Crossing on flashing Dont Walk, or Dont Walk, with traffic initially
travelling in the same direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a green
light, at a 4-way intersection
There was a substantial drop in respondents perception that the pedestrian has right of
way when the pedestrian is facing a flashing Dont Walk signal (55.7%), or a Dont
Walk signal (14.7%). Again, these beliefs were not influenced by interview site or
questionnaire version.
11
Results suggest some confusion as to the status of the flashing Dont Walk signal.
57.1% of respondents cast in the role of pedestrian reported that they would take right
of way on a flashing Dont Walk signal, at the same time as 23.5% of respondents
cast in the role of driver reported that they would.
On a Dont Walk signal, 29.2% of pedestrians said they would take right of way,
at the same time as 36.8% of drivers said that they would.
Pedestrian right of way in remaining situations
When a pedestrian is crossing while facing a Dont Walk signal, the situation of traffic
initially travelling perpendicular turning left on a red light with a Left turn permitted
after stopping sign produced a roughly similar perception of pedestrian right of way
(15.2%), to the situation of traffic initially travelling parallel turning left on a green light
(14.7%).
The situations involving a pedestrian crossing on a zebra crossing produced a
consistently high perception of pedestrian right of way (on average, 93.8%; similar to a
pedestrian facing Walk with green-facing traffic turning across them). A lower
perception of pedestrian right of way was observed when a pedestrian is waiting beside
a zebra crossing (71.1%).
A pedestrian crossing toward a pedestrian island was seen to have right of way by only
21% of the sample, but by more of the sample than for a pedestrian crossing without a
marked crossing (7.7%).
There was no influence of questionnaire version, or site, on any of these perceptions.
Taking right of way in remaining situations
In keeping with most situations discussed earlier, there was a rough correspondence
between perception of pedestrian right of way, and reports of taking right of way.
Further, a strong perception of right of way tended to produce a difference between
respondents to the pedestrian versus driver versions of the questionnaire.
In situations involving a pedestrian crossing on a zebra crossing, 85.4% of pedestrian
questionnaire respondents said that they would take right of way. Driver questionnaire
respondents appeared to be influenced by whether the traffic was nearside (16.2%
reported that they would take right of way) or farside (when 34.3% said that they
12
would take right of way). When the pedestrian is waiting beside the crossing, 71.3% of
pedestrian questionnaire respondents reported that they would take right of way, and
34.1% of driver questionnaire respondents reported that they would.
When a pedestrian is crossing toward a pedestrian island about 35% of both pedestrian
and driver questionnaire respondents report that they would take right of way.
When a pedestrian is crossing at an unmarked stretch of road, 27.2% of pedestrian
questionnaire respondents reported that they would take right of way, and 42.4% of
driver questionnaire respondents reported that they would.
Clarification of priority rules at these types of crossing thus appears to be warranted.
Crossing near, but not at, a marked pedestrian crossing.
Generally, results in relation to this situation were pleasing. 84.7% of respondents
reported that it is against the law for a pedestrian to cross near, but not at, a marked
pedestrian crossing (independently of interview site or questionnaire version).
Not giving way at a paved section of road
Results confirm that there is confusion surrounding the status of paved sections of road.
39.7% of the sample reported that it is illegal for a car not to give way at paved section of
road (independently of interview site or questionnaire version). Considering that only
7.7% of the sample think that a pedestrian has right of way at an unmarked section of
road, around 30% of the sample appear to think that paving indicates a pedestrian right
of way when otherwise there would be none.
Overtaking a stationary vehicle at a marked pedestrian intersection.
Generally, results in relation to this situation are pleasing. Overtaking a stationary vehicle
is recognised to be illegal by 91.7% of the sample. The behaviour was less likely to be
recognised as illegal by respondents interviewed at intersections (vs carparks).
BELIEFS ABOUT CONSEQUENCES OF INAPPROPRIATELY TAKING RIGHT
OF WAY
Respondents were asked If you dont have right of way and you take it, about how
likely are you to get caught? Is there a fine? and, for the driver version of the
questionnaire only, would you lose any points from your licence? When respondents
13
thought they had right of way, and appeared to find this question nonsensical,
interviewers did not push for a response. Nonetheless, results were consistent with the
possibility that some respondents misinterpreted the question by ignoring the conditional
phrase.
That is, for most situations, estimates of the likelihood of getting caught (or fined, or
demerit points) corresponded with beliefs about right of way. The tendency for
respondents cast in the role of pedestrian to make lower estimates than did respondents
cast in the role of driver was most pronounced in situations where there was a strong
perception of pedestrian right of way.
Further, ratings generally averaged around 1 in 100, and this may indicate room for
improvement in the sensitivity of the scale.
Generally, a sizeable proportion of the sample reported that they did not know whether
there was a fine (up to 23.9%), or demerit points (up to 26.4%).
Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling in the same direction as the
pedestrian and turning left on a green light, at a 4-way intersection
Respondents interviewed at intersections gave higher ratings than respondents at
carparks.
13.7% of respondents who were cast in the role of pedestrian reported that they could be
fined for taking right of way, whereas 52.5% of respondents who were cast in the role
of driver felt that they could be fined.
Many drivers reported that they did not know whether they could be fined (17.3%) or
receive demerit points (23.0%) for taking right of way in this situation.
Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling against the pedestrian and
turning right on a green light
Results relating to perceived consequences for taking right of way were very similar to
those observed for the previous situation.

14
SITUATIONS FOR STARTING TO CROSS ON A FLASHING DONT WALK
SIGNAL
Quite a high proportion of the sample reported that they would start crossing on a
flashing Dont Walk signal
when cars are a long way away (72.5%),
when the signal has just started flashing (73.5%),
when there are no cars in sight (79.0%), and
when it is safe to do so (85.2%).
Thus, perceived safety appears to be an important consideration in the decision to start
crossing on a Dont Walk signal. Given peoples tendency to underestimate their
vulnerability this is concerning.
ATTITUDES TOWARDS PEDESTRIAN ROAD USE
There was recognition that both pedestrians and drivers can contribute to problems on
the roads.
Respondents tended to disagree that there should be more time for cars at traffic lights.
Respondents who were asked to put themselves in a pedestrian role appeared to have a
more favourable view of pedestrians. They demonstrated lower agreement that
pedestrians should avoid holding up traffic, and that pedestrians are a traffic hazard, and
higher agreement that pedestrians should have as many rights as drivers.
The rate of pedestrian fatalities on NSW roads was overestimated.
PERCEIVED RELATIVE SKILLS AS A PEDESTRIAN
Respondents estimated that their agility, their ability to cross the road safely, their
walking speed and their ability to judge the distance and speed of approaching cars, was
better than average.
COMPARISON OF GOULBURN WITH GLEBE AND WITH CHATSWOOD
For almost all situations (including the two key situations) respondents who were
interviewed in Goulburn
15
reported being less likely to take right of way,
gave higher estimates of their chance of getting caught for taking right of way,
and
were more likely to report that they could be fined, or receive demerit points, for
taking right of way,
than respondents who were interviewed in at least one urban location.
For 5 of the 10 showcard situations, Goulburn residents were less likely to report that
the pedestrian had right of way, perhaps suggesting a car culture. Similarly,
respondents in Goulburn were more likely to think it illegal for a pedestrian to cross
near, but not at, a marked pedestrian crossing, but less likely to think it illegal for a driver
not to give way to a pedestrian at a paved section of road, or to overtake a stationary
vehicle at a marked pedestrian crossing, than were respondents in urban areas.
Nonetheless, Goulburn respondents did not consistently demonstrate more positive
attitudes toward drivers than toward pedestrians.
Respondents in Goulburn
were less likely to report that they would begin crossing on a flashing Dont
Walk than were respondents in Glebe, and
were less self-enhancing of their road crossing skills than were urban
respondents.
RELATIONSHIPS OF BELIEF IN PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY IN KEY
SITUATIONS WITH PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Personal characteristics were not related to beliefs regarding pedestrian right of way in
the key situations of traffic crossing the path of a pedestrian who is facing a Walk
signal. Thus, relevant campaigns may be generally targeted.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Identify the issues highlighted by this research to relevant authorities, in
particular the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW.
16
2. Consider development of campaigns to emphasise to drivers the need to check
for pedestrians when turning left or right on a green signal (and to grant them
right of way), and to pedestrians the need to pay attention to traffic even when
crossing on Walk.
3. Consider development of campaigns to emphasise to pedestrians that it is unsafe
to cross on Dont Walk.
4. Clarify pedestrian right of way in several crossing situations:
o A pedestrian crossing on a flashing Dont Walk with traffic initially travelling
parallel facing a green signal and turning left
o A pedestrian waiting at a pedestrian crossing
o A pedestrian crossing at a pedestrian refuge
5. Reconsider the rationale for paved crossings, which are poorly understood.
6. Campaigns addressing priority rules need not address pedestrians and drivers
separately

SUMMARY
This study was conducted to determine peoples views about right of way, and
whether these vary according to whether the person identified with the driver or
pedestrian role. From a practical point of view, it is fortunate that results suggest no
systematic differences in peoples views about right of way depending on the role
with which respondents identified. However, results indicate some confusion
surrounding right of way rules at some crossing types. Key findings that may be of
assistance to road safety authorities and practitioners have informed the
recommendations offered in the previous section.

17

BACKGROUND
In 2000, 110 pedestrians were killed and 2,979 were injured in NSW (NSW Roads and
Traffic Authority, 2000a). Thus, pedestrians represented 18.2% of fatalities and 10.3%
of serious injuries in NSW in that year. These data indicate that pedestrian casualties
represent a substantial proportion of road trauma, and that they are relatively severe
(there is a higher proportion of fatalities than of injuries). Amongst the elderly,
pedestrian casualties represent an even higher proportion of road trauma. Thus,
pedestrian safety has deservedly become a focus of research and policy.
Of crashes involving pedestrians in 2000, at least 79.3% occurred while the pedestrian
was crossing the road. About 2.7% of pedestrian deaths and 6.4% of pedestrian injuries
occurred in collisions with vehicles turning left and right at traffic light controlled
intersections (NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, 2001). Job (1998) reported frequent
conflicts between drivers and pedestrians at traffic-signal controlled intersections.
Crashes involving pedestrians who are crossing the road may result from poor
understanding of priority rules, especially at signalized intersections. Generally, a green
traffic signal indicates to drivers that they have right of way when passing through the
intersection in the direction indicated by the signal, and (often simultaneously) a green
Walk signal indicates to pedestrians that they have right of way when crossing.
Conflict may arise when drivers of vehicles facing a green traffic signal are turning left or
right into the street being crossed be a pedestrian facing a green Walk signal [see
Figures 4 and 5]. Job (1998) found that a significant minority of drivers believed they
had an automatic right of way when facing a green light, but turning left or right out of
the street they were traveling on. In fact, drivers are required to give way to pedestrians
when making a turn, and at all times to give way to pedestrians if there is a danger of
colliding with them (NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, 2000b). Any confusion resulting
from misunderstanding of priority rules may be exacerbated by people endorsing
different priority behaviours when driving versus walking.
Thus, improved understanding of the attitudes and behaviour of pedestrians and drivers
in relation to crossing the road at various types of crossing, will provide the basis for
developing countermeasures to substantially reduce pedestrian road trauma.
18
There is a paucity of research investigating road-users beliefs and attitudes relating to
priority rules at signalized intersections, and the present study aimed to redress this lack.
In addition, the study investigated beliefs and attitudes relating to other forms of
crossing (e.g. zebra crossings, paved crossings), which may also be a source of road
trauma.
19

METHODS

DESIGN
The study was conducted in metropolitan Sydney and in Goulburn, in order to assess
differences between urban and rural areas.
Two groups of participants were involved:
1. Pedestrians who have just been walking (and so psychologically identify with
walking). Pedestrians were identified as non-drivers or drivers based on their
response to a relevant question.
2. Drivers who have just been driving (when they psychologically identify with driving).
It was assumed that all drivers are sometimes pedestrians.
Pedestrian behaviour was observed at suitable intersections (2 in Goulburn, 2 in Sydney).
During observation/interview periods, observed pedestrians were approached for
interview after they had completed their crossing. Interviews from drivers were obtained
by approaching drivers after they had parked in carparks (near the intersections at which
pedestrians were observed).
Two versions of the structured interview were employed. One aimed to focus
respondents on the pedestrian role, by asking first about their behaviours as a pedestrian
(e.g. How often do you walk beside a road?) and, in questions about right of way,
asking them to imagine themselves in the pedestrian role, and referring to you, as the
pedestrian and the driver. The other version of the questionnaire aimed to focus
respondents on the driver role, by asking first about their behaviours as a driver (e.g. on
the last weekday, how many hours did you spend driving?) and, in questions about
right of way, asking them to imagine themselves in the pedestrian role, and referring to
you, as the driver and the pedestrian. About half of each of the two groups
(identified above) responded to each version of the interview.
20

SAMPLE SELECTION
Two-way intersections were selected on the basis of having a fairly standard signal
configuration (no left or right turn arrows, and no signs prohibiting left or right turns).
Intersections were also chosen to be near carparks where driver interviews could be
conducted, to avoid unnecessary systematic differences between participants interviewed
at intersection versus carpark sites.
In Sydney, the intersection sites were:
a. Corner of Glebe Point Rd (which runs approximately North-South) and St
Johns Rd, Glebe [Figure 1].
b. Corner of Victor St (which runs approximately North-South) and Albert St,
Chatswood [Figure 2].
The nearby carpark sites were:
a. Broadway Shopping Centre carpark [see Figure 1].
b. Carparks on Albert St. and at Chatswood Chase [see Figure 2].

In Goulburn, the intersection sites were:
c. Corner of Auburn St (which runs North-South) and Clifford St [Figure 3]. This
was originally to be the only intersection in Goulburn, but due to a problem with
a bulb in the signals, observers moved to Corner of Auburn St and Montague St
[Figure 3].
The nearby carpark sites were:
c. First, an off-street carpark behind the shops on Auburn St, which proved to have
too little changeover in vehicles. Then people were approached after parking
their cars on Auburn Street, but because of the short-term nature of the parking,
most refused to be interviewed. Interviews were then completed at carparks in
Argyll Mall and Woolworths [see Figure 3]
21

Figure 1: Diagram of location in Glebe showing intersection of Glebe Point Rd and St
Johns Rd where observations and interviews were conducted, and Broadway
Shopping Centre carpark where interviews were conducted.


22
Figure 2: Diagram of location in Chatswood showing intersection of Albert Ave and
Victor St where observations and interviews were conducted, and carparks on Albert
St and at Chatswood Chase where interviews were conducted.


23
Figure 3: Diagram of location in Goulburn showing intersection of Auburn St with
Clifford St and Montague St where observations and interviews were conducted, and
carparks on Auburn St and at malls where interviews were conducted.
24
Researchers randomly selected pedestrians for observation by choosing the next (after
the observer has finished observing or interviewing another pedestrian) to pass
nominated points on the street and to cross in the researchers observation zone.
During observation/interview periods, researchers randomly selected pedestrians for
interview by choosing the next pedestrian to be observed completing a crossing in the
researchers observation zone after the previous subject had been interviewed.
At carpark sites, drivers were randomly selected for interview, by choosing the next to be
observed leaving a vehicle and to pass the researcher after the previous interview had
been completed.
Only pedestrians and drivers who confirmed that they were over 17 years old in an initial
question were interviewed.
25

MATERIALS
1) Observation sheet (intersection sites only)
Observers made recordings on observation sheets which list pedestrian features and
behaviours in roughly the order in which observations can be made (see Appendix A).
For example, observers can record subjects gender and estimate their age, before
recording whether they cross at a crossing, and before recording the time it takes them to
cross. For each feature and behaviour, response options are listed in rows designated for
each subject, in order to facilitate the observation process. Observation sheets were
tailored to each site following site selection and preliminary observation (e.g. depending
on the specific configuration and timing of the traffic signals).
Observers recorded (in the order they appear on the observation sheet):
- which street pedestrians crossed. In the st xed column the 2 streets comprising the
intersection were signified by the first letters of their name (and the observer circled one
street).
- the gender and the estimated age (in 7 categories listed in Table 2) of the pedestrian.
- the signal at the start of crossing for the pedestrian (NewWalk= the pedestrian starts
crossing when the Walk signal starts, OldWalk= the pedestrian starts crossing when
the Walk signal has been on for some time, DWFlash= Dont Walk-Flashing,
DW= Dont Walk) and governing traffic travelling parallel to the pedestrian crosses
(Red, Yellow, or Green).
- how far from the marked crossing pedestrians began crossing (0m, 1-3m, 3-10m, more
than 10m).
- whether or not the pedestrian looked for traffic before starting to cross.
- whether or not the pedestrian waited for traffic to stop before starting to cross.
- whether the pedestrian or drivers view of each other was obscured (Y:pkdcr=
obscured by a parked car, Y:bus= obscured by a bus, Y:other= observer indicates what
26
object is obscuring the pedestrian and/or drivers view of each other).
- where the pedestrian looked while crossing (one or more of: straight ahead, at the
traffic, or at the ground). For analysis, this was coded to indicate whether or not the
pedestrian looked at traffic while crossing.
- whether the pedestrian experienced conflict with traffic, defined as any situation where
there is a direct physical contact of pedestrian and vehicle. Response options were Yes,
N:nothreat (there was no threat of conflict), N:pedchng ( there was threat of conflict, but
conflict was avoided because the pedestrian changed their path), N:vehchng (there was
threat of conflict, but conflict was avoided because the driver changed their path). For
much of the analysis this was coded as: actual and potential conflict versus no threat of
conflict.
- if there was conflict:
o the traffic signal facing the pedestrian and driver (options as before);
o whether the traffic was travelling straight, turning left, turning right, or
performing some other manoeuvre (identified by observer);
o whether the conflict occurred in the first half of the pedestrians crossing
(i.e. to the point on the road where the direction of traffic flow changes), or
the second half;
o whether the pedestrian stopped, turned back, or walked faster.
- whether or not the pedestrian or driver responded in a way that indicated that they
thought they had right of way. This data was not systematically recorded and so is not
further analysed.
- whether or not the pedestrian stopped while crossing, and where (on the median strip,
in a lane).
- the time taken to cross.
- whether pedestrian was approached for interview, and with what result. If the
pedestrian was interviewed, a unique letter code was entered (and the same code written
on the interview protocol). If the pedestrian was approached and refused interview, a
27
reason was entered if they gave one.
For the present report, the observations that were analysed were: personal characteristics
(gender and age), attention to traffic (looking at, and waiting for, traffic before crossing,
and looking at traffic while crossing), conflict (and details of such conflict), and my
right of way responses.
2) Structured interviews (intersection and carpark sites), including Subject Information
Statement (SIS), consent, and showcards
There are two versions of the structured interview protocol: one emphasizing the
pedestrian role (Appendix B), and one emphasizing the driver role (Appendix C). Both
were administered (alternately) at both intersection and carpark sites.
The front page of the interview protocol was an SIS, read by potential respondents. The
second page was a consent form.
First, respondents were asked their age. This was followed, in the pedestrian version of
the interview, by several questions related to exposure and experience as a pedestrian
(e.g. how often they walk beside a road or cross a road as a pedestrian, with response
options ranging from more than once a day, 3-6 times per week, 1-2 times per week,
between 1 time per week and 1 time per month, less than once per month). Questions
about exposure and experience as a driver (e.g. licence status, years of licensure, hours
spent driving on the last weekday), appeared later in the interview. In the driver
version of the interview, the position of these questions was reversed.
Respondents were then asked to consider ten situations at signalised intersections and
marked or unmarked crossings, using showcards to avoid detailed oral explanations [see
Figures 4-13]. Showcards 7 and 10 [Figures 4 and 5] depicted the situations of primary
relevance to the aims of the present study.
28
Figure 4: Showcard 7 depicting a person crossing on Walk with traffic initially
travelling in the same direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a green light, at
a 4-way intersection.

Figure 5: Showcard 10 depicting person crossing on Walk with traffic initially
travelling against the pedestrian and turning right on a green light.

29
Figure 6: Showcard 1 depicting a person crossing on flashing Dont Walk with traffic
initially travelling in the same direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a green
light, at a 4-way intersection.

Figure 7: Showcard 4 depicting a person crossing on Dont Walk with traffic initially
travelling in the same direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a green light, at
a 4-way intersection.

30
Figure 8: Showcard 6 depicting a person crossing on Dont Walk with traffic initially
travelling perpendicular to the pedestrian and turning left on a red light with a Left
turn permitted after stopping sign, at a 4-way intersection.

Figure 9: Showcard 2 depicting a person waiting at a zebra crossing with nearside
traffic approaching, on a straight stretch of road.
31
Figure 10: Showcard 9 depicting a person crossing at a zebra crossing with nearside
traffic approaching, on a straight stretch of road.

Figure 11: Showcard 5 depicting a person crossing at a zebra crossing with farside
traffic approaching, on a straight stretch of road.

32
Figure 12: Showcard 8 depicting person crossing at a pedestrian island with nearside
traffic approaching, on a straight stretch of road

Figure 13: Showcard 3 depicting a person crossing without a marked crossing with
nearside traffic approaching, on a straight stretch of road.

33
For each situation, the questions shown in Figure 14 (with response options) were asked.
In the pedestrian version of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to imagine that
you are the pedestrian, whereas in the driver version respondents were asked to
imagine that you are the driver. The first and second questions are most pertinent to
the primary aims of the present study. The remaining questions were added to examine
respondents beliefs regarding the likely consequences of taking right of way when they
did not have it. Thus, the questions were prefaced with the conditional phrase, If you
dont have right of way and you take it. Some problems with respondents
interpretation of these questions first became apparent during testing. Interviewers
noticed that many participants who reported that they had right of way, found it very
difficult to imagine that they did not in order to answer the question If you dont have
right of way and you take it, what are your chances of getting caught (and then to
answer later questions relating to fines and demerit points). Such participants were not
forced to answer questions that they found incomprehensible. Inspection of the results
however, suggests that several participants who answered the question misinterpreted it
in a related fashion (see Results and Discussion).
The order of situations was reversed for every second respondent. That is, researchers
conducted one pedestrian version interview and one driver version interview using
Order One (situation 1 through situation 10), followed by one pedestrian version and
one driver version interview using Order Two (situation 10 through situation 1).
Adjustments were made to this if respondents who were to complete the driver version
of the questionnaire reported not holding a licence (these respondents were given the
pedestrian version).
Next, respondents identified whether it is against the law to cross near, but not at, a
marked pedestrian crossing, and how likely a pedestrian would be to get caught if they
did so, and whether there would be a fine.
Respondents then identified whether it is against the law for a driver not to give way to a
pedestrian at a paved section of road as depicted in an 11
th
showcard [Figure 15]. They
also indicted how likely a driver would be to get caught if they did so, and whether there
would be an associated fine (and how much) or demerit points (and how many). The
same questions were asked in relation to a driver overtaking a stationary vehicle at a
marked pedestrian crossing.
34

Figure 14: Question template applied to each of the situations depicted in the first ten
showcards, from the driver version of the interview
a
.

And now, in this situation
Who technically has right of way (whether they take it or not)?
You, as the driver.
The pedestrian.
Dont know.

Would you take right of way (whether you have it or not)?
Yes. No.

If you dont have right of way and you take it,
About how likely are you to get caught? Would it be
1 in 2 occasions.
1 in 5 occasions.
1 in 10 occasions.
1 in 20 occasions.
1 in 50 occasions.
1 in 100 occasions.
1 in 1000 occasions.

is there a fine?
Yes. No. Dont know.
[If Yes] How much? _____

would you lose any points from your licence (i.e. demerit points)?
Yes. No. Dont know.
[If Yes] How many? _____

a
In the pedestrian version of the interview, You, as the driver is replaced by You, as the pedestrian, and The
pedestrian is replaced by The driver, and there are no questions relating to demerit points.
35
Figure 15: Showcard 11 depicting a paved section of road that may be mistaken for a
pedestrian crossing.

Next, respondents rated their agreement with a number of statements identifying
attitudes towards drivers and pedestrians (e.g. pedestrians often cross dangerously,
drivers are inconsiderate of pedestrians) on a fully-labelled, 5-point scale ranging from
strongly agree(1) to strongly disagree (5).
Respondents identified situations in which they would start crossing against a flashing
Dont Walk signal by endorsing as many of the following as applied: there are no cars
in sight; it is safe to do so; cars are a long way off; it just started flashing.
Respondents then compared themselves to their average peer in terms of agility, ability
to cross the road safely, walking speed, and ability to judge the distance and speed of
cars. Ratings were made on a fully-labelled, 7-point scale ranging from much worse than
average to much better than average.
Respondents estimated the number of pedestrians killed in NSW each year. They
identified whether they themselves had ever been hit by a vehicle while crossing the road.
If so, they identified the type of crossing, the phase of the signal (for signalised
intersections), and the movement of the vehicle, at the time.
36
Demographic information (gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, occupation, and
age) was collected.
3) Stop watches (intersection sites only)
Stopwatches were used to measure pedestrian crossing times. If a pedestrian stopped in
the middle of the road, only the second half of their crossing was timed (and this was
indicated on the observation sheet).

4) Carpark interview record sheet (carpark sites only)
Successful and unsuccessful approaches to people in the carparks were recorded on an
interview record sheet (Appendix D), so that response rate could be assessed. (At
intersection sites, the observation sheet served this function).
37

PROCEDURES
At each site, observations and interviews were conducted every week and weekend day.
During the day, session times were roughly 10.00-11.30, 11.45-13.30, 14.30-16.00, 16.45-
18.30. Researchers worked in pairs for safety reasons.
1) Intersection sites
At each intersection site, throughout the day, observation-only sessions were conducted
for approximately 10 minutes, followed by 20 minutes of observation/interviews.
Observers started in Position 1: With Observer 1 on the North-West corner of the
intersection, and Observer 2 diagonally opposite.
Approximately every hour observers swapped to Position 2: With Observer 1 on the
North-East corner of the intersection, and Observer 2 diagonally opposite.
Each observer observed the crossings that were adjacent to them (so both Observers are
never observing the same part of the intersection).
Observer and position were recorded on the observation sheets.
Observations were made as described in the Materials subsection.
During observation/interview periods, each observed pedestrian was approached.
Interviewers introduced the study as described in the SIS. For successful interviews, the
observer marked the interview protocol and observation sheet with matching letters.
Refusals (and any reasons offered) were recorded on the observation sheet.
Researchers conducted one pedestrian version interview and one driver version
interview using Order One (situation 1 through situation 10), followed by one
pedestrian version and one driver version interview using Order Two (situation 10
through situation 1). Adjustments were made to this if respondents who were to
complete the driver version of the questionnaire reported not holding a licence (these
respondents were given the pedestrian version).
38
2) Carpark sites
Researchers positioned themselves so that potential respondents had to walk quite near
them to exit or enter the carpark. They were far enough apart to be catching different
potential respondents. Interviewers approached potential respondents and introduced
the study as described in the SIS. Refusals (and any reasons offered) were recorded on
the interview record sheet.
Again, researchers conducted one pedestrian version interview and one driver
version interview using Order One (situation 1 through situation 10), followed by one
pedestrian version and one driver version interview using Order Two (situation 10
through situation 1)(unless respondents given the driver version reported not holding a
licence).
39

RESULTS: OBSERVATIONS
Data were analysed employing SPSS. A Type 1 error rate of .05 was employed for all
analyses, and all tests were conducted 2-tailed.

SOURCES OF SAMPLE
2,836 participants were observed at intersections in Sydney and Goulburn (see Table 1
for numbers at each location).
Table 1: Number of respondents observed at each location in Metropolitan Sydney;
Glebe and Chatswood, and a NSW Regional Centre; Goulburn.
Metropolitan Sydney NSW Regional Centre
Glebe: 1,603 Goulburn: 421
Chatswood: 812
TOTAL: 2,415 TOTAL: 421

40

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
Because preliminary analysis suggested that pedestrians observed in Glebe differed from
those observed in Chatswood in terms of a range of variables, pedestrians observed at
each of these locations were compared separately to those observed in Goulburn, here in
terms of age and gender (see Table 2). Mean age was computed by replacing the age
ranges with the values given in parentheses in Table 2.
Table 2: Demographic characteristics of pedestrians observed at intersection sites in
Metropolitan Sydney; Glebe and Chatswood, and a NSW Regional Centre; Goulburn.
Glebe Chatswood Goulburn
Age % < 10 (10)
% 10-20 (15)
% 21-30 (25)
% 31-50 (40)
% 51-60 (55)
% 61-70 (65)
% 70 > (70)
Mean
0.3
6.1
34.7
33.1
14.6
6.4
4.8
38.41
1.0
5.9
19.1
34.5
18.1
13.9
7.5
43.81
0.2
3.2
18.2
43.1
19.5
11.6
4.2
43.46
Gender % male
% female
50.5
49.5
49.5
50.5
42.8
57.2

The characteristics of each sample conform roughly to population statistics.
Respondents observed in Goulburn tended to be older than those observed at Glebe
(t
564
=6.22, p< .001), but younger than those observed at Chatswood (t
564
=2.42, p=.016).
Proportionately more female respondents were observed at locations in Goulburn than
in Glebe (x
1
2
= 7.75, p=.005) or in Chatswood (x
1
2
= 4.94, p=.026).
41

CHARACTERISTICS OF CROSSING BEHAVIOUR
Table 3 provides a description of the characteristics of crossing for pedestrians observed
at each location. Again, due to preliminary analysis indicating several critical differences
between Glebe and Chatswood, pedestrians observed in Goulburn were compared to
those observed in Glebe and Chatswood (separately), in terms of these characteristics.
Only significant differences are reported.
The majority of observed pedestrians started crossing on a pedestrian Walk signal,
particularly on a fresh Walk signal. Nonetheless it is concerning that a sizeable
proportion of the samples in both Glebe and Goulburn started crossing on a pedestrian
Dont Walk signal. Similarly, the majority of pedestrians started crossing while the
traffic signal facing parallel traffic was green. Whilst the traffic signal was green, 1987
pedestrians crossed on Walk, 137 crossed on a flashing Dont Walk signal, and 116
crossed on a Dont Walk signal. Thus, the situation of primary concern for this report
is well represented in the data.
Pedestrians observed in Goulburn differed significantly from pedestrians observed
Chatswood in relation to the pedestrian signal at the start of crossing (x
3
2
= 174.29,
p<.001). They appeared less likely to cross on a Walk signal and more likely to cross
on a Dont Walk signal. A similar pattern was observed in Glebe as in Goulburn.
Pedestrians observed in Goulburn were less likely than pedestrians observed in both
Glebe and Chatswood to cross while the signal facing parallel traffic was green (Glebe:
x
2
2
= 44.84, p<.001; Chatswood: x
2
2
= 134.07, p<.001).
Rates of looking at traffic and waiting for traffic to stop before crossing were reasonably
high in Glebe and Goulburn, but low to moderate in Chatswood. Looking at traffic while
crossing was moderate in all locations. It could be argued that pedestrians should not
need to look at or wait for traffic when they are facing a Walk signal, because they
have right of way (although it may be foolhardy to trust that drivers do not make
mistakes or transgressions).

42
Table 3: Crossing behaviour of respondents observed at intersection sites in
Metropolitan Sydney: Glebe and Chatswood, and a NSW Regional Centre; Goulburn.
Glebe Chatswood Goulburn
Pedestrian
signal on start
of crossing
% New Walk
% Old Walk
% Dont Walk- Flashing
% Dont Walk
57.6
17.1
8.2
17.1
91.7
3.3
1.0
3.9
61.6
5.7
5.3
27.4
Traffic signal
(parallel to
crossing)
% Red
% Yellow
% Green
10.9
2.0
87.1
3.5
0.0
96.5
28.9
1.5
69.7
Look at traffic
before crossing
% Yes 84.1

28.2

61.0

Wait for traffic
to stop before
crossing
% Yes

67.1

11.1

65.3

Look at traffic
while crossing
% Yes

19.0

15.7

19.4

Conflict with
traffic

% No threat
% Conflict
% Threat avoided (Ped)
% Threat avoided (Driver)
% Threat avoided (Both)
97.1
0.4
0.8
1.4
0.3
95.9
0.3
0.3
3.6
0.0
92.0
0.0
1.1
6.6
0.3
If conflict,
Traffic move
(n=12)

% Going Straight
% Turning Left
% Turning Right
44.4
33.3
22.2
0.0
100.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
If conflict,
Pedestrian
place
% First half of crossing
% Second half of crossing
55.6
44.4

0.0
100.0
50.0
50.0
Time taken to
cross
Mean
(seconds)
8.32 11.14 11.35

Thus, the finding that pedestrians observed in Goulburn were significantly more likely
than those observed in Chatswood to look at traffic (x
1
2
= 134.07, p<.001), and wait for
the traffic to stop (x
1
2
= 304.16, p<.001), before crossing, may reflect their greater
likelihood of crossing on a Dont Walk signal. Pedestrians observed in Goulburn were
significantly less likely than those observed in Glebe to look at traffic before crossing
(x
1
2
=107.84, p<.001), (and more likely to cross while the signal facing parallel traffic was
red).
Very little conflict between pedestrians and vehicles was observed in any location, and
significantly less in Goulburn than in either Glebe (x
4
2
=20.71, p<.001) or Chatswood
43
(x
4
2
= 7.36, p=.007). Given the small number of observed conflicts (Goulburn: n=0,
Glebe: n=6, and Chatswood: n=2), conflicts and potential conflicts were combined for
remaining analysis, and numbers still remained low (Goulburn: n=28, Glebe: n=46, and
Chatswood: n=33). Thus, detailed analysis of conflict situations lacks statistical power,
and real effects may not reach significance. Further, the vehicle movement and position
of the pedestrian were only recorded in 12 instances of potential conflict. In three of
these the traffic was facing a green signal and the pedestrian a green Walk, and in one
of these the traffic was turning left. In two further cases, the traffic was facing a green
signal (and turning left or right) and the pedestrian a flashing Dont Walk.
44

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL AT THE START OF CROSSING AND ATTENTION TO TRAFFIC
Table 4 presents the percentage of pedestrians who looked at traffic before crossing,
waited for traffic to stop before crossing, or looked at traffic while crossing, by the
pedestrian signal at the start of their crossing. The traffic signal facing parallel traffic was
green in all cases.
Table 4: Observed attention to traffic amongst pedestrians who began crossing on a
Walk signal, a Dont Walk signal and a Dont Walk-Flashing signal in situations
where the parallel traffic signal was green.
Walk
Signal
Dont Walk
Flashing
Signal
Dont
Walk
Signal
Look at traffic
before crossing
% Yes

59.4

72.3

96.6
Wait for traffic
before crossing
% Yes

57.9 41.9 21.2
Look at traffic
while crossing
% Yes

13.6

21.2

37.4


Pedestrians who began crossing on a Walk signal were significantly less likely to look at
the traffic before crossing than pedestrians who began crossing on a flashing Dont
Walk signal (x
1
2
= 8.84, p=.003), or a Dont Walk signal (x
1
2
= 63.81, p<.001).
Pedestrians who began crossing on a Walk signal were significantly more likely to wait
for traffic to stop before crossing than pedestrians who began crossing on a flashing
Dont Walk signal (x
1
2
= 13.30, p<.001), or a Dont Walk signal (x
1
2
= 50.33,
p<.001).
Pedestrians who began crossing on a Walk signal were also significantly less likely to
look at the traffic while crossing than respondents who began crossing on a flashing
Dont Walk signal (x
1
2
= 6.01, p=.014), or a Dont Walk signal (x
1
2
= 48.28, p=.000).
45

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL AT THE START OF CROSSING AND CONFLICT
Table 5 presents the percentage of pedestrians who experienced conflict or potential
conflict, versus no threat of conflict with traffic, by the pedestrian signal at the start of
their crossing. The traffic signal facing parallel traffic was green in all cases.
Table 5: Observed conflict involvement of pedestrians who began crossing on a
Walk signal, a Dont Walk-Flashing signal and a Dont Walk signal in situations
where the parallel traffic signal was green.
Walk
Signal
Dont Walk
Flashing
Signal
Dont
Walk
Signal
Conflict or potential conflict % Yes 3.1 6.7 7.8

Pedestrians who began crossing on a Walk signal were significantly less likely to
experience conflict or potential conflict than pedestrians who began crossing on a
flashing Dont Walk signal (x
1
2
= 7.62, p=.006), or a Dont Walk signal (x
2
= 18.84,
p<.001).
46

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL AT THE START OF CROSSING AND MY RIGHT OF WAY RESPONSE
Table 6 presents the percentage of pedestrians or drivers who made a response
suggesting that they thought they had right of way, by the pedestrian signal at the start
of the pedestrians crossing. The traffic signal facing parallel traffic was green in all cases.
Table 6: Observed my right response from drivers and pedestrians when
pedestrians began crossing on a Walk signal, a Dont Walk-Flashing signal and a
Dont Walk signal in situations where the parallel traffic signal was green.
Walk
Signal
Dont Walk
Flashing
Signal
Dont
Walk
Signal
My right of
way
response
% No response
% Pedestrian
% Driver
2.3
89.8
8.0
n=88
14.3
71.4
14.3
n=7
0.0
100.0
0.0
n=7

There was no significant difference between the Walk signal and either of the other
signals (Dont Walk-Flashing: x
2
2
= 0.15, p=.700; Dont Walk: x
2
2
= 0.24, p=.623),
although this may owe to the low numbers of pedestrians in the Dont Walk signals
cells.
47

PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL AT START OF CROSSING AND PEDESTRIAN CHARACTERISTICS
Table 7 presents the personal characteristics of pedestrians, by the pedestrian signal at
the start of their crossing. The traffic signal facing parallel traffic was green in all cases.
Table 7: Characteristics of observed pedestrians who began crossing on a Walk
signal, a flashing Dont Walk signal and a Dont Walk signal in situations where
the adjacent traffic signal was green.
Walk
Signal
Dont Walk
Flashing
Signal
Dont
Walk
Signal
Age % < 10
% 10-20
% 21-30
% 31-50
% 51-60
% 61-70
% 70 >
Mean
0.7
6.0
26.4
34.4
16.6
9.8
6.2
41.14
0.0
5.1
40.4
41.9
8.8
2.2
1.5
34.96
0.0
3.6
41.1
33.9
11.6
6.3
3.6
37.32
Gender % male
% female
47.6
52.4
55.5
44.5
53.9
46.1

Respondents who began crossing on a Walk signal were significantly older (M
age
=
41.14) than respondents who began crossing on a flashing Dont Walk signal (M
age
=
34.96; t
2115
= 4.41, p<.001), or a Dont Walk signal (M
age
= 37.32; t
2091
= 2.47, p=.014).
There was no significant difference between the proportion of males and females who
began crossing on a Walk signal compared to a flashing Dont Walk signal (x
1
2
=
3.18, p=.074), or a Dont Walk signal (x
1
2
= 1.74, p=.188).
48

RESULTS: SURVEY
Data were analysed employing SPSS. A Type 1 error rate of .05 was employed for all
analyses, and all tests were conducted 2-tailed, unless otherwise indicated.

