TRB Pubsindex
Text Size:

Title:

Field Comparison of Two Types of Accessible Pedestrian Signals
Cover of Field Comparison of Two Types of Accessible Pedestrian Signals

Accession Number:

01023758

Record Type:

Component

Availability:

Transportation Research Board Business Office

500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001 United States
Order URL: http://www.trb.org/Main/Public/Blurbs/157376.aspx

Find a library where document is available


Order URL: http://worldcat.org/isbn/0309094135

Abstract:

The effects of two types of accessible pedestrian signals on the street-crossing behaviors of 24 totally blind participants were directly compared in this research. One accessible pedestrian signal (APS) used a sound generator and vibrating hardware, which were integrated into the pedestrian push button (the Polara device). These sounds were heard from the near vicinity of the push button, and a different message or repetition rate was used to indicate the “Walk” interval. The second APS used pulsing light-emitting diodes to illuminate the message in the pedestrian signal head to transmit a message to a handheld receiver carried by the blind traveler (the Relume device). The handheld receiver provided a “Walk” or “Wait” message, designated by variable tones, which was audible only to the user. A control condition consisted of crossing without any APS device. Data were collected on crossing speed, the latency from the start of the walk and entering the crosswalk, the number of cycles missed, and the accuracy of the crossing. The results indicated that the time to cross the street was significantly shorter when participants used the handheld device than when they used the audible push-button device or crossed without any APS. There was no significant difference in crossing times between participants who used the audible push-button device and those who crossed without an APS under the control condition. The latency to start crossing was significantly faster when the participants used the handheld device than when they used the audible push button or crossed without an APS under the control condition. The number of missed cycles was significantly lower when the participant used either APS device than when the participant crossed without an APS device, and there was no difference in the number of missed cycles between the two APS devices.

Monograph Accession #:

01023740

Language:

English

Authors:

Williams, Michael D
Van Houtan, Ron
Ferraro, John
Blasch, Bruce B

Pagination:

pp 91-98

Publication Date:

2005

Serial:

Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board

Issue Number: 1939
Publisher: Transportation Research Board
ISSN: 0361-1981

ISBN:

0309094135

Media Type:

Print

Features:

Figures (4) ; Photos (8) ; References (14) ; Tables (2)

Candidate Terms:

Subject Areas:

Highways; Operations and Traffic Management; Safety and Human Factors; I73: Traffic Control

Files:

TRIS, TRB, ATRI

Created Date:

May 2 2006 3:08PM

More Articles from this Serial Issue: