15 3010 Unlocked

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies Vol.
15, 2024
Perception of Pedestrian Towards Pedestrian Crossings in Kuala Lumpur
NUR ELLYSHA, YONG ADILAH SHAMSUL HARUMAIN*
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Built Environment, University Malaya,
50603, Kuala Lumpur
Abstract: Walking is a mode of transportation that allows people to move from one location
to another. When there is a need to walk, there is also a need to cross the road at pedestrian
crossings. The purpose of this paper is to investigate pedestrian perceptions of various
pedestrian crossings in Kuala Lumpur with the goals of identifying types of pedestrian
crossings found, pedestrian behavior, and validating preferred pedestrian crossings that suit
pedestrian preferences at different urban areas. For that, a series of questionnaires and
observations were conducted, with observations for pedestrian behavior when crossing the road
and questionnaires allowing for a more in-depth understanding of opinions about pedestrian
crossings. The results revealed that pedestrian crossings that were frequently encountered were
signalized and zebra crossings, implying that pedestrian preferred crossings should be
recommended. Personal and situational factors were found in three different case studies in
Kuala Lumpur in regard to different demographic profile and land use activities of pedestrians
crossing the road.
Keywords: Pedestrian, Pedestrian Crossings, Walking, Safety
1. INTRODUCTION
Rapid development and increased traffic demand in an area are known to have a wide-ranging
impact on road users. Road users are those who use the streets, such as drivers, passengers,
motorists, pedestrians, and cyclists, with pedestrians being the most vulnerable. Pedestrians are
identified as the most vulnerable road user between the ages of 18 and 29 (WHO, 2013) due to
their vulnerability in daily trips (Goh et al., 2012). There is a pressing need to ensure pedestrian
safety through road safety measures. There are many different types of pedestrian crossings
that can be commonly found in Kuala Lumpur, such as signalized crossings, zebra crossings,
overpass or underpass crossings that differ in terms of surface paths, textures, or colors to help
pedestrians and other road users recognize them and safely cross the road. There are
approximately 542 pedestrian deaths per year on average, which equates to 45 people per
month (WHO, 2013). According to the Malaysian Road and Safety Department (2017),
pedestrians are the third most common cause of traffic accidents, trailing only cars and
motorcycles. Accidents are most likely to occur when pedestrians attempt to cross the road in
either a designated or non-designated location. The risk that pedestrians face at designated
locations is when there is high speed traffic despite being a signalized crossing, whereas those
who wish to cross at non-designated locations face a higher risk.
Aside from that, pedestrian collisions are associated with pedestrian behavior when
attempting to cross the road, as demonstrated in research by Basil et al., (2010), where
pedestrian collisions occur frequently during road crossings due to unsafe and illegal pedestrian
crossing behavior, also known as jaywalking. According to the World Health Organizations
(2013), pedestrian collisions account for more than one-fifth of all fatalities and vary by region,
with pedestrian collisions occurring more frequently in urban than rural areas. Even though
various types of pedestrian crossings have been installed in potentially designated areas, there
are still pedestrians who prefer to jaywalk rather than use pedestrian crossings. There are
3010
Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies Vol.15, 2024
penalties for those who do not comply with pedestrian crossings in Malaysia, based on the
Malaysia Road Traffic Rules 1959 LN 166/59 (Rule 45), with a maximum fine of $65; however,
this law is very much less a concern for many pedestrians. Therefore, there is a need to
understand pedestrian behavior and perception toward pedestrian crossings to suit pedestrian
needs and convenience while considering various influencing factors. Pedestrian safety is
jeopardized as vehicular traffic increases. It should be prioritized to encourage walking trips
with assurances of safety because they are more vulnerable to traffic accidents when walking
alongside the road and even more vulnerable when crossing the roads. Following this,
pedestrian facilities such as pedestrian crossings, signalized crossings, zebra crossings, and
even pedestrian bridge crossings were determined in different case study areas.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
Numerous pedestrian crossings are provided in Kuala Lumpur city to ensure pedestrian safety;
however, pedestrians continue to cross the road in an uncontrolled and dangerous manner. Such
risky behaviour is commonly used to achieve shorter route destinations (Guo et al, 2013).
Furthermore, inadequate crossing facilities, long sections without a proper crossing facility
(Kadali & Vedagiri, 2020), or longer waiting times (Hamed, 2001) contribute to it. It is
necessary to ascertain pedestrian perceptions of the conditions of existing crossing facilities in
Kuala Lumpur. It is also necessary to assess pedestrian preferences toward crossing facilities
by taking into account various potential influencing factors of pedestrian choice in crossing the
road, such as whether the pedestrian uses or ignores the provided crossing.
The scope of this research will centre on pedestrian perceptions in the Kuala Lumpur area,
specifically pedestrian behaviour at pedestrian crossings. There will be two types of pedestrian
crossings: signalized crossings and non-signalized crossings. This is to comprehend the factors
influencing pedestrian choices, opinions, or perceptions toward signalized and non-signalized
crossings, which will be examined through a literature review, as well as how to perceive these
factors. To encourage the use of crossing facilities for crossing the road safely, appropriate
initiatives will be recommended. Pedestrian crossings have enabled pedestrians to be separated
from other motorized vehicles on the road. According to Hyden (2010) and Ishaque & Noland
(2006), the history of pedestrian crossings begins in the 1930s, when footpaths were the first
surface marking for pedestrian crossings, despite being ineffective. In 1950s, zebra crossings
were introduced, which were found to be effective, particularly in reducing pedestrian
collisions. Moving forward to the 1960s, many zebra crossings were replaced with new
