Pedestrians hazards

The way a hazard manifests itself as a threat to an individual affects how that person feels about the risk. For example, the hazards of nuclear power are viewed as much worse than the prospect of being killed as a pedestrian, yet data show the risk of the latter is much greater than that of the former. 

Personnel Protection 36 Passageways, pedestrian traffic patterns vs. hazardous locations 37 SCBA/respirator locations accessibility on all shifts... 

Description During a typical start-up/back-up situation, a vehicle has been parked for a long enough time to allow pedestrians and other vehicles to approach and rest within a few feet of the parked vehicle. Starting up forward, backward, or steering left or right from a stopped position can create an unexpected hazard for both the driver and bystanders. 

Objective To prevent accidents involving pedestrians by anticipating hazards likely when maneuvering close to pedestrians and knowing how to handle such situations safely. 

A key issue in the context of false-positive system actions concerns which parameters strongly influence the acceptance of the driver. These parameters can be considered especially during the design phases and assessed as far as possible in a simulation regarding frequency of occurrence. The negative aspect of false system actions as well as a low acceptance of those could be— at least partly—compensated for by the benefit of the system and the high acceptance of pedestrian protection itself. However, the correct action of such a system will hardly be experienced by any driver, as the probability of a pedestrian accident is extremely low (see Sect. 1.2). The relationship between level of hazard of the situation, as perceived by the driver, and plausibility of the system action is also an important issue. 

The pedestrian does not move and thus a real hazard, i.e., the need for a system action, cannot be seen. 

The pedestrian is on the far side of the street, and the resulting hazard for the pedestrian is also seen as low. 

The presentation of false system action gives information about influencing factors for the perceived hazard of a traffic situation and the acceptance if a false system action occurs. For the perceived hazard, these factors seem to be predictability of the false system action and vehicle speed. For the acceptance of false system actions, the movement and position of the pedestrian relative to the vehicle are important. Acceptance also decreases with increasing vehicle speed. 

In the scenario of hazardous pedestrian crossing situations, about 0.2 % of the crossings (SD 0.004 %) result in a collision in the baseline. Hence, about one million crossings are usually simulated to resolve 5 % effects. 

OSHA rules for heavy equipment, falls, power lines, electrical equipment, tools, excavations, carbon monoxide, and asphalt fiimes are covered throughout 29 CFR1926. OSHA rules for highway construction sites (also called work zones) can be found in 29 CFR 1926 Subpart G ( 1926.200 -. 203). Unfortrmately, OSHA does not provide much in the way of protecting workers from hazards of work zone traffic. However, while the Department of Transportation (DOT) has the intention of protecting motorists and pedestrians, it also provides some protection for road workers rmder 23 CFR 630 Subpart J and K and 23 CFR 655 Subpart F. 

Aisle and area markings for pedestrian areas, vehicles, materials, handling, or hazardous operations. Door sizes for vehicles and materials. 

Don t leave the key on the valve unattended because it may present a hazard for vehicles or pedestrians, or provide unwarranted access to the water system. 

As a rule of thumb, most hazards involving people in vehicles were scored as Average , as this is the most common type of motorway accident. Hazards involving pedestrians or motorcyclists, who are less well protected, were scored as Severe . Hazards were scored Minor when they involved vehicles at low speeds, or with low speed differentials. There was some suspicion that hazards scored in the Severe and Minor classes were not fully 10 times more or less severe than average. We therefore tested the sensitivity of the final results to a lower spread of severity. 

The probability of accident is much more difficult to model analytically because there are humans in the loop and human reliability is notoriously difficult to evaluate. One can look at a particular hazard and have no idea whether it will lead to an accident on 10% of occasions, 1% of occasions or 0.1% of occasions. However, it is much easier to sense intuitively how hazardous one event is relative to another event. For example, is a pedestrian more likely to have an accident when crossing from one side of a motorway to the other or when getting out of his car on the hard shoulder Provided that one does not have to consider how often each situation will arise, it is easy to conclude that it is much more hazardous to cross six lanes of moving traffic than to be temporarily alongside one lane of moving traffic. 

---