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

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.