crossings known as pelican crossings, which are light-controlled crossings that can operate
independently without the presence of police traffic in ensuring pedestrian compliance when
crossing the road. Following the most recent replacement, additional crossing facilities such as
median refuges and guardrails were added. Although many crossings were introduced between
the 1930s and 1960s, they were not widely used. According to Hyden (2010), new types of
crossings known as puffin crossings were introduced and were mostly used in areas of the
United Kingdom. Puffin crossings allow detectors to detect pedestrian and vehicle movement,
and when the presence of a pedestrian is detected, infrared detectors are used to monitor the
pedestrian's progress when crossing the road. There are known as phases, in which if the
pedestrian crosses quickly, the clearance phase is terminated early, and for vulnerable groups
such as the disabled or elderly, the phase is frequently extended. In further encouraging
pedestrian to cross safely, smart crossing system has been introduced and designed worldwide.
Contradict to Malaysia, the smart crossing system implementation was rather infrequent and
there are no specific guidelines or requirements for this crossing types. It is rather zebra
crossing with enhanced features such as motion sensors, extra lighting, LED lights and
3011
monitoring cameras where the drivers get warns with colour changing LED (Barbara et al.,
2020). Else, supporting facilities that surrounds the crossing that helps notify other road users
as such warning message is displayed on the board indicating approaching vehicles, sound
signal for visually impaired pedestrian (Agureev et al., 2020). There is no timetable for when
crossing facilities will be introduced in Malaysia; however, as of now, various types of
pedestrian crossings have been implemented in terms of suitable location, which serves to
increase pedestrian safety while also reducing pedestrian accidents when pedestrians need to
cross the road. Pedestrian crossing has always been advised to adopt universal design as a way
of inclusivity. Designs of pedestrian crossings have always to almost similar that differentiate
it in the sense of facilities that surrounds the crossing. Basic pedestrian crossings shall be
equipped with signs, road markings, clear footpaths, textured paving surfaces or curb ramps to
acquire for visually impaired pedestrians. A zebra crossing should further be provided with a
speed limit sign, transverse bar before reaches the crossing or other traffic calming measures.
Signalized crossings on the other hand must deploy manual or automatic push button to stop
the traffic to make way for pedestrians. For school crossings, traffic wardens usually deploy to
guide children in crossing while keeping the traffic move smoothly (Rizati, 2018).
Many types of pedestrian crossings are introduced and used worldwide to ensure pedestrian
safety. On this basis, there are many different types of pedestrian crossing facilities in Malaysia,
each with its own location suitability, safety, and security, such as uncontrolled crossings,
controlled crossings, and grade separated crossings (Public Work Department Malaysia, 1997).
According to the Public Works Department Malaysia (1997), any location where pedestrians
find it convenient to cross a road automatically becomes an uncontrolled crossing. When the
area is dense and concentrated, such as near bus stops or crossroads, more formal methods of
addressing uncontrolled crossings are used. Uncontrolled crossings are typically provided with
ramps at kerb lines to lower the footpath to a level where specific warrants are not required.
According to Anciaes and Jones (2018), controlled crossings are significantly safer than
uncontrolled crossings, but they may cause detours and delays due to longer waiting and
walking times. Zebra crossings, school children's crossings, signalized pedestrian crossings,
and manually controlled traffic operations are the most common types of pedestrian crossing
facilities in Malaysia (Public Work Department Malaysia, 1997). Signalized crossings were
perceived as generally safe among these controlled crossings, as traffic lights control motorized
traffic. Although grade separated pedestrian crossings, such as pedestrian over-bridges or
subways, provide the safest way for pedestrians to cross busy roads, they are widely despised
due to the time and effort required to use them, as well as personal security concerns. This was
supported by Kadzim (2012)'s research, which found that crossing over bridges or underpasses
is the safest and most effective way to ensure pedestrian safety because it reduces confrontation
between road users and pedestrians.
The following are some of the most common types of crossings found in Malaysia. There
are certain criteria or guidelines for the installation of pedestrian crossings that are derived from
the Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities: Public Work Department Malaysia, 1997), the
criteria of crossing were derived into five categories, which are uncontrolled crossing, zebra
crossing, school children crossing, signalized crossing, and grade separated crossing. In
contrast, the Guideline on the Provision of Pedestrian Walkway (PLANMalaysia, 2013) only
makes three derivations: zebra crossing, signalized crossing, and grade separated crossing.
Hence, the guideline or criteria based on types of pedestrian crossing is as shown below:
3012
Uncontrolled crossing
There are no specific warrants, but they are frequently used on arterial roads other than
expressways, particularly in congested areas near traffic signals. Consider the width of the
crossroad, the number of pedestrians, the traffic flow rate, and the number of ways (one-way
or two-way) for the road, which is also combined with traffic calming elements.
Zebra crossing
Located at a traffic speed of 70 km/h, with a pedestrian count of 60 people per hour and a traffic
volume of 600 vehicles per hour. Visibility must be adequate in the sense that the driver of the
vehicle can see an approaching pedestrian and vice versa. This crossing is only available at
'one' stage (Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities: Public Work Department Malaysia, 1997).
Meanwhile, according to PLANMalaysia (2013), the zebra cross line provided is to help
pedestrians cross the road. This intersection was built across the street and is white with black
accents. Pedestrians will have the right to pass safely and comfortably. Vehicles such as cars
and motorcycles will come to a halt to allow pedestrians to cross.
School’s children crossing