SOURCES OF SAMPLE
Pedestrians observed in Goulburn were significantly less likely to refuse interview
(41.3%) than pedestrians observed in Glebe (57.2%; x
2
= 33.88, p<.001), but did not
differ significantly from pedestrians observed in Chatswood (42.2%; x
2
= 0.10, p=.755).
The characteristics of the samples collected at Goulburn are compared to those collected
in Glebe and Chatswood in the next Section. The overall response rate is reasonable.
Table 8 presents the number of pedestrians who completed the pedestrian and driver
versions of the questionnaires at intersection and carpark sites in Glebe, Chatswood, and
Goulburn.
Table 8: Number of respondents who completed the pedestrian and driver versions
of the questionnaires at intersection and carpark sites in Glebe, Chatswood, and
Goulburn, (showing % of nondrivers for Pedestrian Questionnaire).
Glebe Chatswood Goulburn
Pedestrian Qaire
Intersection
Carpark


74 (28.4%)
79 (24.1%)

46 (6.5%)
41 (4.9%)

57 (21.1%)
39 (2.6%)
Driver Qaire
Intersection
Carpark

31
53

36
23

53
38

49

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
Because preliminary analysis again suggested that pedestrians observed in Glebe differed
from those observed in Chatswood in terms of a range of variables, pedestrians observed
at each of these locations were compared separately to those observed in Goulburn, in
terms of demographic characteristics (see Table 9). Associations with site and
questionnaire version are unlikely, but are considered nonetheless.
Table 9: Demographic characteristics of respondents interviewed at locations in
Glebe, Chatswood and Goulbourn.
Location
Glebe Chatswood Goulburn
Age % 17-19
% 20-24
% 25-29
% 30-39
% 40-49
% 50-59
% 60-69
% 75+
Mean
4.6
23.2
21.5
21.9
15.2
5.9
3.4
4.2
31.40
3.5
16.0
7.6
10.4
12.5
12.5
14.6
22.9
44.86
7.5
5.9
7.5
14.0
26.3
21.0
12.4
5.4
37.88
Gender % male
% female
52.7
47.3
48.3
51.7
51.6
48.4
Language

% English
% Other
96.6
3.4
94.4
5.6
98.4
1.6
Occupation % Student
% Managerial/
profession/ para-prof
% Clerical/ sales/
trade/ machine opp.
% Labourer
% Unemployed/ home
duties/ retired
% Other
% No record
21.5%

31.6%

8.9%
7.6%

4.6%
23.6%
2.1%
11.6%

17.8%

9.6%
6.8%

1.4%
50.0%
2.7%
5.8%

29.3%

15.2%
9.9%

4.7%
31.9%
3.1%

The characteristics of each sample conform roughly to population statistics.
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn were significantly older than respondents
50
interviewed in Glebe (t
564
= 6.22, p=<.001), and significantly younger than respondents
interviewed in Chatswood (t
564
= 2.42, p=.016). There was no significant association
between age and questionnaire version (M
pedestrian
=38.27, M
driver
=37.32; F
1,565
= 0.47,
p=.493), or site (M
intersection
=38.08; M
carpark
=37.67; F
1,565
= 0.09, p=.768).
The gender breakdown of respondents did not differ by location (Glebe vs Goulburn: x
1
2

= 0.05, p=.818; Chatswood vs Goulburn: x
1
2
= 0.36, p=.546), questionnaire version
(%Female
pedestrian
=50.6; %Female
driver
=46.1; x
2
= 1.11, p=.292), or site
(%Female
intersection
=47.6; %Female
carpark
=50.0; x
2
= 0.32, p=.572).
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn were significantly more likely to speak English at
home than respondents interviewed in Chatswood (x
1
2
= 3.87, p=.049), but did not
differ from respondents interviewed in Glebe (x
1
2
= 1.27, p=.260). The breakdown of
language spoken at home did not differ by questionnaire version (%English
ped
= 96.4;
%English
driver
= 97.0; x
1
2
= 0.12, p=.727), or site (%English
intersection
= 95.9; %English
carpark
= 97.4; x
1
2
= 0.94, p=.332).
Analysis of occupation was not conducted because the large number of categories makes
interpretation difficult.
Thus, no significant association of these personal characteristics with the two critical
manipulations (questionnaire version and site) was observed.

51
SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: ROAD USE
Table 10: Road Use profiles of Pedestrian and Driver respondents sampled at
Intersections and Carpark sites
Pedestrian Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Inter-
section
Carpark Inter-
section
Carpark
How often
walk by road
% More than once/ day
% 3-6 times/ week
% 1-2 times/ week
% between 1/ week & 1/ month
% Less than 1/ month
75.6
15.0
7.8
1.1
0.6
75.6
11.9
8.8
1.3
2.5
77.3
14.3
5.9
1.7
0.8
72.1
15.3
8.1
2.7
1.8
How often
cross road
% More than once/ day
% 3-6 times/ week
% 1-2 times/ week
% between 1/ week & 1/ month
% Less than 1/ month
76.1
16.1
7.2
0.6
0.0
80.0
13.1
5.0
1.3
0.6
76.5
18.5
4.2
0.8
0.0
79.5
17.0
2.7
0.9
0.0
Have
Drivers
Licence
% Yes

79.7 86.2 100 100
If Yes
Licence class % Learners permit
% Probationary
% Full
2.8
3.5
93.6
0.7
5.8
93.4
2.5
5.8
91.7
2.6
3.5
93.9
Mean years
licenced
Mean
(years)
23.09 23.24 20.93 20.28
Mean hours
driving last
weekday
Mean
(hours)
1.55 1.38 1.66 1.68
NB. Position of pedestrian and driver Road Use questions differed in each questionnaire version.

The categories of frequency of walking beside a road were coded with numbers from 1
to 5 (with lower numbers reflecting more walking beside a road). Respondents
interviewed in Goulburn (M = 1.81) reported walking beside a road significantly less
often than respondents in Glebe (M = 1.14, t
567
= 8.99, p< .001) or in Chatswood (M=
1.28, t
567
= 6.28, p<.001). Responses to this question did not differ by questionnaire
version (F
1, 566
= 0.02, p=.882), or site (F
1, 566
= 1.96, p=.163).
Similarly, the categories of frequency of crossing a road were coded with numbers from 1
to 5 (with lower numbers reflecting more crossing a road). Respondents interviewed in
Goulburn (M = 1.56) reported crossing a road significantly less often than respondents
52
in Glebe (M = 1.10, t
568
= 8.02, p< .001) or in Chatswood (M= 1.26, t
568
= 4.61, p<.001).
Responses to this question did not differ by questionnaire version (F
1, 567
= 0.46, p=.498),
or site (F
1, 567
= 0.47, p=.493).
Respondents who completed the driver questionnaire were significantly more likely to
hold a drivers licence (100% as required for completion of questionnaire) than those
who completed the pedestrian questionnaire (82.7%; x
1
2
= 44.89, p<.001). Respondents
interviewed in Goulburn were significantly more likely to be licenced (%licenced=93.0)
than respondents in Glebe (%licenced=83.1, x
1
2
= 9.39, p=.002), but did not differ
significantly from respondents in Chatswood (%licenced=93.0, x
1
2
= 1.99, p=.158).
There was no difference by site (x
1
2
= 2.56, p=.109).
Amongst pedestrians who held a licence, respondents interviewed in Goulburn had held
their licence for significantly longer (M=25.10 years) than respondents in Glebe
(M=14.68 years, t
510
= 6.65, p<.001), but did not differ significantly from respondents in
Chatswood (M= 28.37 years, t
510
= 1.92, p=.056). Mean years licenced did not differ
significantly by questionnaire version (F
1, 509
= 3.19, p=.075), or site (F
1, 509
= 0.03,
p=.861).
Mean hours driving last weekday also did not differ by location (Goulburn M=1.67 vs
Glebe M=1.60, t
510
= 0.43, p=.671; Goulburn vs Chatswood M= 1.37, t
510
= 1.67,
p=.095), questionnaire version (F
1, 509
= 2.12, p=.146), or site (F
1, 509
= 0.30, p=.584).
Thus, no significant association of these personal characteristics with the two critical
manipulations (questionnaire version and site) was observed.

53

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS: INVOLVEMENT IN ROAD-CROSSING INCIDENTS

Table 11: Prevalence and Profile of Road-Crossing Incidents of Pedestrian and
Driver respondents sampled at intersection and carpark sites.
Pedestrian Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Ever hit by
bus or car?
% Yes

8.0
(n=14)
9.5
(n=15)
5.9
(n=7)
4.5
(n=5)
If Yes:
Intersection
Type
% Lights
% Uncontrolled road point
% Zebra crossing
25.0
58.3
16.7
7.1
78.6
14.3
33.3
50.0
16.7
40.0
40.0
20.0
Signal
Type
% WALK
% flashing Dont Walk
% Dont Walk
% Dont know
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
50.0
0.0
Vehicle
Move
% Straight
% Turning L
% Turning R
% In/Out Driveway
% U turn
% Reversing
46.2
23.1
0.0
15.4
0.0
15.4
64.3
35.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
66.7
16.7
16.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

Whether respondents had ever been hit by car did not differ by location (Goulburn 7.6%
vs Glebe 7.6%, x
1
2
= 0.03, p=.858; Goulburn vs Chatswood 5.6%, x
1
2
= 0.54, p=.461),
questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 2.45, p=.117), or site (x
1
2
= 0.01, p=.913).
Amongst pedestrians who had been hit by a car, the type of crossing at which this
occurred did not differ by location (x
2
2
= 0.72, p=.699), questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.72,
p=.397), or site (x
1
2
= 0.32, p=.573). Almost all incidents at a signalised intersection
occurred while pedestrians were facing a Walk signal, with the majority involving
traffic that was travelling straight ahead. However, a substantial proportion involved
traffic that was turning left, or, to a lesser extent, right. (Numbers were too small to make
comparisons for these variables).
Thus, no significant association of these personal characteristics with the two critical
54
manipulations (questionnaire version and site) was observed.



55
BELIEFS ABOUT, AND SELF-REPORTED INTENTIONS TOWARDS, RIGHT OF WAY
For the situation depicted in each of the Showcards, for each of the questions (detailed in
Figure 14), the following comparisons were made
1. Pedestrian versus driver version of the questionnaire; reflecting differences in being
asked to take the role of pedestrian or driver.
2. Intersection versus carpark interviews; reflecting differences in having just been
walking or driving.
3. Glebe versus Goulburn and Chatswood versus Goulburn; reflecting differences
between urban and rural areas (and possibly differences in proportions of pedestrian
versus driver questionnaires, or intersection versus carpark interviews; see
Discussion). Because preliminary analysis suggested that pedestrians observed in
Glebe differed from those observed in Chatswood in terms of a range of variables,
respondents at each of these locations were compared separately to respondents in
Goulburn.
The interpretation of any differences varies across questions, and will be outlined in
Discussion.
56
SHOWCARD 7: DEPICTING A PERSON CROSSING ON WALK WITH TRAFFIC
INITIALLY TRAVELLING IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE
PEDESTRIAN AND TURNING LEFT ON A GREEN LIGHT, AT A 4-WAY
INTERSECTION.

57
Table 12: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 7, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Technically right
of way
% The Pedestrian
% The Car
% Dont know
96.0
4.0
0.0
96.8
3.2
0.0
94.1
5.9
0.0
94.7
5.3
0.0
Take right of
way?
% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
13.0
87.0
0.0
11.4
88.6
0.0
5.9
94.1
0.0
18.8
81.3
0.0
Likelihood
of getting caught?
a
Mean
(s.d.)
6.3
(1.6)
6.7
(1.0)
5.5
(1.7)
5.8
(1.6)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
12.9
76.7
10.5
14.4
78.4
7.2
56.0
27.5
16.5
48.9
33.0
18.1
Mean Fine
(If Yes)
Mean (Dollars)
(s.d.)
85.00
(28.96)
114.15
(46.25)
131.42
(90.68)
140.63
(64.53)
Lose Demerit
Points?

% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
N/A N/A 44.9
31.5
23.6
37.2
40.4
22.3
Mean Demerits
(If Yes)
Mean (Points)
(s.d.)
N/A N/A 1.87
(1.0)
2.06
(1.53)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Technically right of way:
The percentage of respondents interviewed in Goulburn that thought the pedestrian had
right of way (95.9%) did not differ significantly from the corresponding percentage of
respondents interviewed in Glebe (95.8%; x
1
2
= 0.11, p=.742), or Chatswood (95.9%; x
1
2

= 0.11, p=.745). Responses to this question were also not influenced by questionnaire
version (x
1
2
= 1.35, p=.245), or site (x
1
2
= 0.16, p=.691).
58
Take right of way:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly less likely to
report that they would take right of way than respondents who completed the driver
questionnaire (x
1
2
= 317.31, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were less likely to report
that they would take right of way (44.6%) than respondents in Glebe (68.6%, x
1
2
=
24.57, p<.001), but did not differ from respondents in Chatswood (53.8%; x
1
2
= 2.76,
p=.097). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 1.47, p=.226).
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire estimated that they were
significantly less likely to get caught if they took right of way than were respondents
who completed the driver questionnaire (F
1,433
= 31.72, p<.001). Respondents
interviewed at intersections estimated being more likely to get caught if they took right
of way (M = 5.97) than did respondents interviewed at carparks (F
1,433
= 10.51, p=.032).
Respondents in Goulburn estimated being more likely to get caught if they took right of
way (M = 4.38) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 6.47; t
432
= 10.12, p<.001), and in
Chatswood (M = 6.19; t
432
= 8.30, p<.001).
Fine?
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly less likely to
report that they could be fined for taking right of way than were respondents who
completed the driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 31.96, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were
more likely to report that they could be fined for taking right of way (72.2% with
18.5% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (23.0% with 6.0% Dont know; x
1
2

= 23.33, p<.001), and in Chatswood (26.2% with 20.7% Dont know; x
1
2
= 19.73,
p<.001). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 0.03, p=.855).
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for taking right of way, respondents
in Goulburn did not differ significantly from Glebe (M = 117.40; t
67
= -1.268, p=.209),
nor from respondents in Chatswood (M = 123.10; t
67
= -1.545, p=.13) in terms of mean
fine (Goulburn M = 155.00). Responses to this question were not influenced by
questionnaire version (F
1,68
= 3.629, p=.061), or site (F
1,67
= 0.555, p=.459).
59
Demerit points?
Amongst respondents who completed the driver questionnaire, Respondents in
Goulburn were more likely to report that they could get demerit points for taking right
of way (64.3% with 19.0% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (33.3% with
25.0% Dont know; x
1
2
= 7.10, p=.008), and in Chatswood (35.1% with 22.8% Dont
know; x
1
2
= 5.26, p=.022). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
=
0.42, p=.516).
Mean points?
Amongst those who completed the driver questionnaire, and who thought they could get
demerit points for taking right of way, respondents in Goulburn estimated a higher
number of demerit points (M = 2.37) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 1.38; t
50
= -
2.55, p=.014), but did not differ from respondents in Chatswood (M = 2.30; t
50
= -1.098,
p=.285). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (F
1,51
= .284, p=.596).
60
SHOWCARD 10: DEPICTING PERSON CROSSING ON WALK WITH TRAFFIC
INITIALLY TRAVELLING AGAINST THE PEDESTRIAN AND TURNING
RIGHT ON A GREEN LIGHT

61
Table 13: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 10, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Technically right
of way
% The Pedestrian
% The Car
% DONT KNOW
96.1
3.9
0.0
98.1
1.3
0.6
96.6
2.5
0.8
95.6
4.4
0.0
Take right of
way?
% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
89.9
10.1
0.0
91.8
7.5
0.6
4.2
95.8
0.0
20.2
79.8
0.0
Likelihood
of getting caught?
Mean
(s.d.)
6.2
(1.7)
6.7
(1.0)
5.7
(1.5)
5.8
(1.4)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
12.5
71.9
15.6
16.5
76.4
7.1
56.0
27.5
16.5
45.7
32.6
21.7
Mean Fine
(If Yes)
Mean (Dollars)
(s.d.)
104.50
(55.11)
102.19
(48.72)
132.46
(88.89)
113.38
(61.52)
Lose Demerit
Points?

% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
N/A N/A 41.3
34.8
23.9
35.5
34.4
30.1
Mean Demerits
(If Yes)
Mean (Points)
(s.d.)
N/A N/A 2.48
(1.98)
2.12
(1.56)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Technically right of way:
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn were less likely to think that the pedestrian had
right of way (95.2%) than were respondents interviewed in Glebe (97.9%; x
1
2
= 4.03,
p=.045), but did not differ significantly from respondents interviewed in Chatswood
(96.6%; x
1
2
= 1.51, p=.220). Responses to this question were not influenced by
questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.18, p=.674), or site (x
1
2
= 0.31, p=.578).
62
Take right of way:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly more likely
to report that they would take right of way than respondents who completed the driver
questionnaire (x
1
2
= 348.82, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were less likely to report
that they would take right of way (46.0%) than were respondents in Glebe (71.3%; x
1
2

= 28.18, p<.001), but did not differ from respondents in Chatswood (54.8%; x
1
2
= 2.67,
p=.102). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 2.00, p=.157).
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire estimated that they were
significantly less likely to get caught if they took right of way than did respondents
who completed the driver questionnaire (F
1,435
= 25.07, p<.001). Respondents
interviewed at intersections reported being more likely to get caught if they took right
of way than did respondents interviewed at carparks (F
1,435
= 4.34, p=.038).
Respondents in Goulburn reported being more likely to get caught if they took right of
way (M = 4.41) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 6.51; t
434
= 11.01, p<.001), and in
Chatswood (M = 6.26; t
434
= 9.18, p<.001).
Fine?
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly less likely to
report that they could be fined for taking right of way than were respondents who
completed the driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 26.10, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were
more likely to report that they could be fined for taking right of way (60.3% with
24.1% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (25.8% with 7.2% Dont know; x
1
2

= 6.75, p=.009), and in Chatswood (23.6% with 22.9% Dont know; x
1
2
= 10.63,
p=.001). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 0.01, p=.941).
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for taking right of way, respondents
in Goulburn did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 106.57; t
1, 73
= -
1.646, p=.104), or from respondents in Chatswood (M = 116.48; t
1, 73
= -.556, p=.580) in
terms of mean fine (Goulburn M = 142.14). Responses to this question were not
influenced by questionnaire version (F
1,74
= 1.470, p=.229), or site (F
1,74
= 0.987, p=.324).
63
Demerit points?
Amongst respondents who completed the driver questionnaire, respondents in Goulburn
were more likely to report that they could get demerit points for taking right of way
(62.8% with 16.3% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (36.9% with 31%
Dont know; x
1
2
= 7.21, p=.007), and in Chatswood (25.9% with 27.6% Dont know; x
1
2

= 10.39, p=.001). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 1.75,
p=.186).
Mean points?
Amongst those who completed the driver questionnaire, and who thought they could get
demerit points for taking right of way, respondents in Goulburn did not differ from
respondents in Glebe (M = 1.70; t
50
= -1.65, p=.104), or Chatswood (M = 3.22; t
50
= -
1.12, p=.268), in terms of their estimate of the number of demerit points (Goulburn M =
2.60). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (F
1,51
= .537, p=.467).
64

SHOWCARD 1: DEPICTING A PERSON CROSSING ON FLASHING DONT
WALK WITH TRAFFIC INITIALLY TRAVELLING IN THE SAME
DIRECTION AS THE PEDESTRIAN AND TURNING LEFT ON A GREEN
LIGHT, AT A 4-WAY INTERSECTION


65
Table 14: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 1, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Technically right
of way
% The Pedestrian
% The Car
% DONT KNOW
56.4
43.6
0.0
53.8
45.0
1.3
50.4
49.6
0.0
62.5
37.5
0.0
Take right of
way?
% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
51.1
48.9
0.0
63.1
36.3
0.6
21.8
78.2
0.0
25.2
74.8
0.0
Likelihood
of getting caught?
Mean 6.0
(1.8)
6.4
(1.3)
5.8
(1.4)
6.1
(1.5)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
34.0
49.3
16.7
34.3
54.0
11.7
42.2
38.6
19.3
27.9
47.7
24.4
If Yes
Mean Fine

Mean (Dollars)
(s.d.)
92.26
(61.69)
88.03
(42.84)
106.70
(43.37)
126.71
(57.55)
Lose Demerit
Points?

% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
N/A N/A 19.5
48.8
19.5
20.0
54.1
25.9
If Yes
Mean Demerits

Mean (Points)
(s.d)
N/A N/A 1.85
(.86)
1.96
(.80)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Technically right of way:
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn were less likely to think the pedestrian had right
of way (34.2%) than were respondents interviewed in Glebe (73.8%, x
1
2
= 68. 33,
p<.001), and in Chatswood (53.4%, x
1
2
= 13.47, p<.001). There was no effect of
questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.00, p=.964), or site (x
1
2
= 1.14, p=.286), on whether
respondents thought the pedestrian had right of way.
66
Take right of way:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly more likely
to report that they would take right of way than were respondents who completed the
driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 60.83, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were less likely to
report that they would take right of way (18.9%) than respondents in Glebe (64.6%; x
1
2

= 87.87, p<.001), and in Chatswood (39.7%; x
1
2
= 17.85, p<.001). There was no effect
of site (x
1
2
= 3.66, p=.056) on whether respondents reported that they would take right
of way.
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents who were interviewed at intersections reported being significantly more
likely to get caught if they took right of way than did respondents who were
interviewed at carparks (F
1, 448
= 6.42, p=.012). Respondents in Goulburn reported being
significantly more likely to get caught if they took right of way (M = 4.74) than did
respondents in Glebe (M = 6.36; t
.447
= 8.35, p<.001), and in Chatswood (M = 6.26; t
. 447

= 7.35, p<.001). There was no effect of questionnaire version (F
1, 448
= 1.96, p=.163) on
perceived likelihood of getting caught.
Fine?
Respondents in Goulburn were more likely to report that they could be fined for taking
right of way (73.9% with 20.3% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (26.7%
with 11.4% Dont know; x
1
2
= 24.11, p<.001), and Chatswood (28.3% with 24.8% Dont
know; x
1
2
= 22.65, p<.001). There was no effect of questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.73,
p=.394), or site (x
1
2
= 0.52, p=.470), on whether respondents thought they could be
fined for taking right of way.
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for taking right of way, respondents
who completed the pedestrian questionnaire estimated a significantly lower fine
(M=90.03) than did respondents who completed the driver questionnaire (M=114.94)
(F
1, 104
= 5.403, p=.022). Respondents in Goulburn did not significantly differ from
respondents in Chatswood (M=104.16; t
103
= .282, p=.778), or from respondents in
Glebe (M=92.55; t
103
= -.604, p=.547), in terms of mean fine (Goulburn M=100.26).
67
Responses to this question were not influenced by site (F
1, 104
= .007, p=.936).
Demerit points?
Amongst respondents who completed the driver questionnaire, respondents in Goulburn
were more likely to report that they could get demerit points for taking right of way
(65.4% with 11.5% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (17.9% with 25.0%
Dont know; x
1
2
= 15.21, p<.001), and in Chatswood (20.7% with 24.1% Dont know;
x
1
2
= 11.95, p=.001). There was no effect of site on whether respondents thought they
could receive demerit points for taking right of way (x
1
2
= 2.46, p=.117).
Mean points?
Amongst those who completed the driver questionnaire, and who thought they could get
demerit points for taking right of way, respondents in Goulburn did not differ from
respondents in Glebe (M=1.60; t
30
= -.349, p=.729), or Chatswood (M=2.33; t
30
= 1.832,
p=.077), in terms of the mean demerit points (Goulburn M=1.71). There was no effect
of site (F
1, 31
= .104, p=.749) on estimates of the number of demerit points.





