Active mobility modes such as walking and cycling are increasingly emphasised in urban transportation due to their sustainability and health benefits. However, the growing use of these modes heightens the potential for conflicts, especially where pedestrians and cyclists share li
...
Active mobility modes such as walking and cycling are increasingly emphasised in urban transportation due to their sustainability and health benefits. However, the growing use of these modes heightens the potential for conflicts, especially where pedestrians and cyclists share limited space. Understanding the interaction between these users is essential for designing safe and efficient infrastructure. This study investigates pedestrian behavioural responses when crossing bike paths with oncoming cyclists, with the goal of enhancing the accuracy of pedestrian modelling in the MassMotion simulation tool developed by Arup.
Focussing on sideways crossing scenarios, which are critical due to their frequency and potential danger, the research addresses how pedestrians adapt their movement patterns in response to cyclists' proximity and trajectory. Unlike previous studies that primarily examine head-on or rear-end conflicts, this research utilises post-encroachment time (PET) as a conflict measure to capture a broader spectrum of interactions. Trajectory data from smart sensors at two intersections on the TU Delft campus were used, encompassing over 289 000 trajectories collected over a month.
The study isolates 7,310 pedestrian interactions with cyclists, with particular attention to 4,780 one-on-one crossing events. It distinguishes cases where pedestrians crossed either before or after a cyclist and compares them to non-crossing trajectories. Results indicate that pedestrians are more likely to stop when the PET is between 0–3 seconds, particularly when crossing after a cyclist, with stopping occurring in about 35% of such cases. The average stopping distance was found to be just over 3 meters, and slightly less (2.5 meters) when pedestrians walked alongside the bike path before crossing.
Additionally, the study introduces a method for predicting PET values in real-time, allowing for a dynamic understanding of pedestrian decision-making. When predicted PET values fall below 1 second, indicating a potential collision, pedestrians are more likely to yield by stopping or slowing down. Deviation analysis further shows that around 20% of pedestrians crossing behind cyclists veer off their straight path, often moving slightly toward the cyclist to complete the crossing sooner.
These behavioural insights reveal anticipatory adaptations by pedestrians, such as slowing, stopping, or deviating, in response to perceived risk. The findings can inform more realistic simulation models, improve infrastructure design, and guide policy decisions aimed at enhancing safety at pedestrian-cyclist crossings. Future work should expand to cyclist behaviours and model calibration for improved predictive capacity.