Children's crossings at schools can be installed anywhere. When children are expected to cross
the road, children's crossing flags or flashing lights should be placed and removed outside of
crossing periods. This crossing must be instructed or authorized by a 'crossing supervisor' to
guide children safely across.
Signalized crossing
Several criteria influence this crossing. First, if an average of more than 350 pedestrians/hour
during the day and more than 175 pedestrians/hour at night is found, no central median or
refugee island is required. If 1000 vehicles per hour are required, the central median or refugee
island is required. Following that, signalized crossings for 50 vehicles may be combined with
schoolchildren's crossings for two one-hour periods. Signalized crossings may also be located
when zebra crossings are not appropriate due to high traffic speeds or ridgeways wider than 15
meters and are typically located where the site is linked with a traffic signal system, close to a
signalized intersection, or close to a vehicle danger. In the last three years, there have also been
cases of zebra crossings being replaced with signalized crossings when there have been
pedestrian-involved accidents. A traffic light crossing is required if the road is too congested
and pedestrians find it difficult to cross, according to a simpler guideline derivation made by
PLANMalaysia (2013).
Grade Separated Crossing

This crossing is costly and under-utilized however, were most located in Expressway route. No
specific criteria however advisable on high pedestrian demand location where ramps are
provided or vicinity of schools for channelizing the children. In contrast, low advisable area of
where traffic flow is less than 700 vehicles/ hour and within 250 meters from signalized
intersection or low pedestrian movement. On the other hand, PLANMalaysia (2013) said the
needs of grade separated crossing when the road conditions are congested and volume vehicles
are also high, the overpass should be built. This is for prevent disruption of traffic flow for
when pedestrians want to cross the road.
In the sense general geometric design for average for the length for all pedestrian crossing
types, width of footpaths shall be 2.4 meters or greater, while the allowable minimum width is
0.9 meters, ideally as required by JKR (2016).
3013
2.1 Sociodemographic Factor