68
SHOWCARD 4: DEPICTING A PERSON CROSSING ON DONT WALK WITH
TRAFFIC INITIALLY TRAVELLING IN THE SAME DIRECTION AS THE
PEDESTRIAN AND TURNING LEFT ON A GREEN LIGHT, AT A 4-WAY
INTERSECTION

69
Table 15: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 4, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Technically right
of way
% The Pedestrian
% The Car
% DONT KNOW
13.5
86.5
0.0
15.8
84.2
0.0
13.4
86.6
0.0
15.9
84.1
0.0
Take right of
way?
% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
27.0
73.0
0.0
31.4
68.6
0.0
29.4
70.6
0.0
44.2
55.8
0.0
Likelihood
of getting caught?
Mean
(s.d.)
5.9
(1.8)
6.2
(1.6)
6.2
(1.2)
6.4
(1.1)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
51.7
23.1
25.2
55.8
21.7
22.5
27.6
55.3
17.1
14.6
70.7
14.6
Mean Fine
(If Yes)
Mean (Dollars)
(s.d.)
93.69
(45.52)
87.22
(40.24)
107.50
(54.18)
114.17
(79.27)
Lose Demerit
Points?

% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
N/A N/A 16.0
61.3
22.7
8.5
76.8
14.6
Mean Demerits
(If Yes)
Mean (Points)
(s.d.)
N/A N/A 2.4
(.89)
1.9
(.54)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Technically right of way:
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn were less likely to think the pedestrian had right
of way (7.0%) than were respondents interviewed in Glebe (21.1%; x
1
2
= 16.16,
p<.001), and in Chatswood (13.7%; x
1
2
= 4.03, p=.045). Responses to this question were
not influenced by questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.00, p=.981), or site (x
1
2
= 0.65, p=.419).
Take right of way:
Respondents interviewed at intersections reported being more likely to take right of
way than did respondents interviewed at carparks (x
1
2
= 5.05, p=.025). Respondents in
Goulburn were less likely to report that they would take right of way (11.8%) than
70
were respondents in Glebe (54.0%; x
1
2
= 80.82, p<.001), and in Chatswood (22.6%; x
1
2
=
6.85, p=.009). Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire version
(x
1
2
= 3.59, p=.058).
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents in Goulburn reported being more likely to get caught if they took right of
way (M = 4.71) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 6.35; t
442
= 7.97, p<.001), and in
Chatswood (M = 6.35; t
442
= 7.46, p<.001). Responses to this question were not
influenced by questionnaire version (F
1,443
= 3.17, p=.076), or site (F
1,443
= 2.92, p=.088).
Fine?
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly more likely
to report that they would be fined for taking right of way than were respondents who
completed the driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 15.87, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were
more likely to report that they could be fined for taking right of way (70.3% with
17.2% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (39.7% with 18.8% Dont know; x
1
2

= 11.75, p=.001), and in Chatswood (33.1% with 26.2% Dont know; x
1
2
= 17.17,
p<.001). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 0.21, p=.886).
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for taking right of way, respondents
in Goulburn did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (84.55; t
129
= -1.96,
p=.052), or Chatswood (M = 101.68; t
129
= -.341, p=.734), in terms of mean fine
estimates (Goulburn M = 105.86). Responses to this question were not influenced by site
(F
1,130
= .514, p=.475), or questionnaire version (F
1,130
= 2.427, p=.122).
Demerit points?
Amongst respondents who completed the driver questionnaire, respondents in Goulburn
were more likely to think that they could get demerit points for taking right of way
(46.7% with 20.0% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (6.0% with 16.7%
Dont know; x
1
2
= 5.60, p=.018), but did not differ significantly from respondents in
Chatswood (12.1% with 20.7% Dont know; x
1
2
= 3.62, p=.057). Responses to this
question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 0.02, p=.897).
71
Mean points:
Amongst those who completed the driver questionnaire, and who thought they could get
demerit points for taking right of way, respondents in Goulburn estimated higher
mean points (M=2.38) than did respondents in Glebe (M=1.33; t7 = -2.538, p=.039), but
did not differ significantly from respondents in Chatswood (M=2.67; t7 = .711, p=.500).
Responses to this question were not influenced by site (F1,8= 1.136, p=.318).

72
SHOWCARD 6: DEPICTING A PERSON CROSSING ON DONT WALK WITH
TRAFFIC INITIALLY TRAVELLING PERPENDICULAR TO THE
PEDESTRIAN AND TURNING LEFT ON A RED LIGHT WITH A LEFT
TURN PERMITTED AFTER STOPPING SIGN, AT A 4-WAY
INTERSECTION

73
Table 16: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 6, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Technically right
of way
% The Pedestrian
% The Car
% DONT KNOW
14.0
84.3
0.0
17.6
82.4
0.0
14.3
85.7
0.0
15.0
85.0
0.0
Take right of
way?
% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
34.1
65.9
0.0
22.6
76.7
0.6
69.5
30.5
0.0
31.9
68.1
0.0
Likelihood
of getting caught?
Mean
(s.d.)
5.9
(1.8)
6.2
(1.4)
6.2
(1.2)
6.4
(1.1)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
49.3
26.7
24.0
55.0
25.0
20.0
30.4
57.0
12.7
9.8
74.4
15.9
Mean Fine
(If Yes)
Mean (Dollars)
(s.d.)
88.19
(36.58)
84.69
(40.59)
101.82
(46.71)
111.25
(127.17)
Lose Demerit
Points?

% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
N/A N/A 20.3
59.4
20.3
6.1
75.6
18.3
Mean Demerits
(If Yes)
Mean (Points)
(s.d.)
N/A N/A 2.41
(1.02)
1.88
(0.63)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Technically right of way:
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn were less likely to think the pedestrian had right
of way (9.7%) than were respondents interviewed in Glebe (21.9%; x
1
2
= 9.47, p=.002),
but did not differ significantly from respondents in Chatswood (11.6%; x
1
2
= 0.05,
p=.826). Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire version (x
1
2
=
0.45, p=.502), or site (x
1
2
= 0.16, p=.689).
74
Take right of way:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly less likely to
report that they would take right of way than were respondents who completed the
driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 89.20, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were less likely to
report that they would take right of way (33.7%) than were respondents in Glebe
(56.1%; x
1
2
= 21.28, p<.001), but did not differ from respondents in Chatswood (58.6%;
x
1
2
= 2.21, p=.137). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 2.74,
p=.098).
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents interviewed at intersections reported being more likely to get caught if they
took right of way than did respondents interviewed at carparks (F
1,445
= 4.30, p=.039).
Respondents in Goulburn reported being more likely to get caught if they took right of
way (M = 4.80) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 6.40; t
444
= 8.29, p<.001), and in
Chatswood (M = 6.31; t
444
= 7.36, p<.001). Responses to this question were not
influenced by questionnaire version (F
1,445
= 3.28, p=.071).
Fine?
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly more likely
to report that they would get a fine if they took right of way than were respondents
who completed the driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 16.42, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn
were more likely to report that they could be fined for taking right of way (72.7% with
10.6% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (40.0% with 15.3% Dont know; x
1
2

= 17.21, p<.001), and in Chatswood (26.7% with 29.5% Dont know; x
1
2
= 33.27,
p<.001). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 0.27, p=.605).
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for taking right of way, respondents
in Goulburn did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 82.37; t
118
= -
.135, p=.893), or Chatswood (M = 108.43; t
118
= 1.897, p=.060), in terms of estimates of
mean fine (Goulburn M = 83.89). Responses to this question were not influenced by
questionnaire version (F
1,119
= 2.219, p=.139), or site (F
1,119
= .257, p=.613).
75
Demerit points?
Amongst respondents who completed the driver questionnaire, respondents in Goulburn
were more likely to report that they could get demerit points for taking right of way
(50.0% with 22.2% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (7.1% with 14.3%
Dont know; x
1
2
= 5.79, p=.016), and in Chatswood (10.2% with 25.4% Dont know; x
1
2

= 5.40, p=.020). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 1.67,
p=.197).
Mean points?
Amongst those who completed the driver questionnaire, and who thought they could get
demerit points for taking right of way, respondents in Goulburn did not differ
significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 1.60; t
12
= -.109, p=.914), or Chatswood
(M = 2.75; t
12
= 1.464, p=.152), in terms of their estimate of the number of demerit
points (Goulburn M =2.50). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (F
1,13

= .938, p=.350).



76
SHOWCARD 2: DEPICTING A PERSON WAITING AT A ZEBRA CROSSING
WITH NEARSIDE TRAFFIC APPROACHING, ON A STRAIGHT STRETCH
OF ROAD

77

Table 17: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 2, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Technically right
of way
% The Pedestrian
% The Car
% DONT KNOW
77.0
22.5
0.6
76.1
23.3
0.6
71.4
28.6
0.0
59.8
39.3
0.9
Take right of
way?
% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
68.4
31.6
0.0
74.2
25.8
0.0
26.1
73.9
0.0
42.0
58.0
0.0
Likelihood
of getting caught?
Mean
(s.d.)
6.1
(1.8)
6.7
(0.9)
5.7
(1.7)
5.8
(1.9)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
11.5
70.8
17.7
12.4
79.1
8.5
56.2
27.0
16.9
41.5
48.9
9.6
Mean Fine
(If Yes)
Mean (Dollars)
(s.d.)
101.50
(49.28)
104.50
(49.53)
134.88
(51.65)
119.00
(63.80)
Lose Demerit
Points?

% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
N/A N/A 44.3
34.1
21.6
33.0
53.2
13.8
Mean Demerits
(If Yes)
Mean (Points)
(s.d.)
N/A N/A 2.06
(.86)
2.80
(2.39)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Technically right of way:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly more likely
to believe the pedestrian has right of way than were respondents who completed the
driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 8.19, p=.004). Respondents interviewed in Goulburn did not
differ significantly (70.3%) from respondents interviewed in Glebe (30.4%; x
1
2
= 0.30,
p=.582), or Chatswood (78.8%; x
1
2
= 2.52, p=.112), in terms of whether the pedestrian
has right of way. Interview site had no impact on responses to this question (x
1
2
=
1.52, p=.217).
78
Take right of way:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly more likely
to take right of way than were respondents who completed the driver questionnaire
(x
1
2
= 77.39, p<.001). Respondents interviewed at intersections were less likely to take
right of way than were respondents interviewed at carparks (x
1
2
= 5.21, p=.022).
Respondents in Goulburn were less likely to report that they would take right of way
(31.5%) than were respondents in Glebe (75.1%; x
1
2
= 79.69, p<.001), and in Chatswood
(55.5%; x
1
2
= 19.11, p<.001).
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire reported being less likely to
get caught if they took right of way than did respondents who completed the driver
questionnaire (F
1,440
= 17.52, p<.001). Respondents interviewed at intersections reported
being more likely to get caught if they took right of way than did respondents
interviewed at carparks (F
1,440
= 6.92, p=.009). Respondents in Goulburn reported being
more likely to get caught if they took right of way (M = 4.10) than did respondents in
Glebe (M = 6.52; t
439
= 11.80, p<.001), and in Chatswood (M = 6.21; t
439
= 9.70,
p<.001).
Fine?
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly less likely to
report that they could be fined for taking right of way than were respondents who
completed the driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 42.62, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were
significantly more likely to report that they could be fined for taking right of way
(68.3% with 16.7% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (16.9% with 5.5%
Dont know; x
1
2
= 31.26, p<.001), and in Chatswood (26.7% with 24.0% Dont know;
x
1
2
= 19.97, p<.001). Interview site had no impact on responses to this question (x
1
2
=
0.13, p=.716).
79
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for taking right of way, respondents
in Goulburn did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (M =115.73; t
64
=
.221, p=.826), or in Chatswood (M = 127.21; t
64
= .837, p=.406), in terms of mean fine
estimates (Goulburn M = 111.54). There was no impact of questionnaire version (F
1,65
=
3.032, p=.086) or interview site (F
1,65
= .755, p=.388) on responses to this question.
Demerit points?
Amongst respondents who completed the driver questionnaire, respondents in Goulburn
were more likely to report that they could get demerit points for taking right of way
(67.5% with 17.5% dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (21.4% with 13.1%
Dont know; x
1
2
= 13.00, p<.001), and Chatswood (43.1% with 24.1% Dont know; x
1
2
=
4.24, p=.040). Interview site had no impact on responses to this question (x
1
2
= 0.33,
p=.564).
Mean points?
Amongst those who completed the driver questionnaire, and who thought they could get
demerit points for taking right of way, respondents in Goulburn did not differ
significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 2.08; t
42
= 0.203, p=.841), or Chatswood
(M = 1.94; t
42
= 0.764, p=.454), in terms of the estimated number of points (Goulburn
M = 3.16). Interview site had no impact on responses to this question (F
1,43
= 2.045,
p=.16).

80
SHOWCARD 9: DEPICTING A PERSON CROSSING AT A ZEBRA CROSSING
WITH NEARSIDE TRAFFIC APPROACHING, ON A STRAIGHT STRETCH
OF ROAD

81
Table 18: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 9, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Technically right
of way
% The Pedestrian
% The Car
% DONT KNOW
96.1
3.9
0.0
97.5
2.5
0.0
98.3
1.7
0.0
93.8
6.2
0.0
Take right of
way?
% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
86.0
14.0
0.0
86.8
13.2
0.0
9.3
90.7
0.0
23.0
77.0
0.0
Likelihood
of getting caught?
Mean
(s.d.)
6.4
(1.4)
6.7
(0.9)
5.4
(1.8)
5.8
(1.6)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
8.8
76.8
14.4
9.5
83.3
7.1
75.3
9.0
15.7
52.7
28.0
19.4
Mean Fine
(If Yes)
Mean (Dollars)
(s.d.)
113.33
(78.91)
122.50
(55.23)
147.65
(101.51)
142.33
(62.25)
Lose Demerit
Points?

% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
N/A N/A 61.8
15.7
22.5
52.7
28.0
19.4
Mean Demerits
(If Yes)
Mean (Points)
(s.d.)
N/A N/A 2.16
(1.43)
2.09
(1.49)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Technically right of way:
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn did not differ significantly in terms of beliefs
about whether the pedestrian had right of way, compared to respondents interviewed
in Glebe (97.5%; x
1
2
= 3.08, p=.079), or Chatswood (97.9%; x
1
2
= 3.01, p=.083)(
Goulburn: 94.1%). Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire
version (x
1
2
= 0.17, p=.683), or site (x
1
2
= 0.43, p=.512).
Take right of way:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly more likely
to report that they would take right of way than were respondents who completed the
82
driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 278.15, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were less likely to
report that they would take right of way (38.2%) than were respondents in Glebe
(75.1%; x
1
2
= 58.57, p<.001), and in Chatswood (54.8%; x
1
2
= 9.09, p=.003). Responses
to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 1.31, p=.253).
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire estimated that they were
significantly less likely to get caught if they took right of way than were respondents
who completed the driver questionnaire (F
1,429
= 51.94, p<.001). Respondents
interviewed at intersections reported being more likely to get caught if they took right
of way than did respondents interviewed at carparks (F
1,429
= 4.87, p=.028).
Respondents in Goulburn estimated being more likely to get caught if they took right of
way (M = 4.25) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 6.49; t
428
= 11.41, p<.001), and in
Chatswood (M = 6.31; t
428
= 9.90, p<.001).
Fine?
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly less likely to
report that they could be fined for taking right of way than were respondents who
completed the driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 70.90, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were
more likely to report that they could be fined for taking right of way (79.2% with
17.0% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (20.9% with 7.7% Dont know; x
1
2

= 36.76, p<.001), and Chatswood (33.1% with 22.1% Dont know; x
1
2
= 20.91, p<.001).
Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 1.28, p=.258).
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for taking right of way, respondents
in Goulburn did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 91.4; t
75
= -.189,
p=.850), or Chatswood (M = 152.76; t
75
= .645, p=.521), in terms of mean fine
estimates (Goulburn M = 136.25). Responses to this question were not influenced by
questionnaire version (F
1,76
= 1.220, p=.273), or site (F
1,76
= 0.054, p=.816).
Demerit points?
Amongst respondents who completed the driver questionnaire, respondents who were
interviewed at intersections were more likely to think that they could get demerit points
83
for taking right of way than were respondents interviewed at carparks (x
1
2
= 4.37,
p=.037). Respondents in Goulburn were more likely to report that they could get
demerit points for taking right of way (70.7% with 19.5% Dont know) than were
respondents in Glebe (35.7% with 25.0% Dont know; x
1
2
= 8.50, p=.004), but did not
differ significantly from respondents in Chatswood (60.7% with 23.2% Dont know; x
1
2

= 0.82, p=.364).
Mean points?
Amongst those who completed the driver questionnaire, and who thought they could get
demerit points for taking right of way, respondents in Goulburn did not differ
significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 2.21; t
60
= -.235, p=.816), or Chatswood
(M = 1.90; t
60
= .608, p=.546), in terms of their estimate of the number of demerit points
(Goulburn M = 2.26). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (F
1,61
=
0.34, p=.855).
84
SHOWCARD 5: DEPICTING A PERSON CROSSING AT A ZEBRA CROSSING
WITH FARSIDE TRAFFIC APPROACHING, ON A STRAIGHT STRETCH
OF ROAD

85
Table 19: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 5, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Technically right
of way
% The Pedestrian
% The Car
% DONT KNOW
91.6
7.9
0.6
92.5
7.5
0.0
92.4
7.6
0.0
90.2
9.8
0.0
Take right of
way?
% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
83.7
16.3
0.0
84.9
15.1
0.0
32.8
67.2
0.0
35.7
64.3
0.0
Likelihood
of getting caught?
Mean
(s.d.)
6.3
(1.5)
6.6
(1.0)
5.7
(1.6)
5.8
(1.5)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
9.4
77.2
13.4
13.4
78.7
7.9
60.9
15.2
23.9
47.3
26.9
25.8
Mean Fine
(If Yes)
Mean (Dollars)
(s.d.)
156.33
(139.49)
114.54
(46.99)
128.89
(86.23)
142.00
(73.65)
Lose Demerit
Points?

% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
N/A N/A 52.2
20.7
27.2
36.6
37.6
25.8
Mean Demerits
(If Yes)
Mean (Points)
(s.d.)
N/A N/A 1.98
(.89)
2.13
(.76)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Technically right of way:
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn did not differ significantly in terms of whether the
pedestrian had right of way, compared to respondents interviewed in Glebe (93.7%; x
1
2

= 1.49, p=.222), or Chatswood (89.0%; x
1
2
= 0.50, p=.481) (Goulburn: 91.4%).
Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.27,
p=.606), or site (x
1
2
= 0.21, p=.650).
Take right of way:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly more likely
to report that they would take right of way than were respondents who completed the
86
driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 148.73, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were less likely to
report that they would take right of way (44.3%) than were respondents in Glebe
(78.5%; x
1
2
= 52.18, p<.001), and in Chatswood (65.1%; x
1
2
= 14.07, p<.001). Responses
to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 0.10, p=.752).
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire reported being less likely to
get caught if they took right of way than did respondents who completed the driver
questionnaire (F
1,437
= 27.66, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn reported being
significantly more likely to get caught if they took right of way (M = 4.49) than did
respondents in Glebe (M = 6.52; t
436
= 10.40, p<.001), and in Chatswood (M = 6.27; t
436

= 8.60, p<.001). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (F
1,437
= 2.65,
p=.105).
Fine?
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly less likely to
report that they could be fined for taking right of way than were respondents who
completed the driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 25.62, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were
more likely to report that they could be fined for taking right of way (70.2% with
19.3% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (17.8% with 11.0% Dont know; x
1
2

= 28.36, p<.001), and in Chatswood (32.2% with 24.7% Dont know; x
1
2
= 14.64,
p<.001). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 0.05, p=.824).
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for taking right of way, respondents
in Goulburn did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 126.75; t
71
= -
.979, p=.331), or Chatswood (M = 131.10; t
71
= -.825, p=.412), in terms of the mean fine
(Goulburn M = 152.75). Responses to this question were not influenced by
questionnaire version (F
1,72
= .027, p=.869), or site (F
1,72
= .025, p=.874).
87
Demerit points?
Amongst respondents who completed the driver questionnaire, respondents in Goulburn
were more likely to report that they could get demerit points for taking right of way
(76.2% with 14.3% dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (25.0% with 28.6%
Dont know; x
1
2
= 21.35, p<.001), and in Chatswood (49.2% with 32.2% Dont know;
x
1
2
= 7.21, p=.007). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 1.82,
p=.177).
Mean points:
Amongst those who completed the driver questionnaire, and who thought they could get
demerit points for taking right of way, respondents in Goulburn did not differ
significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 1.80; t
48
= -.903, p=.378), or Chatswood
(M = 2.19; t
48
= -.673, p=.507), in terms of their estimate of the number of points
(Goulburn M = 2.12). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (F
1,49
= 0.40,
p=.529).

88
SHOWCARD 8: DEPICTING PERSON CROSSING AT A PEDESTRIAN ISLAND
WITH NEARSIDE TRAFFIC APPROACHING, ON A STRAIGHT STRETCH
OF ROAD

89
Table 20: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 8, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Technically right
of way
% The Pedestrian
% The Car
% DONT KNOW
23.5
75.4
1.1
26.6
71.5
1.9
13.6
82.2
4.2
20.4
78.8
0.9
Take right of
way?
% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
33.5
66.5
0.0
34.2
65.8
0.0
34.2
65.8
0.0
39.8
60.2
0.0
Likelihood
of getting caught?
Mean
(s.d.)
5.9
(1.9)
6.4
(1.2)
6.1
(1.4)
6.4
(1.3)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
37.7
34.2
28.1
43.9
38.1
18.0
21.1
52.6
26.3
8.5
67.1
24.4
Mean Fine
(If Yes)
Mean (Dollars)
(s.d.)
84.13
(36.10)
82.19
(38.98)
117.50
(53.27)
122.00
(38.99)
Lose Demerit
Points?

% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
N/A N/A 14.5
55.3
30.3
7.4
64.2
28.4
Mean Demerits
(If Yes)
Mean (Points)
(s.d.)
N/A N/A 2.50
(.93)
2.00
(.71)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Technically right of way:
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn were less likely to think that the pedestrian had
right of way (7.0%) than were respondents interviewed in Glebe (35.0%; x
1
2
= 45.16,
p<.001), and in Chatswood (18.6%; x
1
2
= 45.16, p<.001). Responses to this question
were not influenced by questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 3.22, p=.073), or site (x
1
2
= 0.85,
p=.357).
Take right of way:
Respondents in Goulburn were less likely to report that they would take right of way
(13.0%) than were respondents in Glebe (57.4%; x
1
2
= 86.85, p<.001), and in Chatswood
90
(26.9%; x
1
2
= 10.17, p=.001). Responses to this question were not influenced by
questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.59, p=.444), or site (x
1
2
= 0.47, p=.494).
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents interviewed at intersections reported being more likely to get caught if they
took right of way than did respondents interviewed at carparks (F
1,443
= 9.03, p=.003).
Respondents in Goulburn reported being more likely to get caught if they took right of
way (M = 4.87) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 6.49; t
442
= 7.89, p<.001), and in
Chatswood (M = 6.21; t
442
= 6.14, p<.001). Responses to this question were not
influenced by questionnaire version (F
1,443
= 0.83, p=.362).
Fine?
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly more likely
to report that they could be fined for taking right of way than were respondents who
completed the driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 16.04, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were
more likely to report that they could be fined for taking right of way (54.7% with
21.9% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (28.1% with 22.1% Dont know; x
1
2

= 7.60, p=.006), and in Chatswood (26.4% with 27.8% Dont know; x
1
2
= 9.23, p=.002).
Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 0.60, p=.438).
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for taking right of way, respondents
who completed the pedestrian questionnaire estimated a significantly lower fine
(M=83.12) than did respondents who completed the driver questionnaire (M=119.55)
(F
1,90
= 8.744, p=.004). Respondents in Goulburn did not significantly differ from
respondents in Glebe (M = 84.34; t
89
= -.538, p=.592), or Chatswood (M = 91.96; t
89
=
.051, p=.051), in terms of mean fine estimates (Goulburn M = 91.25). Responses to this
question were not influenced by site (F
1,90
= .066, p=.798).
91
Demerit points?
Amongst respondents who completed the driver questionnaire, respondents in Goulburn
were more likely to report that they could get demerit points for taking right of way
(33.3% with 20.0% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (7.1% with 33.3%
Dont know; x
1
2
= 4.33, p=.037), but did not differ significantly from respondents in
Chatswood (10.3% with 25.9% Dont know; x
1
2
= 2.30, p=.129). Responses to this
question were not influenced by or site (x
1
2
= 0.17, p=.679).
Mean points:
Amongst those who completed the driver questionnaire, and who thought they could get
demerit points for taking right of way, respondents in Goulburn did not differ
significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 2.20; t
11
= -.374, p=.714), or Chatswood
(M = 2.75; t
11
= .038, p=.970), in terms of their estimate of the number of demerit points
(Goulburn M = 3.20). Responses to this question were not influenced by site (F
1,12
=
1.365, p=.265).
92
SHOWCARD 3: DEPICTING A PERSON CROSSING WITHOUT A MARKED
CROSSING WITH NEARSIDE TRAFFIC APPROACHING, ON A STRAIGHT
STRETCH OF ROAD


93
Table 21: Beliefs about, and self-reported intentions towards, right of way in the
situation depicted in Showcard 3, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Technically right
of way
% The Pedestrian
% The Car
% DONT KNOW
6.2
93.8
0.0
5.7
94.3
0.0
9.2
90.8
0.0
11.5
86.7
1.8
Take right of
way?
% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
24.2
75.8
0.0
30.2
69.8
38.7
61.3
0.0
46.0
54.0
0.0
Likelihood
of getting caught?
Mean
(s.d.)
5.9
(1.8)
6.2
(1.4)
6.3
(1.2)
6.3
(1.5)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
55.9
24.1
20.0
69.1
15.8
15.1
15.6
68.8
15.6
7.3
79.3
13.4
Mean Fine
(If Yes)
Mean (Dollars)
(s.d.)
86.16
(37.15)
80.11
(36.72)
130.00
(60.00)
77.50
(32.02)
Lose Demerit
Points?

% Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
N/A N/A 12.0
70.7
17.3
7.3
79.3
13.4
Mean Demerits
(If Yes)
Mean (Points)
(s.d.)
N/A N/A 2.20
(.84)
1.75
(.50)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Technically right of way:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly less likely to
believe the pedestrian has right of way than were respondents who completed the
driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 5.23, p=.022). Respondents interviewed in Goulburn did not
differ from pedestrians interviewed in Glebe (5.1%; x
1
2
= 3.40, p=.065), or Chatswood
(10.3%; x
1
2
= 0.15, p=.701), in terms of beliefs about whether the pedestrian has right
of way (Goulburn: 9.1%). There was also no effect of site on this variable (x
1
2
= 0.41,
p=.521).
94
Take right of way:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly less likely to
report that they would take right of way than were respondents who completed the
driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 4.36, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were less likely to
report that they would take right of way (11.8%) than were respondents in Glebe
(53.2%; x
1
2
= 14.01, p<.001), and Chatswood (28.1%; x
1
2
= 78.10, p<.001). There was no
effect of site on this variable (x
1
2
= 2.95, p=.086).
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents in Goulburn reported being significantly more likely to get caught if they
took right of way ( M = 4.87) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 6.37; t
439
= 7.29,
p<.001), or in Chatswood (M = 6.26; t
439
= 6.37, p<.001). This variable was not
influenced by questionnaire version (F
1,440
= 3.09, p=.079), or site (F
1,440
= 1.24, p=.266).
Fine?
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly more likely
to report that they would be fined for taking right of way than were respondents who
completed the driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 59.97, p<.001). Respondents in Goulburn were
more likely to report that they could be fined for taking right of way (55.6% with
20.6% Dont know) than were respondents in Chatswood (27.8% with 30.6% Dont
know; x
1
2
= 10.36, p=.001), but did not differ from respondents in Glebe (50.8% with
6.8% Dont know; x
1
2
= 0.11, p=.742). There was also no effect of site on this variable
(x
1
2
= 1.31, p=.252).
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for taking right of way, respondents
in Goulburn did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 83.49; t
127
= -
.046, p=.964), or Chatswood (M = 86.69; t
127
= .215, p=.830) in terms of mean fine
estimates (Goulburn M = 84.26). This variable was not influenced by questionnaire
version (F
1,128
= 1.832, p=.178), or site (F
1,128
= 2.251, p=.136).
95
Demerit points?
Amongst respondents who completed the driver questionnaire, respondents in Goulburn
did not differ in terms of whether they thought they could get demerit points for taking
right of way (40.0% with 20.0% Dont know) compared to respondents in Glebe
(4.8% with 9.5% Dont know; x
1
2
= 3.57, p=.059), or Chatswood (8.6% with 22.4%
Dont know; x
1
2
= 3.38, p=.066). There was also no effect of site on this variable (x
1
2
=
0.00, p=.952).
Mean points?
Amongst those who completed the driver questionnaire, and who thought they could get
demerit points for taking right of way, respondents in Goulburn did not differ from
respondents in Glebe (M=1.3; t
7
=-.032, p=.975), or Chatswood (M=2.5; t
7
= 0.163,
p=.872), in terms of their estimates of mean demerit points (Goulburn M=1.8). This
variable was not influenced by site (F
1,8
= 2.133, p=.182).
96
BELIEFS ABOUT LEGALITIES RELATED TO VARIOUS INTERSECTION TYPES

CROSSING NEAR, BUT NOT AT, A MARKED PEDESTRIAN CROSSING
Table 22: Beliefs about legalities related to crossing near, but not at, a marked
pedestrian crossing, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire

Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Against law? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
81.9
7.9
10.2
85.4
6.3
8.2
85.6
9.3
5.1

85.7
8.0
6.3
If Yes
Mean Likelihood
of getting caught?
6.0
(1.6)
6.4
(1.3)
6.3
(1.2)
6.5
(1.2)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
68.5
12.5
19.0
75.3
8.4
16.2
60.0
15.7
24.3
67.3
12.1
20.6
If Yes
Mean Fine
95.53
(47.54)
83.57
(38.65)
83.29
(31.14)
78.00
(34.13)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Legal:
Respondents in Goulburn were significantly more likely to believe that it is against the
law to cross near, but not at, a marked pedestrian crossing (88.1% with 4.9% Dont
know) than were respondents in Chatswood (67.4% with 16.7% Dont know; x
1
2
=
21.47, p<.001), but did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (94.9% with
4.7% Dont know; x
1
2
= 1.59, p=.208). Responses to this question were not influenced
by questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.63, p=.428) or site (x
1
2
= 0.47, p=.491).
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents who were interviewed at intersections reported being significantly more
likely to get caught for crossing near, but not at, a marked crossing than did respondents
97
interviewed at carparks (F
1,540
= 5.70, p=.017). Respondents in Goulburn reported being
significantly more likely to get caught if they crossed near, but not at, a marked crossing
(M = 5.79) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 6.46; t
539
= 5.01, p<.001) or Chatswood
(M = 6.50; t
539
= 4.71, p<.001). Questionnaire version had no impact on responses to
this question (F
1,540
= 3.18, p=.075).
Fine?
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were significantly more likely
to report that they would be fined for crossing near, but not at, a marked crossing than
were respondents who completed the driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 3.88, p=.049).
Respondents in Goulburn were significantly more likely to report that they would be
fined for crossing near, but not at, a marked crossing (79.6% with 12.6% Dont know)
than were respondents in Chatswood (46.2% with 31.7% Dont know; x
1
2
= 35.20,
p<.001), but did not differ from respondents in Glebe (74.1% with 17.2% Dont know;
x
1
2
= 1.76, p=.185). Site had no impact on responses to this question (x
1
2
= 2.68,
p=.102).
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for crossing near, but not at, a marked
crossing, respondents in Goulburn did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe
(M = 82.91; t
218
= -1.029, p=.305), or Chatswood (M = 93.29; t
218
= .370, p=.712), in
terms of the mean fine (Goulburn M = 90.18). Responses to this question were not
influenced by site (F
1,219
= 3.789, p=.053), or questionnaire version (F
1,219
= 2.527,
p=.113).
98
NOT GIVING WAY AT A PAVED SECTION OF ROAD
Table 23: Beliefs about legalities related to not giving way to a pedestrian at a paved
section of road, by questionnaire version, and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire

Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Against law? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
40.0
37.7
22.3
40.3
41.5
18.2
37.0
49.6
13.4
41.6
52.2
6.2
If dont give way:
Mean Likelihood
of getting caught?
6.1
(1.6)
6.3
(1.3)
6.3
(1.1)
6.2
(1.4)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
45.8
26.7
27.5
45.4
28.5
26.2
40.3
33.8
26.0
32.2
33.3
34.5
If yes
Mean Fine
135.33
(52.79)
154.89
(91.70)
117.00
(51.82)
138.00
(54.61)
Demerit Points? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
30.5
30.5
39.1
32.3
35.4
32.3
28.6
40.3
31.2
19.5
42.5
37.9
If Yes
Mean Demerits
1.92
(1.31)
1.71
(.79)
1.68
(.64)
2.36
(2.85)
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Legal:
Respondents in Goulburn were significantly less likely to report that it is against the law
for a driver not to give way to a pedestrian at a paved section of road (as depicted in
Showcard 11) (14.0% with 21.5% Dont know) than were respondents in Glebe (57.7%
with 10.3% Dont know; x
1
2
= 71.44, p<.001), and in Chatswood (43.8% with 18.5%
Dont know; x
1
2
= 20.08, p<.001). Responses to this question were not influenced by
questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 1.49 p=.223) or site (x
1
2
= 1.25, p=.263).
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents in Goulburn reported a significantly higher likelihood of a driver getting
99
caught for not giving way to a pedestrian at a paved section of road (M = 4.58) than did
respondents in Glebe (M = 6.39; t
422
= 8.66, p<.001), or in Chatswood (M = 6.37; t
422
=
8.16, p<.001). Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire version
(F
1,423
= 0.04, p=.851) or site (F
1,423
= 0.42, p=.519).
Fine?
Respondents in Goulburn did not differ (44.4% with 28.9% Dont know) from
respondents in Glebe (45.7% with 27.8% Dont know; x
1
2
= 0.03, p=.861), or
Chatswood (34.9% with 28.8% Dont know; x
1
2
= 0.52, p=.471), in terms of whether
they thought there was a fine for failing to give way to a pedestrian at a paved section of
road. Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire version (x
1
2
=
2.80, p=.094) or site (x
1
2
= 0.62, p=.433).
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought they could be fined for failing to give way to a pedestrian at
a paved section of road, respondents in Goulburn did not differ significantly from
respondents in Glebe (M = 133.06; t
119
= -.224, p=.823), or in Chatswood (M = 163.45;
t
119
= 1.022, p=.309), in terms of their estimates of the fine (Goulburn M = 138.09).
Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire version (F
1,120
= 1.498,
p=.223), or site (F
1,120
= 2.380, p=.126).
Demerit points?
Respondents in Goulburn did not differ in terms of whether a driver could get demerit
points for failing to give way to a pedestrian at a paved section of road (37.2% with
25.6% Dont know) compared to respondents in Glebe (29.2% with 37.3% Dont know;
x
1
2
= 2.18, p=.140), or Chatswood (24.7% with 34.9% Dont know; x
1
2
= 2.60, p=.107).
Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.62,
p=.431) or site (x
1
2
= 0.01, p=.916).
100
Mean points?
Amongst those who thought a driver could get demerit points for failing to give way to a
pedestrian at a paved section of road, respondents in Goulburn did not differ
significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 1.64; t
87
= -.250, p=.807), or Chatswood
(M = 2.21; t
87
= .918, p=.366), in terms of their estimate of the number of points
(Goulburn M = 2.42). Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire
version (F
1,88
= .548, p=.461) or site (F
1,88
= .021, p=.886).
101
DRIVER OVERTAKING A STATIONARY VEHICLE AT A MARKED CROSSING
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire

Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
a
1 = 1 in 2 occasions; 2 = 1 in 5 occasions; 3 = 1 in 10 occasions; 4 = 1 in 20 occasions; 5 = 1 in 50
occasions; 6 = 1 in 100 occasions; 7 = 1 in 1000 occasions.

Legal:
Respondents who were interviewed at intersections were significantly less likely to think
that it is illegal for a driver to overtake a stationary vehicle at a marked crossing than
were respondents interviewed at carparks (x
1
2
= 3.95, p=.047). Respondents in Goulburn
were less likely to report that this behaviour is illegal (88.6% with 5.9% Dont know) than
were respondents in Chatswood (95.9% with 2.1% Dont know; x
1
2
= 5.62, p=.018), but
did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (91.5% with 3.8% Dont know; x
1
2

= 0.99, p=.319). Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire version
(x
1
2
= 0.04 p=.844).
Table 24: Beliefs about legalities related to overtaking a stationary vehicle at a
marked crossing, by questionnaire version, and site.
Against law? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
90.3
4.0
5.7
93.7
3.1
3.1
88.2
7.6
4.2
94.6
2.7
2.7
If overtake:
Mean Likelihood
of getting caught?
5.5
(1.8)
5.6
(1.5)
5.2
(1.7)
5.3
(1.7)
Is there a Fine? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
82.4
3.5
14.1
85.4
3.8
10.8
81.1
3.6
15.3
87.2
2.8
10.1
If Yes
Mean Fine
181.31
(125.68)
151.57
(59.57)
176.93
(92.78)
147.18
(59.96)
Demerit Points? % Yes
% No
% DONT KNOW
64.3
10.1
25.6
60.5
14.6
24.8
69.1
9.1
21.8
78.7
4.6
16.7
If Yes
Mean Demerits
2.23
(1.39)
2.02
(.79)
2.27
(.87)
2.34
(1.57)
102
Likelihood of getting caught:
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire reported a significantly lower
likelihood of a driver being caught for overtaking a stationary vehicle at a pedestrian
crossing than did respondents who completed the driver questionnaire (F
1,541
= 4.50,
p=.034). Respondents in Goulburn reported a significantly higher likelihood of getting
caught (M = 4.48) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 5.58; t
540
= 7.01, p<.001), or in
Chatswood (M = 6.13; t
540
= 9.37, p<.001). Site had no impact on responses to this
question (F
1,541
= 0.43, p=.515).
Fine?
Respondents in Goulburn were significantly more likely to report that a driver could get
a fine for overtaking a stationary vehicle at a pedestrian crossing (86.1% with 12.7%
Dont know) than were respondents in Chatswood (72.4% with 22.1% Dont know; x
1
2

= 8.39, p=.004), but did not differ from respondents in Glebe (89.4% with 6.8% Dont
know; x
1
2
= 1.24, p=.266). Responses to this question were not influenced by
questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.01 p=.943) or site (x
1
2
= 1.91 p=.167).
Mean fine?
Amongst those who thought a driver could get fined for overtaking a stationary vehicle
at a pedestrian crossing, respondents who were interviewed at crossings estimated
significantly larger fines (M=179.85) than did respondents who were interviewed at
carparks (M=149.84) (F
1,272
= 7.379, p=.007). Respondents in Goulburn estimated a
significantly higher mean fine (M = 198.33) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 142.54;
t
271
= -3.891, p=.001), but did not differ from respondents in Chatswood (M = 192.63;
t
271
= -.341, p=.733).
Demerit points?
Respondents who completed the pedestrian questionnaire were less likely to think that a
driver could get demerit points for overtaking a stationary vehicle at a pedestrian crossing
than were respondents who completed the driver questionnaire (x
1
2
= 6.59, p=.010).
Respondents in Goulburn did not differ in terms of whether they thought a driver could
get demerit points for overtaking a stationary vehicle at a pedestrian crossing (70.7% with
20.1% Dont know) compared to respondents in Glebe (70.9% with 12.9% Dont know;
103
x
1
2
= 0.03, p=.864), but thought they were significantly more likely to get demerit points
than did respondents in Chatswood (56.6% with 33.8% Dont know; x
1
2
= 7.54, p=.006).
Responses to this question were not influenced by site (x
1
2
= 0.29 p=.593).
Mean points?
Amongst those who thought a driver could get demerit points for overtaking a stationary
vehicle at a pedestrian crossing, respondents in Goulburn did not differ significantly
from respondents in Glebe (M = 1.29; t
359
= 0.29, p=.151), or Chatswood (M = 0.66 ; t
359

= -0.56, p=.575), in terms of the mean number of points(Goulburn M = 0.86).
Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire version (F
1,360
= 0.52,
p=.469) or site (F
1,360
= 0.71, p=.401).

104
SITUATIONS FOR STARTING TO CROSS ON A FLASHING DONT WALK SIGNAL

Table 25: Percentage of respondents who would begin crossing on a flashing Dont
Walk signal, by questionnaire version and site.
Situations Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
No cars in sight % Yes 78.0 81.1 79.8 76.9
Safe to do so % Yes 85.3 84.2 84.9 86.5
Cars are a long way off % Yes 71.8 74.1 72.0 72.1
Sign just started flashing % Yes 70.1 75.3 72.9 75.5

No cars in sight:
On average, 79.0% of respondents reported that they would begin crossing on a flashing
Dont Walk signal if there were no cars in sight. There was no main effect of
questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.45, p=.504), or site (x
1
2
= 1.10, p=.294). Respondents in
Goulburn were less likely to report beginning to cross in this situation (71.4%) than
respondents in Glebe (95.8%; x
1
2
= 48.71, p<.001), but did not differ significantly from
respondents in Chatswood (66.7%; x
1
2
= 0.83, p=.361)
When safe:
On average, 85.2% of respondents reported that they would begin crossing on a flashing
Dont Walk signal if it were safe to do so. There was no main effect of questionnaire
version (x
1
2
= 0.08, p=.774), or site (x
1
2
= 0.00, p=.999). Respondents in Goulburn were
also less likely to report beginning to cross in this situation (73.4%) than respondents in
Glebe (97.9%; x
1
2
= 55.57, p<.001), but did not differ significantly from respondents in
Chatswood (79.2%; x
1
2
= 1.48, p=.224).
When long way off:
On average, 72.6% of respondents reported that they would begin crossing on a flashing
Dont Walk signal if cars were a long way off. There was no main effect of
questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.04, p=.838), or site (x
1
2
= 0.13, p=.716). Respondents in
Goulburn were less likely to report beginning to cross in this situation (57.9%) than
105
respondents in Glebe (93.2%; x
1
2
= 74.57, p<.001), but did not differ significantly from
respondents in Chatswood (56.9%; x
1
2
= 0.03, p=.859).
If just started flashing
On average, 73.3% of respondents reported that they would begin crossing on a flashing
Dont Walk signal if cars were a long way off. There was no main effect of
questionnaire version (x
1
2
= 0.17, p=.677), or site (x
1
2
= 1.25, p=.263). Respondents in
Goulburn were less likely to report beginning to cross in this situation (56.6%) than
respondents in Glebe (92.8%; x
1
2
= 76.34, p<.001), but did not differ significantly from
respondents in Chatswood (61.8%; x
1
2
= 0.90, p=.343).

106
ATTITUDES REGARDING PEDESTRIAN ROAD USE
Table 26 presents mean ratings of agreement with a number of statements identifying
attitudes towards drivers and pedestrians on a fully-labelled, 5-point scale ranging from
strongly agree(1) to strongly disagree (5).
Table 26: Mean rating of agreement with statements expressing attitudes regarding
pedestrian road use, by questionnaire version and site
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Statement Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Pedestrians should stay off the road 3.27 3.26 3.17 3.38
Pedestrians should do more to avoid holding
up traffic
2.83 2.65 2.47 2.46
Pedestrians often cross dangerously 1.85 1.67 1.74 1.67
At traffic lights, more time should be given to
road traffic
3.55 3.55 3.38 3.53
Pedestrians often rely on cars to stop for them 1.97 2.02 1.90 1.82
Pedestrians are a traffic hazard 3.05 2.85 2.72 2.67
Roads are primarily for cars, so pedestrian use
of roads should be minimised
2.98 2.96 2.77 2.82
Pedestrians should avoid crossing busy roads
in peak hours
3.09 2.94 2.93 2.87
Pedestrians have as much right to use the road
as drivers
2.55 2.61 2.77 2.94
Many drivers drive dangerously 1.87 1.74 2.00 1.83
Drivers are often inconsiderate to pedestrians 2.11 2.07 2.19 2.01

Pedestrians should stay off roads
On average, respondents gave an agreement rating of 3.27 (where 5 is strong
disagreement). There was no main effect of questionnaire version (F
1, 559
= 0.00, p=.968),
or site (F
1, 559
= 0.81, p=.367). Respondents in Goulburn reported significantly lower
agreement (M = 3.17 ) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 3.17 ; t
564
= 2.00, p=.046),
and in Chatswood (M = 3.10; t
564
= 2.25, p=.025).
107
Pedestrians should avoid holding up traffic:
On average, respondents gave an agreement rating of 2.60 (where 5 is strong
disagreement). There was no main effect of site (F
1, 559
= 0.84, p=.360). Respondents
who completed the pedestrian version of the questionnaire reported significantly lower
agreement with this statement than respondents who completed the driver version (F
1, 559

= 6.73, p=.010). Respondents in Goulburn reported significantly higher agreement (M =
2.59) than did respondents in Chatswood (M = 2.85; t
564
= 1.99, p=.048), but did not
differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 2.60; t
564
= 0.08, p=.938).
Pedestrians often cross dangerously:
On average, respondents gave an agreement rating of 1.79 (where 5 is strong
disagreement). There was no main effect of questionnaire version (F
1, 559
= 0.62, p=.432),
or site (F
1, 559
= 2.84, p=.092). Respondents in Goulburn reported significantly higher
agreement (M = 1.69) than did respondents in Chatswood (M = 1.96; t
564
= 3.03,
p=.003), but did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 1.71; t
564
= 0.27,
p=.786).
At lights more time for cars:
On average, respondents gave an agreement rating of 3.52 (where 5 is strong
disagreement). There was no main effect of questionnaire version (F
1, 558
= 1.02, p=.313),
site (F
1, 558
= 0.61, p=.437), or location (Glebe M = 3.64 vs Goulburn M = 3.45 t
563
=
1.83, p=.068; Chatswood M = 3.47 vs Goulburn t
563
= 0.15, p=.879).
Pedestrians rely on cars to stop:
On average, respondents gave an agreement rating of 1.96 (where 5 is strong
disagreement). There was no main effect of questionnaire version (F
1, 558
= 2.75, p=.098),
site (F
1, 558
= 0.04, p=.838), or location (Glebe M = 1.82 vs Goulburn M = 1.96 t
563
=
1.64, p=.102, p=.068; Chatswood M = 2.10 vs Goulburn t
563
= 1.48, p=.141).
Pedestrians are a traffic hazard:
On average, respondents gave an agreement rating of 2.83 (where 5 is strong
disagreement). There was no main effect of site (F
1, 559
= 1.40, p=.238). Respondents
who completed the pedestrian version of the questionnaire reported significantly lower
108
agreement with this statement than respondents who completed the driver version (F
1, 559

= 5.85, p=.016). Respondents in Goulburn reported significantly lower agreement (M =
2.96) than did respondents in Chatswood (M = 2.70; t
564
= 2.04, p=.042), but did not
differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 2.82; t
564
= 1.18, p=.240).
Roads are for cars:
On average, respondents gave an agreement rating of 2.92 (where 5 is strong
disagreement). There was no main effect of questionnaire version (F
1, 558
= 2.72, p=.100),
site (F
1, 558
= 0.02, p=.878), or location (Glebe M = 2.95 vs Goulburn M = 2.83 t
563
=
1.03, p=.301; Chatswood M = 2.99 vs Goulburn t
563
= 1.20, p=.230).
Pedestrians should avoid crossing busy roads:
On average, respondents gave an agreement rating of 3.09 (where 5 is strong
disagreement ). There was no main effect of questionnaire version (F
1, 559
= 1.11,
p=.293), or site (F
1, 559
= 0.91, p=.341). Respondents in Goulburn reported significantly
higher agreement (M = 2.75 ) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 3.12; t
564
= 3.19,
p=.002), and in Chatswood (M = 3.39; t
564
= 4.88, p<.001).
Pedestrians have as much rights as drivers:
On average, respondents gave an agreement rating of 2.72 (where 5 is strong
disagreement). There was no main effect of site (F
1, 559
= 1.15, p=.284). Respondents
who completed the pedestrian version of the questionnaire reported significantly higher
agreement with this statement than respondents who completed the driver version (F
1, 559

= 6.86, p=.009). Respondents in Goulburn reported significantly higher agreement (M =
2.58) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 2.88; t
564
= 2.62, p=.009), but did not differ
significantly from respondents in Chatswood (M = 2.70; t
564
= 0.95, p=.345).
Many drivers are dangerous:
On average, respondents gave an agreement rating of 1.83 (where 5 is strong
disagreement). There was no main effect of questionnaire version (F
1, 559
= 1.59, p=.208),
or site (F
1, 559
= 3.25, p=.072). Respondents in Goulburn reported significantly lower
agreement (M = 2.06) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 1.56; t
564
= 5.58, p<.001), but
did not differ significantly from respondents in Chatswood (M = 1.87; t
563
= 1.20,
p=.230).
109
Drivers are often inconsiderate:
On average, respondents gave an agreement rating of 2.08 (where 5 is strong
disagreement). There was no main effect of questionnaire version (F
1, 559
= 0.01, p=.915),
or site (F
1, 559
= 1.36, p=.244). Respondents in Goulburn reported significantly lower
agreement (M = 2.20) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 2.01; t
564
= 1.88, p=.061), but
did not differ significantly from respondents in Chatswood (M = 2.03; t
564
= 1.47,
p=.142).
110

PERCEIVED RELATIVE SKILLS AS A PEDESTRIAN
Respondents rated their skill as a pedestrian compared to the average pedestrian, on
several dimensions, on a scale ranging from 1 (much lower than average) to 7 (much
higher than average).
Table 27: Mean rating of perceived relative skills as a pedestrian compared to the
average pedestrian by questionnaire version and site
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnnaire
Skills Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark
Agility
5.19

4.76

5.13

5.09
Ability to cross road safely
5.44

5.38

5.30

5.40
Walking Speed
5.50

5.05

5.47

5.34
Ability to judge distance and speed of cars
5.02

5.04

5.15

5.04

Perceived relative superiority for skill as a pedestrian was assessed by comparing
perceived relative estimates to four (corresponding to a rating of average), employing
1-tailed single sample t-tests. Scores significantly greater than 4 reflect perceived relative
superiority. Perceived relative superiority was observed for all measures of pedestrian
skill: Agility compared to peers (t
565
= 21.78, p<.001, M = 5.10), road crossing ability (t
565
= 27.08, p<.001, M = 5.39), walking speed (t
564
= 25.54, p<.001, M
speed
= 5.40) and
judging distance and speed (t
564
= 20.57, p<.001, M = 5.10).
Agility:
Respondents interviewed at intersections demonstrated significantly greater relative
estimates of agility than did respondents interviewed at carparks (F
1, 558
= 4.56, p=.033).
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn had significantly lower relative estimates of agility
(M = 4.91) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 5.23; t
563
= 2.73, p=.006), but did not
differ significantly from respondents in Chatswood (M = 5.13; t
563
= 1.64, p=.102).
Questionnaire version was not significantly related to responses to this question (F
1, 558
=
1.59, p=.208).
111
Road crossing ability:
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn had significantly lower relative estimates of road
crossing ability (M = 5.35) than did respondents in Chatswood (M = 5.63; t
,563
= 2.73,
p=.006), but did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 5.29; t
563
= 0.49,
p=.622). Responses to this question were not significantly influenced by questionnaire
version (F
1, 558
= 0.33, p=.563), or site (F
1, 558
= 0.03, p=.866).
Walking speed:
Respondents interviewed at intersections demonstrated significantly greater relative
estimates of walking speed than did respondents interviewed at carparks (F
1, 557
= 5.93,
p=.015). Respondents interviewed in Goulburn had significantly lower relative estimates
of walking speed (M = 5.20) than did respondents in Glebe (M = 5.61; t
562
= 3.21, p=.001),
but did not differ significantly from respondents in Chatswood (M = 5.31; t
562
= 0.80,
p=.426). Questionnaire version was not significantly related to responses to this question
(F
1, 557
= 1.06, p=.303).
Judging distance & speed:
Respondents interviewed in Goulburn had significantly lower relative estimates of skill at
judging distance and speed (M = 4.90) than did respondents in Chatswood (M = 5.38; t
562

= 3.36, p=.001), but did not differ significantly from respondents in Glebe (M = 5.09; t
562
=
1.53, p=.125). Responses to this question were not significantly influenced by
questionnaire version (F
1, 557
= 0.31, p=.578), or site (F
1, 557
= 0.14, p=.709).


112

PERCEIVED DANGER OF BEING A PEDESTRIAN

Table 28: Mean estimate of the number of pedestrians killed each year in NSW by
questionnaire version and site.
Ped Qnnaire Driver Qnniare
Intersection Carpark Intersection Carpark

329.13

319.39

1111.35

220.93

All estimates were far in excess of typical actual figures. For example, 110 pedestrians
were killed on NSW roads in 2000.
Responses to this question were not influenced by questionnaire version (F
1, 528
= 0.66,
p=.416), site (F
1, 528
= 1.15, p=.284), or location (Glebe vs Goulburn t
533
= 1.23, p=.219;
Chatswood vs Goulburn; t
533
= 0.16, p=.877).

113
RELATIONSHIPS OF PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS WITH BELIEF IN PEDESTRIAN RIGHT
OF WAY IN KEY SITUATIONS
The belief that a pedestrian facing a Walk signal has right of way over traffic facing a
green signal and turning left across their path [see Figure 4]was not significantly
associated with age (F
1, 561
= 1.07, p=.744), gender (x
1
2
= 2.43, p=.119), speaking English
at home (x
1
2
= 0.91, p=.339), frequency of walking by a road (F
1, 562
= 3.33, p=.069),
frequency of crossing the road (F
1, 563
= 2.48, p=.116), having a drivers licence (x
1
2
=
0.09, p=.770), length of licensure (F
1, 506
= 0.07, p=.785), number of hours driven per
week (F
1, 506
= 1.45, p=.222), or having been hit by a bus or car (x
1
2
= 0.31, p=.576).
Similarly, the belief that a pedestrian facing a Walk signal has right of way over
traffic facing a green signal and turning right across their path [see Figure 5] was not
significantly associated with age (F
1, 561
= 0.44, p=.646), gender (x
1
2
= 0.15, p=.698),
speaking English at home (x
1
2
= 0.61, p=.433), frequency of walking by a road (F
1, 563
=
1.08, p=.339), frequency of crossing the road (F
1, 564
= 0.96, p=.384), having a drivers
licence (x
1
2
= 1.10, p=.294), length of licensure (F
1, 508
= 0.73, p=.483), number of hours
driven per week (F
1, 508
= 0.49, p=.614), or having been hit by a bus or car (x
1
2
= 0.03,
p=.866).
114

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

OBSERVATIONAL STUDY
Results provided some evidence that there is an assumption of pedestrian right of way
when a pedestrian is crossing on Walk and parallel traffic is facing a green signal, and
that there is room for improvement in checking for traffic.
The majority of observed pedestrians started crossing on a pedestrian Walk signal,
particularly on a fresh Walk signal. Nonetheless, it is concerning that in both Glebe
and Goulburn a sizeable proportion of the sample started crossing on a pedestrian
Dont Walk signal. Situations in which pedestrians are prepared to begin crossing on a
flashing Dont Walk signal are considered in Discussion of the survey results.
The majority of pedestrians started crossing while the traffic signal facing parallel traffic
was green, and there was a suitable distribution of pedestrians across the concurrent
pedestrian signals to compare the Walk signal with the flashing Dont Walk signal,
and with the Dont Walk signal.
Rates of looking at traffic before crossing were reasonably high in Glebe and Goulburn
(73%), but moderate in Chatswood (28%). Rates of waiting for traffic to stop before
crossing were also reasonably high in Glebe and Goulburn (66%), but low in Chatswood
(11%). This may simply reflect a higher pedestrian volume in Chatswood, in that many
observed pedestrians may cross on a single phase, when it is clear that traffic has already
stopped. Looking at traffic while crossing was moderate in all locations (18%).
Considering only situations in which the traffic signal facing parallel traffic was green,
pedestrians who began crossing on a Walk signal were significantly less likely to look at
relevant traffic (perpendicular to the pedestrian path) before crossing, and while crossing,
than pedestrians who began crossing on a flashing Dont Walk signal, or a Dont
Walk signal. This apparently reduced attention to traffic suggests that pedestrians do
assume that they have right of way when they are facing a Walk signal. It may appear
contradictory that pedestrians who began crossing on a Walk signal were significantly
115
more likely to wait for traffic to stop before crossing than pedestrians who began crossing
on a flashing Dont Walk signal, or a Dont Walk signal. However, by the time the
signal changes to Dont Walk the relevant traffic is likely to have already stopped, or
the decision of the pedestrian to cross may indicate that there is no traffic present.
Very little conflict between pedestrians and vehicles was observed in any location, so
conflicts and potential conflicts were combined for analysis. Considering only situations
in which the traffic signal facing parallel traffic was green, pedestrians who began
crossing on a Walk signal were significantly less likely to experience conflict or
potential conflict than pedestrians who began crossing on a flashing Dont Walk
signal, or a Dont Walk signal. This is unsurprising given that drivers are more likely to
assume that pedestrians will not be crossing in this situation. Nonetheless, the fact that
the proportion of the sample crossing on the green/walk combination and experiencing
potential or actual conflict (3.1%) was just under half the proportion of the sample
crossing on the green/Dont Walk combinations (7.3%) and experiencing potential or
actual conflict, suggests that concerns with the green/walk combination are warranted.
When the traffic signal facing parallel traffic was green, pedestrians who began crossing
on the Walk signal were older, and had longer crossing times, than pedestrians who
began crossing on a flashing Dont Walk signal, or a Dont Walk signal. There were
no differences in terms of gender.
Pedestrians observed in Goulburn appeared less likely to cross on a Walk signal and
more likely to cross on a Dont Walk signal than did pedestrians in Chatswood. The
possibility that this reflects a lower traffic density in Goulburn (and so greater safety of
crossing on Dont Walk) is mitigated by a similar pattern being observed in Glebe as in
Goulburn.
The finding that pedestrians observed in Goulburn were significantly more likely than
those observed in Chatswood to look at traffic before crossing, may reflect their greater
likelihood of crossing on a Dont Walk signal. Pedestrians observed in Goulburn were
significantly less likely than those observed in Glebe to look at traffic before crossing
(although more likely to cross while the signal facing parallel traffic was red). Pedestrians
observed in Goulburn were also significantly more likely than those observed Chatswood
to wait for traffic to stop before crossing.
116
Significantly fewer conflicts were observed in Goulburn than in either Glebe or
Chatswood, probably refecting lower traffic density.
117
SURVEY
Before the key findings are discussed, some limitations with the present research will be
considered because they may influence interpretation.
LIMITATIONS WITH THE PRESENT RESEARCH
Whilst one or two aspects of the questionnaire could be refined, the existing
imperfections are unlikely to have distorted the results.
Asking respondents if they could be caught (or fined etc.) for taking right of way after
they had indicated that they thought they had right of way may have been awkward.
Interviewers handled this issue by not proceeding with this line of questioning if
respondents did not seem to understand it. Nonetheless, our results are consistent with
the possibility that some respondents ignored the conditional phrase in the question (If
you dont have right of way and you take it, such that perceived likelihood of
getting caught partly reflects beliefs about right of way. For example, for the situation
with the highest proportion of the sample identifying pedestrian right of way (96.6%,
Showcard 10), 79.1% of pedestrian questionnaire respondents nominated the lowest
possible likelihood of getting caught for taking right of way (1 in 1000). In contrast, for
the situation with the lowest proportion of the sample identifying pedestrian right of
way (8.2%, Showcard 3), only 59.0% of pedestrian questionnaire respondents
nominated the lowest possible likelihood (1 in 1000). 18.7% nominated a higher
likelihood of 1 in 100 (compared to only 7.8% for Showcard 10). If researchers are more
interested in beliefs about detection per se, these questions should only be asked of
respondents who do not believe they have right of way. It is also not clear whether
respondents applied the conditional phrase to questions regarding fines and demerits.
The question- would you take right of way (whether you have it or not)?, may also
be subject to different interpretations for different respondents, particularly for those
who did versus didnt believe that they had right of way, and for drivers versus
pedestrians. However, our primary aim of obtaining basic information about how many
pedestrians would take right of way in each situation was achieved by this question,
without conducting the analysis required to clarify different interpretations.
The showcard depicting a paved section of road that may be mistaken for a crossing
118
could have been clearer. However, along with the verbal description, it is probable that
respondents understood exactly the type of crossing in question.
Some limitations in sampling are also unlikely to have substantially distorted results.
Specifically, the different locations had slightly different proportions of pedestrian versus
driver versions of the questionnaire, and of intersection versus carpark interviews.
Nonetheless, Goulburn typically differed from Glebe and from Chatswood in the same
direction, despite lying between them in terms of sample make-up. Thus, if anything, some
of these differences may have been underestimated. Further, whilst the sample of
respondents that completed the pedestrian questionnaire is over represented by Glebe
and (to a lesser extent) Chatswood respondents (whereas Glebe respondents under-
represent the sample of respondents that were interviewed at intersections) there is little
evidence of parallel effects of questionnaire version or site, and location.
Naturally, the limitations of all self-report measures must be recognised. Specifically, self-
reports may reflect errors in recall or reporting. Several aspects of the present results allay
concerns that results were distorted by social desirability. For example, the large
proportion of the sample admitting that they would begin crossing on a flashing Dont
Walk signal under various circumstances. Further, for the most critical questions in the
present research (i.e. regarding who has right of way) the main social pressure on
respondents would be to be correct.
Thus, the main limitations of the present research are not likely to have substantially
distorted the results.
119
Table 29: Summary of descriptives, by questionnaire version (Ped=pedestrian versus
driver) where appropriate, for questions regarding situations in Showcards 1-10.
Showcard 7 10 1 4 6 2 9 5 8 3
Pedestrian has
right of way
95.4 96.6 55.7 14.7 15.2 71.1 96.4 91.3 21.0 8.2
Take right of
way?
Ped. 12.2 90.9 57.1 29.2 28.4 71.3 86.4 84.3 33.9 27.2
Driver 12.4 12.2 23.5 36.8 50.7 34.1 16.2 34.3 37.0 42.4
Likelihood of
getting caught?
Ped. 6.5 6.5 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.4 6.6 6.5 6.2 6.1
Driver 5.7 5.8 6.0 6.3 6.3 5.8 5.6 5.8 6.3 6.3
Is there a Fine? Ped. 13.7 14.5 34.2 56.8 52.2 12.0 9.2 11.4 40.8 62.5
Driver 52.5 50.9 35.1 21.1 20.1 48.9 64.0 54.1 14.8 11.5
If Yes, Mean
Fine
Ped. 99.6 103.3 90.1 45.5 86.4 103.0 117.9 135.4 83.2 83.1
Driver 136.0 122.9 116.7 110.8 106.5 126.9 145.0 135.4 119.8 103.8
Are there
Demerit
Points?
Ped. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Driver 41.1 38.4 19.8 12.3 4.2 38.7 57.3 44.4 11.0 9.7
If Yes, Mean
Demerits
Ped. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Driver 2.0 2.3 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.0


