
Estimated car cost as a predictor of driver yielding behaviors for pedestrians - bookofjoe
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214140520300359.
======
skylanh
I looked over the study to determine if there was a criteria for "yield" vs
"non-yielding".

I _think_ based on the study write-up under section "2.2. Pedestrian
crossing", that yielding was based on:

\- car in nearest lane is 200 yards away

\- pedestrian placed one foot into crosswalk

\- pedestrian attempted to make eye contact with driver

\- driver reduces speed -> threshold for "safe to attempt"

\- driver yields or does not -> fits criteria for "yields"

It isn't clear if they considered a failure by the driver to invigilate the
entire crossing as a "failure to yield"; e.g. in my district, if a pedestrian
is present in the cross walk at any part of the road, I cannot proceed full-
stop, and that would be a "failure to yield" under my road laws act.

After thinking about this study, and attempting to not make myself look like a
fool if my original issue was addressed, I noted a few more deficiencies in
this study:

\- road structure (other than mid-block crossing, and 35MPH; e.g. number of
houses, other entry ways, number of business, two lanes or four lanes; traffic
calming measures)

\- road use (isolated neighborhood collector; retail zone; between two high-
congestion areas; etc)

\- volume of crossings by non-study participants

\- recency of the crossing

\- existing use of the crossing (inter-neighborhood? inter-shopping centre?
school to park?)

\- driver _perceived_ age of pedestrians and pedestrian capability (infirm,
underage, active)

This all leads into:

\- driver awareness of existing pedestrian crossing

\- driver familiarity with pedestrians at that crossing

\- driver intention with the road

\- brand new and underused crossing? old crossing with very low non-study
volume?

\- is 4x30 = 120 crossings at road 1 and road 2 high or low for that area?

I don't feel this study is useful in isolation, and I'd be irritated if
someone used it as a basis for point-making.

------
foxyv
> Of 461 cars, 27.98% yielded to pedestrians.

This is... pretty bad!

------
perl4ever
How do you estimate the cost of a car that you observe on the street? If
someone drives a seven year old car that cost a lot new, how do you know if
they bought it new or for a fraction of the price?

~~~
anoncake
If you knew the cost of the car you wouldn't need to estimate it.

~~~
perl4ever
If it's uncorrelated to known characteristics, then arbitrarily choosing a
number isn't really "estimating".

~~~
anoncake
Good thing it is correlated to the characteristics in question.

~~~
perl4ever
Assuming it was just purchased. Which is my point. The average car was not
just purchased, I feel confident in saying.

~~~
anoncake
You don't have a point. A correlation doesn't have to apply for every single
instance, not even for the majority.

~~~
perl4ever
My original post contained the suspicion that nobody was estimating _cost_.
Although I never clicked the link, someone else ("def8cefe") posted as a
response to me, that they _indeed_ did not use cost but current value.

So, despite being downvoted, I think I made a substantive contribution in
identifying the headline as misleading. This in turn would affect how a
reasonable person interprets the meaning of the whole thing.

What is _your_ point?

~~~
anoncake
Cost correlates with current value.

------
mint2
>Estimated car cost as a predictor of driver yielding behaviors for
pedestrians

Why not: > Correlation of vehicle price to the probability its driver yields
to a pedestrian.

Still improve-able but “driver yielding behaviors” is too mafan.

Interesting work, But to be nit picky, the title is typical academese. I.e
less readable than it needs to be even after taking the higher need of precise
and accurate language.

Maybe:

Correlation of a driver yielding to a pedestrian with the vehicle price?