Pedestrian from each age and gender will needs different speed in accordance with their ability.
Pedestrians of all ages find it safer to cross roadways using a pedestrian footbridge or an
underpass as compared to signalized and unsignalized crossing. Dommes at al. (2012),
mentioned that between old people and middle age groups, middle age groups have shown
more positive attitudes of crossing rule as compared. Middle age group also promotes higher
probability in crossing the road safely following the use of any crossing facilities. This also
happens when pedestrian velocity for older people is lower since there is limitation in terms of
vision and hearing. In relation to gender, males are more likely than females to engage in risky
road crossing behavior due to impatient and shorter waiting time (Khan et al., 1999; Tiwari et
al., 2007) that leads to females taking more time in crossing the road to ensure safety (Qureshi
et al., 2015) and the same applies for illegal and dangerous crossings (Zarifah et al., 2017).
Although males have engaged more in this behavior, studies by Tarawneh (2001) have
suggested that males walk faster than females when crossing the road to avoid from collision
with another road user. In addition to risky road crossing behaviour, women tend to pay more
attention to the behaviour of other pedestrians when deciding when to cross at junctions without
traffic signals or any other uncontrolled crossing, whereas the majority of males focus on
vehicular traffic (Poo, 2018). On the other hand, based on experimental studies by Oxley et al.
(2005) on the effect pedestrian’s age in gap selection, for this factor, all age groups reacted
primarily based on speed and vehicle distance. In the context of not choosing any crossing
facilities provided, male and young walkers are more prone to violate traffic rules and neglect
pedestrian crossings (Holland & Hill,2007). Behaviour of pedestrians in the groups, despite
age and gender, has been affected by the number of pedestrians, in such, smaller groups have
the tendency to make more illegal crossings than larger ones (Holland & Hill, 2007). To
conclude as of age and gender, younger groups will behave and has the tendency to use the
crossing facilities provided to cross the road as compared to older people. Between male and
female, there are factors such as safe gaps, influence of other pedestrian and waiting time in
crossing the road that leads to decision to use the facilities.
2.2 Psychological Factor

Waiting time has influenced on the usage of crossing facilities provided. Same goes to age and
gender factors earlier, pedestrians who are willing to take a bigger risk will stop waiting and
jaywalk as compared to pedestrians who are less likely to take a risk will wait and spend longer
time at pedestrian crossings. Approaching traffic volume and vehicle speeds are important
factors in determining the pedestrian's waiting time (delay) and the number of crossing attempts
(Hamed, 2001). He mentioned that to cease waiting time, when the number of pedestrian
increases, they brave themselves to cross. Waiting time are also correlated with unsafe crossing
where the needs to rush and keep moving leads to lack of compliance and use of crossing
facilities (Akin & Sisiopiku, 2006). Pedestrians lose patience or interest in waiting for the safe
time to cross; hence they prefer to cross during red man phase at signalized crossing (Brewer
et al.,2006; Kadali & Vedagiri,2013).
2.3 Crossing Speed

Male pedestrian walks faster than female at signalized crossing. Contradictly, elderly
pedestrian walks the slowest among children and adult. For non-signalized crossing, the same
applies where male pedestrian walks faster than female except for male children (Goh at al.,
2012). Mean for pedestrian crossing speed in Malaysia at signalized crosswalk is 1.31m/s
compared to non-signalized crosswalk at 1.39 m/s. For non-signalized crossing, the values in
Asia countries are higher (Morrall et al., 2010) than Malaysia meanwhile slightly similar in
3014
Jordan (Tarawneh, 2001). In comparison to Thailand and Singapore, Malaysian pedestrian

cross the fastest following physical differences where taller pedestrian has longer footsteps
compared to shorter pedestrian.
2.4 Climate and Environment

Pedestrian behavior isn't always predictable. It frequently shifts in response to the environment.
Pedestrians, on the other hand, adapt to their surroundings in a natural way. Studies have
identified the importance of the environmental characteristics and climate on pedestrian
walking ability where to locate and design placement that encourage use of crossing facilities
to suit local climate conditions (Javid et al.,2021). Following this, according to Guo et al.
(2014), most pedestrians prefer an overpass or underpass when crossing the road as proper
sheltered crossing facilities might protect pedestrians from scorching weather.
2.5 Attitude
Pedestrian’s attitude, motives and situational factors can affect pedestrian crossing behavior
(Yagil, 2000). Pedestrians’ decisions on crossing the road are very complex considering
situational factors like presence of other pedestrians and their behavior towards “to walk or not”
which usually affects female and male pedestrians in a way at signalized crossings. In the
context of other road users, studies in Argentina shows that disregarding the rules of the road
results in pedestrians believing that drivers do not need to stop at the signalized crossings
consequently leads to motivation for pedestrians to run at the intersection of signalized
crossings instead of waiting for the green light (Poo et al., 2018). This also happened due to
lack of other road users yield to pedestrian. Other situational factors that significantly affect
pedestrian attitude and motives are also comfort level, the convenience to cross and safety.
When they found the crossing facilities is safe, they do not mind using the crossing despite the
location of where the crossing facilities is located.
2.6 Enforcement and Awareness