120
Table 30: Summary of differences between questionnaire version (P=pedestrian
versus D=driver), site (I=intersection versus C=carpark), & location (G=Goulburn,
Gl=Glebe, C=Chatswood), for questions regarding the situations in Showcards 1-10
Showcard 7 10 1 4 6 2 9 5 8 3
Pedestrian
right of
way
Qnnaire
version
X X X X X P>D X X X P<D
Site X X X X X X X X X X
Location X G<Gl
G=C
G<Gl
G<C
G<Gl
G<C
G<Gl
G=C
X X X G<Gl
G<C
X
Take
right of
way?
Qnnaire
version
P<D P>D P>D X P<D P>D P>D P>D X P<D
Site X X X
(p=.056)
I>C X I<C X X X X
(p=.086)
Location G<Gl
G=C
(p=.097)
G<Gl
G=C
G<Gl
G<C
G<Gl
G<C
G<Gl
G=C
G<Gl
G<C
G<Gl
G<C
G<Gl
G<C
G<Gl
G<C
G<Gl
G<C
Likelihood
of getting
caught?
Qnnaire
version
P<D

P<D P<D X
(p=.076)
X
(p=.071)
P<D P<D P<D X X
Site I>C I>C I>C X

I>C I>C I>C X I>C X
Location G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
Is there a
Fine?
Qnnaire
version
P<D

P<D X P>D P>D P<D P<D P<D P>D P>D
Site X X X X X X X X X X
Location G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G=Gl
G>C
If Yes Qnnaire
version
X X P<D X X X X X P<D X
Mean Fine Site X X X X X X X X X X
Location X X X X X X X X X X

121
Table 30 (cont.): Summary of differences between questionnaire version
(P=pedestrian versus D=driver), site (I=intersection versus C=carpark), & location
(G=Goulburn, Gl=Glebe, C=Chatswood), for questions regarding the situations in
Showcards 1-10
Showcard 7 10 1 4 6 2 9 5 8 3
Are there Demerit
Points?
Qnnaire
version
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
(Driver Qnnaire
only)
Site X X X X X X I>C X X X
Location G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G=C
(p=.057)
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G=C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G=C
X
If Yes Qnnaire
version
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mean Demerits Site X X X X X X X X X X
(Driver Qnnaire
only)
Location G>Gl
G=C
X X G>Gl
G=C
X X X X X X


122

BELIEFS ABOUT, AND SELF-REPORTED INTENTIONS TOWARDS, RIGHT OF
WAY
Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling in the same direction as the
pedestrian and turning left on a green light, at a 4-way intersection
In this key situation, there was a general recognition of pedestrian right of way
(unaffected by questionnaire version, or interview site), but it appears that drivers may
take right of way nonetheless.
The vast majority of respondents recognised that the pedestrian has right of way, with
only 4.6% of respondents identifying the driver as having right of way. These beliefs
were not influenced by whether respondents were cast in the role of pedestrian or driver,
or by whether respondents had just been walking (intersection sites) or driving (carpark
sites), or by whether respondents were interviewed in urban or rural locations.
Nonetheless, only 12.2% of respondents cast in the role of pedestrian reported that they
would take right of way, and a significantly greater proportion of respondents cast in
the role of driver (12.4%) reported that they would. The largest proportion (18.8%) was
observed for respondents who completed the driver version of the interview at carpark
sites. This suggests a troublesome potential for pedestrian/vehicle conflict. Respondents
in Goulburn reported being less likely to take right of way than respondents in Glebe
(but not in Chatswood), reflecting a conservatism that is evident throughout the results,
and perhaps a higher expectation of detection (see later).
Respondents were then asked, If you dont have right of way and you take it, about
how likely are you to get caught.Respondents felt that they were fairly likely to get
caught for taking right of way in this key situation (with a rating corresponding to
roughly 1 in 100). Pedestrians likelihood estimates were lower than drivers,
probably reflecting the belief that they have right of way in this situation, but possibly
also a belief that police are more focused on drivers. Respondents interviewed at
intersections gave higher ratings than respondents at carparks (despite the greater
proportion of pedestrian questionnaires among them), perhaps because of a perceived
vulnerability associated with being in the area for detection. Respondents in Goulburn
gave higher ratings than respondents in Glebe or Chatswood (also a consistent finding),
perhaps reflecting a greater faith in the efficiency of detection in a lower density
123
community.
13.7% of respondents who were cast in the role of pedestrian reported that they could be
fined for taking right of way, whereas 52.5% of respondents who were cast in the role
of driver felt that they could be fined, and this difference was significant. This probably
reflects the belief that pedestrians have right of way in this situation, but also suggests
some misunderstanding of the questionnaire (since 95.4% of respondents believed that
the pedestrian had right of way). Further, there is likely to be a belief that fines are
more often applied to drivers than pedestrians. Respondents in Goulburn were more
likely to report that they could be fined (72.2%), or receive demerit points (64.3%), for
taking right of way than were pedestrian in Glebe and in Chatswood (fine: 24.6%;
demerit points: 34.2%) (again, a consistent finding).
The mean estimated fine was consistently not influenced by questionnaire version, site,
or location. The mean estimated demerit points was higher in Goulburn (2.4) than in
Glebe (1.4) but not Chatswood (2.3)
Many drivers reported that they did not know whether they could be fined (17.3%) or
receive demerit points (23.0%) for taking right of way in this situation.

Crossing on Walk with traffic initially travelling against the pedestrian and
turning right on a green light
Similar to the previous situation, in this key situation there was a strong perception of
pedestrian right of way, but more inclination of pedestrians to take it. Nonetheless, a
substantial proportion of drivers also plan to take right of way in this situation.
The vast majority of respondents recognised that the pedestrian has right of way, with
only 3.4% of respondents identifying the driver as having right of way. It is interesting
that the traffic turning right appears to slightly increase the likelihood that the pedestrian
is perceived to have right of way (compared to the previous situation). This belief was
not influenced by whether respondents were cast in the role of pedestrian or driver, or
by whether respondents had just been walking (intersection sites) or driving (carpark
sites). However, as in other situations, respondents interviewed in Goulburn were less
likely to think that the pedestrian had right of way compared to respondents
interviewed in either of the two urban locations.
124
In this situation 90.9% of respondents cast in the role of pedestrian reported that they
would take right of way, and a significantly lower proportion of respondents cast in the
role of driver (12.2%) reported that they would. Again, there appears to be a substantial
change in the reported behaviour of pedestrians (but not drivers) when the car is
turning right (as compared to the previous situation). That is, here the pedestrian is not
only perceived to have right of way but also plans to take it. Amongst respondents
who completed the driver version of the interview, those interviewed at carpark sites
appeared more likely to report that they would take right of way than those
interviewed at intersections (20.2% vs 4.2%)(similarly to the previous situation).
Respondents in Goulburn reported being less likely to take right of way than
respondents in Glebe (but not in Chatswood, p=.102), as in the previous situation (and
others to follow).
Respondents felt that they were fairly likely to get caught for taking right of way (with
a rating corresponding to slightly less than 1 in 100). Significant differences on the basis
of questionnaire version, interview site and location were identical to those discussed in
relation to the situation above.
14.5% of respondents who were cast in the role of pedestrian reported that they could be
fined for taking right of way, whereas 50.9% of respondents who were cast in the role
of driver felt that they could be fined, and this difference was significant. This probably
reflects the belief that pedestrians have right of way in this situation, but also suggests
some misunderstanding of the questionnaire (since only 3.4% of respondents believed
that the driver had right of way). Further, these figures are little changed compared to
the above situation. Respondents in Goulburn were more likely to report that they could
be fined (60.3%), or receive demerit points (62.8%), for taking right of way than were
pedestrian in Glebe and in Chatswood (fine: 24.7%; demerit points: 31.4%).
The mean estimated fine and demerit points was not influenced by questionnaire version,
site, or location.
Many drivers reported that they did not know whether they could be fined (18.1%) or
receive demerit points (25.0%) for taking right of way in this situation.

125
Crossing on flashing Dont Walk or Dont Walk with traffic initially travelling
in the same direction as the pedestrian and turning left on a green light, at a
4-way intersection

Compared to the first two situations, there appeared to be a substantial drop in
respondents perception that the pedestrian has right of way, when the traffic is facing
a green signal and the pedestrian is facing a flashing Dont Walk (55.7%) signal. A
further substantial drop was observed when the pedestrian is facing a Dont Walk
signal (14.7). In both cases, respondents interviewed in Goulburn were again less likely to
think that the pedestrian had right of way compared to respondents interviewed in
either of the two urban locations. Again, these beliefs were not influenced by whether
respondents were cast in the role of pedestrian or driver, or by whether respondents had
just been walking (intersection sites) or driving (carpark sites).
Importantly, these results suggest some confusion as to the status of the flashing Dont
Walk signal.
Correspondingly, 57.1% of respondents cast in the role of pedestrian reported that they
would take right of way on a flashing Dont Walk signal, whereas 29.2% said they
would take right of way on a Dont Walk signal. Thus, in this situation, a greater
percentage of pedestrians plan to take right of way than those who think they have it,
which is concerning.
Respondents who were cast in the role of pedestrian were more likely than those who
were cast in the role of driver to report that they would take right of way when facing a
flashing Dont Walk (perhaps reflecting the slightly stronger belief in pedestrian right
of way than driver right of way identified above). Respondents who were interviewed
at intersections were more likely than those who were interviewed in carparks to report
that they would take right of way when facing a Dont Walk. Again, respondents in
Goulburn reported being less likely to take right of way than urban respondents in
both situations.
Respondents felt that they were fairly likely to get caught for taking right of way (with
a rating corresponding to just less than 1 in 100), and ratings were similar regardless of
whether the Dont Walk signal was flashing or not. There was no difference between
pedestrians and drivers likelihood estimates, probably reflecting a slightly more
126
prevalent belief in pedestrian right of way in this situation, coupled with a belief that
police are more focused on drivers. Respondents who were interviewed at intersections
again estimated that they were more likely to get caught than did respondents who were
interviewed at carparks. Respondents in Goulburn again gave higher ratings than
respondents in Glebe or Chatswood.
Respondents who were cast in the role of pedestrian appeared more likely to think that
they could be fined for crossing on Dont Walk (56.8%) than flashing Dont Walk
(34.2%) (as compared to an average of 14.1% for Walk), corresponding to right of
way beliefs. Respondents who were cast in the role of driver appeared less likely to
think than they could be fined for turning across a pedestrian crossing on Dont Walk
(21.1%) than on flashing Dont Walk (35.1%), again corresponding to right of way
beliefs.
Respondents who were cast in the role of pedestrian appeared more likely to think that
they could be fined for taking right of way in the Dont Walk situation, than did
respondents who were cast in the role of driver. Respondents in Goulburn were more
likely to report that they could be fined (flashing Dont Walk 73.9%; Dont Walk
70.3%) for taking right of way than were respondents in Glebe and in Chatswood
(flashing Dont Walk 27.5%; Dont Walk 36.4%). Respondents in Goulburn were
generally more likely to think they could receive demerit points (flashing Dont Walk
65.4%; Dont Walk 46.7%) than were respondents in Glebe or Chatswood (flashing
Dont Walk 19.3%; Dont Walk 9.1%) (although for Dont Walk the difference
from Chatswood was not significant).
For flashing Dont Walk, the mean estimated fine was lower for pedestrian
questionnaire respondents ($90.1) than for driver questionnaire respondents ($116.7).
For Dont Walk, mean demerit points were greater in Goulburn (2.4) than in Glebe
(1.3), but not Chatswood (2.4). There were no further effects of questionnaire version,
site, or location.
Many drivers reported that they did not know whether they could be fined (19.8%) or
receive demerit points (19.6%) for taking right of way in these situations.

127
Pedestrian right of way in remaining situations
The situation of a pedestrian crossing while facing a Dont Walk signal with traffic
initially travelling perpendicular and turning left on a red light with a Left turn permitted
after stopping sign, produced a roughly similar perception of pedestrian right of way
(15.2%) to the situation of a pedestrian crossing while facing a Dont Walk with traffic
initially travelling parallel and turning left on a green light (14.7%).
The situations involving a pedestrian crossing on, a zebra crossing produced a common
perception of pedestrian right of way (93.8%). Noteably, this is roughly similar to the
situations involving a pedestrian facing Walk with green-facing traffic either turning
left (95.4%) or right (96.6%) across them. The situation of waiting beside a pedestrian
crossing produced a somewhat lower perception of pedestrian right of way (71.1%).
A pedestrian crossing toward a pedestrian island with nearside traffic approaching was
seen to have right of way by only 21% of the sample, but by more of the sample than
perceived a pedestrian crossing without a marked crossing to have right of way (7.7%).
A difference between respondents who were cast in the role of pedestrian versus driver
was only observed in 2 of 10 situations. Pedestrians were more likely than drivers to
think that the pedestrian had right of way when waiting at a zebra crossing, whereas
pedestrians were less likely than drivers to think that the pedestrian had right of
way when crossing at an unmarked stretch of road.
As in several other situations, Goulburn respondents were less likely than urban
respondents to think that the pedestrian has right of way in the Left turn permitted
and the pedestrian island situations. There was no influence of questionnaire version, or
site, on any of these perceptions.

Taking right of way in remaining situations
In keeping with most situations discussed earlier, there was a rough correspondence
between perception of pedestrian right of way and reports of taking right of way.
Further, a strong perception of right of way tended to produce a difference between
respondents to the pedestrian versus driver versions of the questionnaire in terms of
reports of taking right of way.
128
For example, in the situation of a pedestrian crossing while facing a Dont Walk signal
with traffic initially travelling perpendicular turning left on a red light with a Left turn
permitted after stopping sign, the perception of pedestrian right of way was low
(15.2%). Only 28.4% of pedestrian questionnaire respondents reported that they would
take right of way, whereas 50.7% of driver questionnaire respondents reported that
they would, and this difference was significant.
In situations involving a pedestrian crossing on a zebra crossing, 85.4% of pedestrian
questionnaire respondents said that they would take right of way. Driver questionnaire
respondents were significantly less likely to report that they would take right of way,
but appeared to be influenced by whether the traffic was nearside (when only 16.2%
reported that they would take right of way) or farside (when 34.3% said that they
would take right of way). This is somewhat concerning in that whilst farside traffic
may clear the zebra crossing before the pedestrian reaches the second half of their
crossing, following traffic may be less likely to check appropriately for pedestrians. When
the pedestrian is waiting beside the crossing 71.3% of pedestrian questionnaire
respondents reported that they would take right of way, and 34.1% of driver
questionnaire respondents reported that they would. Improved awareness of drivers
responsibilities when pedestrians are waiting at, or crossing on, a zebra crossing is thus
warranted.
When a pedestrian is crossing toward a pedestrian island with nearside traffic
approaching, about 35% of both pedestrian and driver questionnaire respondents
reported that they would take right of way (and there was no significant difference
between them). There was a shared perception of a moderate pedestrian right of way.
Again, clarification of rights of way at this type of crossing appears to be warranted.
In the situation of a pedestrian crossing at an unmarked stretch of road, 27.2% of
pedestrian questionnaire respondents reported that they would take right of way, and
42.4% of driver questionnaire respondents reported that they would. Thus, although
many respondents believed that a pedestrian does not have right of way in this
situation, a concerning number of them report that they would cross.
In all situations, there was some indication of rural respondents being less likely to take
right of way than urban respondents (although in some situations the difference
between Goulburn and Chatswood was not significant). There was only 1 effect of site.
129

Likelihood of getting caught in remaining situations
As in the earlier situations, respondents cast in the role of pedestrian tended to estimate
that they were less likely to get caught than did respondents cast in the role of driver, and
naturally this was most pronounced in situations where there was a strong perception of
pedestrian right of way.
In 4 of the 6 remaining situations, respondents interviewed at intersections estimated
their chances of getting caught for taking right of way higher than did respondents
interviewed at carparks. Perhaps being at the roadside makes the possibility of on-road
detection more salient.
Respondents in Goulburn consistently rated their chances of getting caught for taking
right of way higher than respondents in both Glebe and Chatswood. As noted earlier,
this may reflect a greater faith in the efficiency of detection in a lower density
community.
Ratings generally averaged around 1 in 100, and this may indicate room for improvement
in the sensitivity of the scale.

Likelihood of fine and mean fine in remaining situations
The percentage of the pedestrian and driver (based on questionnaire version)
samples believing that they could be fined for taking right of way corresponded
roughly to the perception of pedestrian right of way. That is, in situations in which the
pedestrian was perceived to have right of way by most of the total sample, drivers were
more likely to think that they could be fined than pedestrians, and vice versa in situations
in which most of the total sample thought the driver had right of way. The highest
proportion of the pedestrian sample thinking that they would have to pay a fine was
69.1%, in the situation of crossing at an unmarked stretch of road. The highest
proportion of the driver sample thinking that they would have to pay a fine was 75.3%,
in the situation of taking right of way as nearside traffic when a pedestrian is crossing
on a zebra crossing.
Respondents in Goulburn generally gave lower ratings of their chances of getting a fine
130
than did respondents in Glebe or Chatswood (although in a couple of instances the
difference from Glebe was not significant).
Generally, a sizeable proportion of the sample reported that they did not know whether
there was a fine (up to 23.9%).
Average estimated fines were most commonly between $80 and $145. There was little
indication of an effect of questionnaire version, site, or location.

Likelihood of demerit points and mean demerit points in remaining situations
The percentage of the sample that completed the driver questionnaire that believed that
they could receive demerit points for taking right of way corresponded roughly to the
perception of pedestrian right of way. Thus, in the situation of a pedestrian crossing
while facing a Dont Walk signal with traffic initially travelling perpendicular turning
left on a red light with a Left turn permitted after stopping sign, 4.2% of the driver
sample thought they could lose demerit points. In contrast, in the situation of a
pedestrian crossing on a zebra crossing with nearside traffic approaching, 57.3% of the
driver sample thought that they could receive demerit points.
Respondents in Goulburn generally gave lower ratings of their chances of getting demerit
points than did respondents in Glebe or Chatswood (although in a couple of instances
the difference from Chatswood was not significant).
Generally, a sizeable proportion of the sample reported that they did not know whether
there were demerit points (up to 26.4%).
Average estimated number of demerit points was consistently just over 2 points. There
was no effect of site or location.
131
Table 31: Summary of descriptives, by questionnaire version (Ped=pedestrian versus
driver) where appropriate, for questions regarding legality of 3 situations.
Cross near
crossing
Not give way at paved
road
Overtake stationary
vehicle
Illegal? 84.7 39.7 91.7
Likelihood of getting
caught?
Ped. 6.2 6.2 5.6
Driver 6.4 6.3 5.3
Is there a Fine? Ped. 71.9 45.6 83.9
Driver 63.7 36.3 84.2
If Yes, Mean Fine Ped. 89.6 145.1 166.4
Driver 63.7 127.5 162.1
Are there Demerit
Points?
Ped. N/A 31.4 62.4
Driver N/A 24.1 73.9
If Yes, Mean Demerits Ped. N/A 1.8 2.1
Driver N/A 2.0 2.3

132
Table 32: Summary of differences between questionnaire version (P=pedestrian
versus D=driver), site (I=intersection versus C=carpark), & location (G=Goulburn,
Gl=Glebe, C=Chatswood), for questions regarding legality of 3 situations
Cross near
crossing
Not give way at
paved road
Overtake stationary
vehicle
Illegal? Qnnaire
version
X X X
Site X X I<C
Location G=Gl
G>C
G<Gl
G<C
G=Gl
G<C
Likelihood of getting
caught?
Qnnaire
version
X X P<D
Site I>C X X
Location G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
G>Gl
G>C
Is there a Fine? Qnnaire
version
P>D X X
Site X X X
Location G=Gl
G>C
X G=Gl
G>C
If Yes Qnnaire
version
X X X
Mean Fine Site X X I>C
Location X X G>Gl
G=C
Are there Demerit
Points?
Qnnaire
version
N/A X P<D
(Driver Qnnaire only) Site N/A X X
Location N/A X G=Gl
G<C
If Yes Qnnaire
version
N/A X X
Mean Demerits Site N/A X X
(Driver Qnnaire only) Location N/A X X


Crossing near, but not at, a marked pedestrian crossing.
Generally, results in relation to this situation are pleasing.
133
The majority of respondents (84.7%) reported that it is against the law for a pedestrian to
cross near, but not at, a marked pedestrian crossing. These beliefs were not influenced by
whether respondents were cast in the role of pedestrian or driver, or by whether
respondents had just been walking (intersection sites) or driving (carpark sites).
Respondents in Goulburn were more likely to think the behaviour illegal than were
respondents in Chatswood. It is gratifying that so many people think that this behaviour
is illegal, given the risks associated with it.
Respondents felt that a pedestrian crossing near, but not at, a marked pedestrian crossing
was fairly unlikely to get caught (with a rating corresponding to just less than 1 in 100).
Respondents interviewed at intersections thought themselves more likely to get caught
than did respondents at carparks, again perhaps suggesting feelings of vulnerability
elicited by being at the roadside (i.e. place of possible detection). Consistent with other
findings of this research, respondents in Goulburn gave higher ratings than respondents
in Glebe or Chatswood.
Respondents who were cast in the role of pedestrian were more likely to report that a
pedestrian could be fined for crossing near, but not at, a pedestrian crossing (71.9%)
than were respondents who were cast in the role of driver (63.7%). Corresponding to
beliefs about the legality of the behaviour, respondents in Goulburn were more likely to
think a pedestrian could be fined for this behaviour than were respondents in
Chatswood. Again, there was a high level of uncertainty about the possibility of a fine
(20.0% of the sample reported not knowing).
The mean estimated fine for this behaviour was $76.7, and this was not influenced by
questionnaire version, site, or location.

Not giving way at a paved section of road
Results confirm that there is confusion surrounding the status of paved sections of road.
39.7% of the sample report that it is illegal for a car not to give way at paved section of
road. Considering that only 7.7% of the sample think that a pedestrian has right of way
at an unmarked section of road, around 30% of the sample appear to think that paving
indicates a pedestrian right of way when otherwise there would be none. This leaves
the rest of the sample thinking that the pedestrian does not have right of way. This
134
confusion may pose a risk to pedestrian safety. These beliefs were not influenced by
whether respondents were cast in the role of pedestrian or driver, or by whether
respondents had just been walking (intersection sites) or driving (carpark sites).
Respondents in Goulburn were less likely to think the behaviour illegal than were
respondents in urban areas. This contrasts with a behaviour in which the pedestrian may
be perceived to be doing something wrong (i.e. crossing near, but not at, a marked
crossing), and suggests a possible car culture in the rural area.
Ratings of the likelihood of a driver who didnt give way to a pedestrian at a paved
section of road getting caught were similar to those observed in relation to other
situations (with a rating corresponding to roughly just over 1 in 100). Consistent with
other findings of this research, respondents in Goulburn gave higher ratings than
respondents in Glebe or Chatswood.
On average, 40.9% of respondents thought that a driver could be fined for not giving
way to a pedestrian at a paved section of road, again suggesting confusion about the
status of this type of crossing. The mean estimated fine was $136.3. 27.7% thought there
were demerit points, and the mean estimated number of demerit points was 1.9. There
were no effects of questionnaire version, site or location on responses to these questions.

Overtaking a stationary vehicle at a marked pedestrian intersection.
Generally, results in relation to this situation are pleasing.
Overtaking a stationary vehicle is recognised to be illegal by 91.7% of the sample.
Respondents interviewed at intersections were less likely than were those at carparks to
recognise the behaviour as illegal. Respondents in Goulburn were less likely than were
those in Chatswood to recognise the behaviour as illegal (again, suggestive of a car
culture).
Correspondingly, the possibility of a driver getting caught for this appeared to be
estimated as somewhat higher than was the possibility of a driver getting caught for
failing to give way to a pedestrian at a paved section of road.
The possibility of getting a fine also appeared to be endorsed by more of the sample (at
84%). The mean estimated fine was $164.3. The possibility of getting demerit points
135
appeared to be endorsed by a substantially greater proportion of the sample (68.2%).
The mean estimated number of demerit points was 2.2.
Effects of site and of location on this behaviour were observed. However, because these
differences do not correspond to other findings, they are likely to reflect Type I errors.
136

SITUATIONS FOR STARTING TO CROSS ON A FLASHING DONT WALK
SIGNAL
Quite a high proportion of the sample reported that they would start crossing on a
flashing Dont Walk signal under each of several circumstances: when cars are a long
way off (72.5% of respondents reporting that they would start crossing), when the signal
has just started flashing (73.5%), when there are no cars in sight (79.0%), and when it is
safe to do so (85.2%). Thus, perceived safety (and possibly its determinants) appear to
be important considerations in the decision to start crossing on a Dont Walk signal.
Given peoples tendency to underestimate their vulnerability, this is concerning.
Respondents in Goulburn were less likely to report that they would begin crossing on a
flashing Dont Walk than were respondents in Glebe (but not Chatswood) for each of
these circumstances. There were no effects of questionnaire version or site.

137
ATTITUDES TOWARDS PEDESTRIAN ROAD USE
Setting 2.5 and 3.5 as criterion scores for more than moderate agreement or
disagreement (respectively), respondents tended to agree that pedestrians often cross
dangerously, and that pedestrians often rely on drivers to stop, but also that many drivers
are dangerous and often inconsiderate. Thus, there is recognition that both pedestrians
and drivers can contribute to problems on the roads. However, respondents are likely to
view themselves as relatively blameless. Respondents tended to disagree that there should
be more time for cars at traffic lights.
Respondents who were cast in the role of pedestrian demonstrated lower agreement than
did respondents who were cast in the role of driver that pedestrians should avoid holding
up traffic, and that pedestrians are a traffic hazard, and higher agreement that pedestrians
should have as many rights as drivers. Thus, respondents who were asked to put
themselves in a pedestrian role appear to have a more favourable view of pedestrians
(suggesting the efficacy of the manipulation). Respondents in Goulburn differed from
respondents in Glebe and/or Chatswood in relation to many of these attitudes, but did
not tend to consistently support drivers over pedestrians. For example, respondents in
Goulburn reported stronger agreement than did respondents in either Glebe or
Chatswood that pedestrians often cross dangerously, but lower agreement that
pedestrians should stay off the roads. However, in relation to the 2 statements criticising
drivers, respondents in Goulburn reported lower agreement than urban respondents.
The rate of pedestrian fatalities on NSW roads was overestimated.
138

PERCEIVED RELATIVE SKILLS AS A PEDESTRIAN
In keeping with other studies of road-related behaviour, respondents consistently
demonstrated a self-enhancing bias in relation to other drivers (Finn and Bragg, 1986;
Job, Hamer, & Walker, 1995; Matthews and Moran, 1986). That is, on average,
respondents estimated that their agility, their ability to cross the road safely, their walking
speed and their ability to judge the distance and speed of approaching cars, was better
than average. In relation to agility, and walking speed, respondents interviewed at
intersections were more self-enhancing than respondents interviewed at carparks. For
every feature, there was evidence that rural respondents were less self-enhancing that
urban respondents.
139

RELATIONSHIPS OF BELIEF IN PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY IN KEY
SITUATIONS WITH PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Beliefs regarding pedestrian right of way in the situations of traffic that is facing a
green light turning left or right across the path of a pedestrian who is facing a Walk
signal were not significantly related to any personal characteristics. Thus, any relevant
campaigns may be generally targeted.

140

RECOMMENDATIONS

This research has identified several problems which should be highlighted to relevant authorities,
particularly the Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW. This is the primary recommendation of
the present report. The following recommendations reflect the problems that have been
identified, and suggest that appropriate countermeasures be considered by relevant
authorities, within the context of relevant constraints.
1. Consider the development of campaigns to emphasise to drivers the need to check for pedestrians when
turning left or right on a green signal (and to grant them right of way), and to pedestrians the need to
pay attention to traffic even when crossing on Walk.
The present results do suggest an assumption of pedestrian right of way when the
pedestrian is facing a Walk signal, but also that drivers turning left across the
pedestrians path while facing a green disc may take right of way nonetheless.
In the observational study, when the signal facing traffic travelling parallel to the
pedestrian was green, pedestrians who crossed on Walk were less likely to look at
traffic before or during crossing.
In the survey, 95.4% of respondents reported that a pedestrian crossing on Walk had
right of way of way over traffic facing a green signal but turning left across their path.
Similarly, 96.6% of respondents reported that a pedestrian crossing on Walk had right
of way of way over traffic facing a green signal but turning right across their path. These
are similar to the rates observed for a situation of a pedestrian crossing on a zebra
crossing. Nonetheless, in the first situation 12.4% of respondents who were cast in the
role of driver reported that they would take right of way, and in the second situation
12.2% reported that they would.
The safety of pedestrians is likely to benefit from drivers being reminded that when they
are facing a green signal and turning left or right they are likely to cross the path of
pedestrians that are crossing on a Walk signal, and that they should check for
pedestrians and grant them right of way.
141
Given that observed rates of looking at traffic before crossing were moderate in
Chatswood (28%), but also had room for improvement in Glebe and Goulburn (73%),
and that rates of looking at traffic while crossing were low in all locations (18%), the
safety of pedestrians crossing on Walk is likely to be improved by promoting the need
to pay attention to traffic at all times.
There is a greater need for relevant interventions in Sydney than the rural area sampled.
Whilst pedestrians in Goulburn were more likely to cross on Dont Walk than
pedestrians in Chatswood (although they were similar to pedestrians in Glebe), this
probably reflects lower traffic density in Goulburn. Further, in Goulburn, observed rates
of pedestrians checking traffic were relatively high, and self-reported behaviours were
generally more cautious, compared to the urban locations. Younger pedestrians are most
likely to cross on Dont Walk and so relevant interventions may be appropriately be
targeted toward them.
Promotion of penalties for failing to give way to pedestrians who are crossing on a
Walk signal is also warranted. Only approximately 50% of respondents who were cast
in the role of driver thought that they could be fined, or receive demerit points, for this
behaviour.
2. Consider the development of campaigns to emphasise to pedestrians that it is unsafe to cross on Dont
Walk
Because several aspects of the results suggest that a concerning proportion of pedestrians
cross on Dont Walk signals, campaigns against this behaviour may be warranted.
In the observational study, a sizeable proportion of the samples in Glebe and Goulburn
started crossing on a pedestrian Dont Walk signal. In the survey, 57.1% of all
respondents who were cast in the role of pedestrian reported that they would take right
of way on a flashing Dont Walk, and 29.2% said that they would take right of way
on a Dont Walk signal (even though the signal facing traffic was green).
Only 55.7% of respondents thought that a pedestrian has right of way when facing a
flashing Dont Walk signal (in parallel with a green traffic signal), and the
corresponding figure for the Dont Walk signal was 14.7%. Thus, something besides
perceived right of way appears to influence pedestrians to take right of way.
Perceived safety appears to play an important role, since 85.2% of respondents reported
142
that they would start crossing on a flashing Dont Walk signal when it is safe to do
so (and slightly lower proportions reported that they would start crossing on flashing
Dont Walk in circumstances which may contribute to perceived safety, such as there
are no cars in sight). This is particularly concerning in that respondents demonstrated
relative superiority biases regarding several features that may increase their perceived
personal safety (e.g. agility, walking speed).
Thus, emphasising (and personalising) the risks of crossing on Dont Walk signals may
be important., particularly in campaigns promoting the need to check for traffic even
when the pedestrian signal is Walk. Otherwise, such campaigns may undermine the
perceived relative risk of crossing on Dont Walk rather than Walk.
3. Consider the development of campaigns to clarify pedestrian right of way in several crossing
situations
The present research suggests that there is confusion regarding pedestrian rights of way
in several crossing situations. In these situations a sizeable proportion of the sample
thought the pedestrian had right of way, but at the same time the remainder of the
sample thought that pedestrians did not have right of way. Specifically, these situations
were:
- A pedestrian crossing on a flashing Dont Walk with traffic initially travelling
parallel facing a green signal and turning left, for which 55.7% of respondents
thought the pedestrian had right of way (and 57.1% of respondents cast in the
role of pedestrian said they would take right of way, whereas 23.5% of
respondents cast in the role of driver said they would).
- A pedestrian waiting at a pedestrian crossing, for which 59.8% of respondents
thought the pedestrian had right of way (and 71.3% of respondents cast in the
role of pedestrian said they would take right of way, whereas 34.1% of
respondents cast in the role of driver said they would).
- A pedestrian crossing at a pedestrian refuge, in which 21.0% of respondents
thought the pedestrian had right of way (and 35% of respondents cast in the
role of pedestrian and 35% of respondents cast in the role of driver said they
would take right of way).
143
4. Reconsider the rationale for paved crossings
Given the confusion regarding crossings that are paved sections of road (as depicted in
Figure 15) it may be timely to reconsider the benefits versus disbenefits of this type of
crossing. These types of crossing are inherently ambiguous. 39.7% of the sample report
that it is illegal for a car not to give way to a pedestrian at paved section of road.
Considering that only 7.7% of the sample think that a pedestrian has right of way at an
unmarked section of road, around 30% of the sample appear to think that paving
indicates a pedestrian right of way when otherwise there would be none. This leaves
the rest of the sample thinking that the pedestrian does not have right of way. This
confusion is likely to represent a road safety disbenefit. The crash statistics should be
checked on this point.
5. Campaigns addressing priority rules do not need to address pedestrians and drivers separately
By and large survey respondents understanding of priority rules did not appear to be
influenced by whether they were cast in the pedestrian or driver role (by questionnaire
version, or by being approached after they had just been walking versus driving).

SUMMARY
This study was conducted to determine peoples views about right of way, and whether
these vary according to whether the person identified with the driver or pedestrian role.
From a practical point of view, it is fortunate that results suggest no systematic
differences in peoples views about right of way depending on the role with which
respondents identified. However, results indicate some confusion surrounding right of
way rules at some crossing types. Key findings that may be of assistance to road safety
authorities and practitioners have informed the recommendations offered in the previous
section.
144

REFERENCES
Finn, P. and Bragg, B.W.E. (1986). Perception of risk of an accident by young and older
drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 289-298.
Job, R.F.S., Hamer, V. & Walker, M. (1995). The effects of optimism bias and fear on
protective behaviour. In D. Kenny & R.F.S. Job (Eds.). Australias Adolescents: A
Health Psychology Perspective. (pp. 151-156) Armidale, NSW: New England University
Press.
Job, R.F.S. (1998). Driver knowledge of the rights of way of pedestrians at traffic light
controlled intersections. Proceedings of the Conference on Pedestrian Safety, Melbourne 1998.
Australian College of Road Safety and Road Safety Committee, Parliament of
Victoria.
Matthews, M.L.Y. and Moran, A.R. (1986). Age differences in male drivers perception of
accident risk: The role of perceived driving ability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18,
299-313.
NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (2001). Road Safety Task Force Report, 3 April, 2001.
NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (2000a). Road Traffic Accidents in NSW, 2000.
NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (2000b). Road Users Handbook.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researchers thank the NSW Motor Accidents Authority for funding the research that
is presented in this report.
145

APPENDIX A: OBSERVATION SHEET
Location: Glebe Observer: ____ Observer place (circle): O1P1 O1P2 O2P2 O2P2 Date: Time: ______
St
xed
s
e
x
age Signal at
start
Ped

Parallel
traffic
meters
from
Xing?
look at
traffic
B4
Xing?
wait for
traffic
to stop
B4
Xing?
Ped view
obscured at
start Xing?
Driver view
obscured at
start Xing?
look ?
while
Xing
Conflict
with
traffic?

If conflict
Signal
Ped

traffic
If conflict
Traffic
move
If
conflict
Ped
place
If
conflict
Ped
response
My
right
response?
Stop Time
Xing

Interview?
GP
SJ
M
F
Est:
-10
10-20
21-30
31-50
51-60
61-70
70+
NewWalk
OldWalk
DWFlash
DW

Red
Yellow
Green
0
1-3
3-10
10+

Y
N
Y
N
Y:pkdcr
Y:bus
Y:other
______
N
Y:pkdcr
Y:bus
Y:other
_____
N
Ahead
Traffic
Ground
Y
N:nothreat
N:pedchng
N:vehchng

NewWalk
OldWalk
DWFlash
DW

Red
Yellow
Green
Straight
Turning L
Turning R
Other:
________
1
st
half
2
nd
half
Stop
Turn
back
Faster
Y: Ped
Y: Driver
N
Y:
median
Y: lane
N

NA
Y: ____
N: No
reason


146

APPENDIX B: PEDESTRIAN QUESTIONNAIRE

147

APPENDIX C: DRIVER QUESTIONNAIRE
148

APPENDIX D: CARPARK RECORD SHEET

Location: Observer: ____ Date: Time: ______
Interview
?
Interview
?
Interview
?
Interview
?
Interview
?
Interview
?
Interview
?
Interview
?
Interview
?
Y: ____
N: No
reason

Y: ____
N: No
reason

Y: ____
N: No
reason

Y: ____
N: No
reason

Y: ____
N: No
reason

Y: ____
N: No
reason

Y: ____
N: No
reason

Y: ____
N: No
reason

Y: ____
N: No
reason

Вам также может понравиться