Zebra crossings at T-intersections: Likelihood of unintended negative consequences for safety and walkability

Abstract

Local governments in Melbourne are installing zebra crossings at prioritised T-intersections within activity centres and neighbourhoods. These treatments are well-intentioned and meant to increase certainty for road users, to create a more equitable and safer mobility environment for pedestrians, and to work as one small part of an integrated approach to encourage walking for transport. However, there is complexity in, and poor knowledge of the road rules with which the treatment interacts: Drivers turning into such an intersection are already required to give way to pedestrians, while, somewhat counterintuitively for many road users, drivers turning out are not. As a result, there is a risk that the treatment may have systems level unintended negative consequences for walkability. This study used a community survey and a series of expert interviews to test this hypothesis. The results show that while zebra crossings at the terminating road of a T-intersection can eliminate the uncertainties implicated by the current version of the road rules at the sites in which they are installed, there is also a very real risk that their use at some but not all T-intersections could undermine walkability in the neighbourhoods in which they are used. A recommendation, supported by a recent UK precedent, to change the Victorian road rules to require car drivers to give way to pedestrians who are crossing the terminating road of T-intersections, is made. The change would standardise the rules for T-intersections to create a generalised and unambiguous duty for drivers to give way on turning. It would play a small part in facilitating walking for transport and in doing so would contribute to enhancing opportunities for incidental exercise and social interaction, both of which benefit health and are important aspects of liveability.