Lack of enforcement to use crossing facilities can be the reason for pedestrians to neglect
crossing provided. Dommes et al. (2012) through his research has considered the effectiveness
of educational training programs towards pedestrian crossing behaviour that will highlight the
importance of using crossing facilities. Through this proper awareness, Javid et al. (2021)
mentioned that there are needs in emphasizing the sense of respect between vehicle drivers and
pedestrians in the shared spaces that be the drives for the use of crossing in designated location.
2.7 External Factor

As a matter of fact, pedestrian who impaired way, having any physical limitation of disabilities
might have difficulty with mobility in such uses wheelchair or crutches needed extra cares and
times in crossing leads in opting for marked crossing (Daff et al.,1991). This type of pedestrian
usually executes more information and cautious as compared to not impaired pedestrian to
compensate their limitations.
2.8 Design and Location

In the sense of design of a pedestrian crossing, it is vital that the width of the road must be kept
short so that there are no pedestrian fatalities and injuries due to longer time of pedestrian being
exposed to danger. Pedestrian road crossing behaviour of before and after traffic reconstruction
has also been studied in several research to determine whether this revitalization encourages
the use of crossing facilities. There are aspects linked to the usage of the crossings itself that
support the choice of signalized crossings over grade-separated crossings (Anciases, 2018). In
3015
the research of Akin & Sisiopiku (2006), it has been said that signalized crosswalks are indeed
appealing since they are properly marked, and pedestrians recognize them as legitimate
crossing spots. Signalized crosswalks have also helped better with pedestrian channelization.
However, pedestrian compliance to signal indications are especially still low due to low traffic
demand.
3. METHODOLOGY
This study's case study takes place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia's capital. To conduct this study,
three different areas in Kuala Lumpur were chosen based on land use activity, which includes
residential, commercial, and educational centres. These three distinct locations were chosen to
observe various types of pedestrians crossing, specifically signalized and unsignalized
crossings, pedestrians crossing the road, and their preferred pedestrian crossing facilities. Bukit
Bintang is known as a commercial area, Pantai Dalam is known as a mixed use area, and
Universiti Malaya is known as an education centre. These areas were specifically chosen to
represent this study based on two types of pedestrian crossings. The reasoning behind the area
selection was due to high population density, a high capacity of pedestrian walking activity
varying in sociodemographic profile, a diverse geographic area, and the presence of various
types of different pedestrian crossing facilities using the method of stratified random sampling
where pedestrians were divided into subgroups (called strata) based on the relevant attribute of
land use activities and sociodemographic in which this method will compute how many people
should be sampled from each category based on overall proportions of the populations.
Furthermore, because the chosen area has a high volume of traffic and pedestrian interaction,
these zones have a high proportion of vehicles and pedestrians. This study's data was gathered
from both primary and secondary sources. Primary data will be gathered through a cross-
sectional questionnaire and observation, while secondary data will be gathered through
document review. The primary data are typically the data that will describe the entire research,
which includes preliminary research on the factors associated with pedestrian behaviour and
crossing facility selection, followed by data analysis before conducting surveys and developing
questionnaires. Secondary data is also required for this study, which entails collecting a wide
range of data and information from secondary sources. As part of the study, data collection is
required and must be linked to the approaches. It entails data analysis as well as theory
comprehension in relation to the research topics. As a result, throughout this academic research,
data collection will include observation, questionnaires, and a thorough review of documents
as described in the literature review.
4. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
The questionnaire is divided into three parts: Part A: Respondent's Profile, Part B: Attitudes
and Behavior, and Part C: Perception. A total of 100 people were surveyed using the Stratified
Random Sampling, with 40 from Bukit Bintang, 30 from Universiti Malaya, and 30 from Pantai
Dalam participating either virtually or physically. The sample was stratified based on
pedestrians who cross the road at the three different case study areas. For sample size, the
methods were adopted from Krejcie & Morgan (1970) where the rate of sample size increases
at diminishing rate and remain constant as population increases. Apart from that, considering
the limitation of time and cost influences the chosen sample size.
3016
4.1 Questionnaire
Section A: Respondent’s Profile

Researchers employ frequency distribution to determine frequency of respondent profile that
explain the demographic background of the respondent in each location.
Table 4.1: Frequency of Respondents based on Demographic Background in Bukit Bintang

Variable Category Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender Male 13 32.5
Female 27 67.5
Total 40 100
Age 13 to 17 12 30
18 to 24 12 30
25 to 39 7 17.5
40 to 49 7 17.5
50 to 59 1 2.5
60 and above 1 2.5
Total 40 100
Educational Level No formal education 0 0
Primary education 1 2.5
Secondary education 16 40
Tertiary education 23 57.5
Total 40 100
Employment Student 20 50
Status Government 1 2.5
Private 12 30
Self-employed 3 7.5
Not working 3 7.5
Retired 1 2.5
Total 40 100
Referring to Table 4.1, the gender composition of respondent in Bukit Bintang has been
dominated by female with 67.5% as compared to male. In terms of age, majority of the
respondents comes from age group of 13 to 17 and 18 to 24 years old with 30%, each. This
must be correlated with Bukit Bintang which has served as commercial area with variety of
entertainment that suits the preferences of people for this age group. Up next was 17.5%
respondents that also shared for people whom in aged group 25 to 39 and 40 to 49 years old.
Rather than these places served for teenagers, it also has entertainment or services that was
made to serve young adults groups and family entertainment that makes the pedestrian numbers
has varies in age group. Lastly, there are also same amount of 2.5% respondent, each from 50
to 59 and 60 and above age group due to Bukit Bintang has varying age visitors. The greatest
level of education comes from tertiary education with 57.5%, followed by secondary education
and the least and one and only from primary education. This explains rather this place serves
for paid leisure activities that includes family entertainment.
3017
Table 4.2: Frequency of Respondents based on Demographic Background in Universiti Malaya

Gender Male 13 43.3
Female 17 56.7
Total 30 100
Age 13 to 17 0 0
18 to 24 23 76.7
25 to 39 4 13.3
40 to 49 2 6.7
50 to 59 1 3.3
60 and above 0 0
Total 30 100
Primary education 0 0
Secondary education 2 6.7
Total 30 100
Employment Status Student 22 73.3
Government 1 3.3
Private 4 13.3
Self-employed 2 6.7
Not working 1 3.3
Retired 0 0
Total 30 100
While in the second case study area that is Universiti Malaya, the female samples
outnumber the male samples by 56.7% to 43.3%, as shown in Table 4.2. Moving on to the
frequency of age composition, Universiti Malaya had the highest majority of 76.7% of those
aged 18 to 24 years old. Universiti Malaya is an institutional land use activity; therefore, it is
reasonable that majority has come from this age group. It has also been supported by
observations made of people in this age group walking around the campus area and always
crossing the road at designated or convenient locations. The decreasing trend from the eldest
to the youngest, where 25 to 39 (13.3%), 40 to 49 (6.7%), and 50 to 59 (3.3%) respondents
have reflected the number of people who usually walk, has been reflected in the number of
people who walk. None are between the ages of 13 and 17, and none are over the age of 60.
Because Universiti Malaya is a tertiary institution, pedestrians of this age are uncommon. In
terms of respondent's educational level, since it is a Universiti campus ground, majority 93.3%
respondents get tertiary education and only 6.7% respondents for secondary students. Moving
on to the respondents' employment status, Universiti Malaya has most students with 73.3%,
followed by the private sector with 13.3%, self-employment with 6.7%, and 3.3% each for
government and not working. Despite being a gathering place for students and lecturers, there
are also pedestrians who come here on a regular basis for other reasons.
The third case study area, Pantai Dalam’s respondents has also shared same majority of
gender composition that shows in Table 4.3, with Bukit Bintang and Universiti Malaya where
there are 56.7% female more than male. Next, contradict to Universiti Malaya, Pantai Dalam
has more varying respondents comes from each age group start with the most where there are
33.3% respondents of 40 to 49 years old. With close to this age, 13 to 17 years old has 26.7%
respondents making it the second highest for this place and 25 to 39 years old with seven
respondents making it third highest. According to the observation, there are high school located
side by side with tall office buildings, following this, both age group of 25 to 39 and 40 to 49
years old has seen walking to desired eating place or simply running errands especially during
lunch hours as compared to 13 to 17 years old where the school hour ends. Addition to that,
3018
for high school students of 13 to 17 years old, the response is mostly being distributed by a
physical questionnaire during the data collection for it easier to reach them in getting their full
comprehension on this research objectives while being assist in answering the questionnaire.
On the other hand, there are only 10% respondents of age 50 to 59 and 2% respondents of 18
to 24 years old and none from senior citizen age group. In terms of educational level, Pantai
Dalam has shown almost equal number of respondents whereby 53.3% respondents from
tertiary education and 46.7% respondents from secondary education.
Table 4.3: Frequency of Respondents based on Demographic Background in Pantai Dalam

Gender Male 13 43.3
Female 17 56.7
Total 30 100
Age 13 to 17 8 26.7
18 to 24 2 6.7
25 to 39 7 23.3
40 to 49 10 33.3
50 to 59 3 10
60 and above 0 0
Total 30 100
Primary education 0 0
Secondary education 14 46.7
Total 30 100
Employment Status Student 10 33.3
Government 0 0
Private 10 33.3
Self-employed 8 26.7
Not working 1 3.3
Retired 1 3.3
Total 30 100
Finally, in terms of employment status, there are 33.3% of respondents from the student
and private sectors, as well as 26.7% who are self-employed and 3.3% who are not working.
Despite the presence of schools and tall office buildings in Pantai Dalam, there are also roadside
street hawkers who use the road because it is close to their home.
Section B: Attitudes and Behavior
Needs to walk on daily basis
Others (State) 010

Shopping Mall/ Commercial area 30 0 14
School 12 3 7
Recreational Activities 18 12 9
Work 14 14 17
Class 10 21 3
0 10 20 30 40 50
Bukit Bintang Universiti Malaya Pantai Dalam
Figure 4.1: Respondent’s Answer on the Needs to Walk
3019
Location to cross the road.

At any convenient location 12 16 15
At non-signalized crossing 2 3 3
At signalized crossing 26 11 12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 4.2: Respondent’s Answer on the Location to Cross.
Figure 4.1 depicts the frequency with which respondents feel the need to walk daily.
Because of differences in land use activity, each location has a different majority. This can be
seen in Bukit Bintang, where the most common reason for walking is to go to a shopping mall
or commercial area, with 30 respondents, as opposed to the least common, which is to go to
class. It is otherwise in Universiti Malaya, where the majority of 21 respondents have a need
to go to classes and none for shopping mall or commercial area purposes. Finally, most
respondents (17) say they go to Pantai Dalam for work, while the minority go for class (13).
This various answer can be concluded because Bukit Bintang land uses are commercial,
Universiti Malaya land uses are institutional, and Pantai Dalam land uses are mixed. Most of
them choose to cross the road from these three locations whenever they feel safe. When there
is a slow traffic volume and speed approaching and when the traffic has cleared completely,
the least preferred are shared equally in Bukit Bintang. This is due to high traffic volume during
peak hours and vice versa, which also correlates with the respondents' confidence level. When
there is slow traffic volume and speed approaching, Universiti Malaya has the least favorable
time to cross the road. Meanwhile, Pantai Dalam respondents prefer not to cross when the
traffic light is green, owing to the safer speed limit of vehicles and the desire to avoid waiting
time. Overall, this demonstrates that respondents typically cross the road when they feel a sense
of safety to an area that will lead them to the other side of the road. According to Figure 4.2,
respondents were asked what types of pedestrian crossings they typically use, and their
responses varied depending on the area. The majority of Bukit Bintang pedestrians (26) chose
singalized crossings, as opposed to Universiti Malaya and Pantai Dalam, where most chose any
convenient location. Bukit Bintang has a higher road hierarchy than Pantai Dalam and
Universiti Malaya due to its higher volume. As a result, while there are various types of
pedestrian crossings available, a large number of pedestrians in Universiti Malaya (16) and
Pantai Dalam (15) have always crossed in any location. Only a few pedestrians, on the other
hand, chose a non-signalized crossing.
Factors that contribute to at any convenient location

Pedestrian number (crossing in a group more… 14 5 11
Crossing distance (the road width is small) 9 8 14
Driver yield (vehicles driver yield to pedestrian… 9 6 9
Frequency attempt (attempt made before… 6 8 5
Pedestrian waiting time (time spent waiting to… 16 13 13
Traffic speed (vehicles speed at desired crossing… 15 15 13
Gap size (gap between two incoming cars) 8 13 11
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 4.3: Respondent’s Answer on the Factors to Choose at Any Convenient Location
3020
This question is posed to those who previously chose to cross at any convenient location.
Figure 4.3 represent seven factors that may contribute to the reason for selecting any
convenient location. The seven variables are the number of pedestrians, crossing distance,
driver yield, frequency of attempts, pedestrian waiting time, traffic speed, and gap size. Most
Bukit Bintang respondents prefer pedestrian waiting time because they spend less time crossing
the road safely. On the other hand, most respondents at Universiti Malaya prefer to cross the
road at any desired location based on traffic speed. This is reflected in the traffic speed limit
that has been established within the institutional area. In Pantai Dalam, most respondents prefer
crossing distances where the road width is narrow. Following this, pedestrian confidence
usually increases as they are shorter time exposed to the danger towards other road users.
Influences on cross at a certain location.

Vegetation or barriers on the median 3 12
Distance to your desired location 14 10 15
Presence of other pedestrians that are… 15 9 17
"Cross only when traffic clears" sign 11 14 8
Roof over or under a crosswalk 4 15 8
Red colour brick pavement 8 5 4
Presence of a pedestrian signal 18 21 16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Figure 4.4: Respondent’s Answer for Influence to Cross at Certain Location
This question allowed respondents to respond to what influences their decision to cross at
a specific location based on Figure 4.4. Unlike factors for any convenient location, this
question can be answered at any area of signalized and non-signalized crossing. With 18 and
21 respondents, respectively, Bukit Bintang and Universiti Malaya have the highest majority
choosing the presence of a pedestrian signal. A pedestrian signal is not only intended to notify
pedestrians when it is safe to cross, but it is also intended to alert other road users when
pedestrians are present on the shared road. In contrast to Pantai Dalam, the majority of 17
respondents said the presence of other pedestrians attempting to cross the road allowed them
to cross in the same area. The median vegetation or barriers would be the least popular of these
three options. This is optional in their opinion because it acts as a safety measure. Following
the least of an overall with red colour brick pavement where this type of crossing incorporate
speed table where vehicles usually seen to take evasive action at the last moment resulting in
low confidence of pedestrian. The respondents were questioned about the designated crossings
that they encountered or used. Most respondents in these three areas encounter signalized
pedestrian crossings on a regular basis. This is reflected on there may be the area of traffic light
where that signalized crossing was most located. In contrast to the lowest pedestrian crossing
encountered, respondents in Bukit Bintang have rarely seen or used the overpass or underpass
(2) crossing, possibly because this crossing is located in between buildings or simply a flyover.
Crossing with creative marking is rarely used at Universiti Malaya and Pantai Dalam, with only
4 and 5 respondents, respectively. This type of crossing is uncommon, leaning more toward
the traditional crossing of a marked crossing that is widely used. For Universiti Malaya,
majority has said yes, there enough safety corridors in this campus ground. Bukit Bintang and
Pantai Dalam pedestrians, on the other hand, believed that there were adequate safety measures
in place for them. However, only four respondents believe there are not enough safety corridors
3021
in Bukit Bintang and Universiti Malaya. The reasoning behind this is that the area they crossed
may not be safe enough. In Pantai Dalam, however, only one out of eight respondents believes
that there is enough safety for pedestrians to cross the road.
Characteristics of crossing facilities that has been improved in pedestrian’s view.
Network of pedestrian walkway increases 13 8 8

More awareness or programmes offered 11 8 5
Crossing comfort and safety increases 22 10 9
Easy access to designated crosswalk 16 9 1
More pedestrian facilities surround the crossing 15 9 7
Driver yield to pedestrian 5 4 11
0 10 20 30 40 50
Figure 4.5: Respondent’s Answer for Characteristics of Improvised Crossing Facilities
Preferred pedestrian crossing types that will encourage people to cross at the designated
location.
Others: State 1
Crossing with creative markings 19 11 17
Overpass/ Underpass 23 12 15
Pellican crossing 5 6 4
Unmarked crossing 01
Manually controlled traffic operation 16 8 12
Signalized pedestrian crossing 32 21 24
School children's crossing 20 18 16
Zebra crossings 31 25 24
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 4.6: Respondent’s Opinions of the Most Preferred Pedestrian Crossing Types
The results shown in Figure 4.5 above show the reasoning for respondents who agree that
crossing facilities have been improved. With 22 and 10 respondents, respectively, Bukit
Bintang and Universiti Malaya pedestrians indicate that crossing comfort and safety has
increased in their area due to improved facilities. While a minority remains skeptical of road
drivers yielding to pedestrians. Otherwise, Pantai Dalam respondents believe that road driver
yield (11) to pedestrians has increased over time, and a minority believes that lack of access to
the designated crosswalk is due to insufficient signage indicating crossing location. This
question in Figure 4.6 has allowed respondents to choose their preferred pedestrian crossing
to encourage people to use the designated location. In Bukit Bintang, the top three crossings
receive the most votes, with the majority preferring signalized pedestrian crossing (32), zebra
crossing (31) and overpass or underpass (32). (23). There were also those who expressed their
thoughts on the simple design of the crossing. Zebra crossing (25) received the most votes from
Universiti Malaya, followed by signalized pedestrian crossing (21) and schoolchildren crossing
(21). (18). Because the people in this area are mostly young adults, the opinion weightage is
prone to these crossings. Contradict to Bukit Bintang, due to its land uses of an institutional
area, the traffic was a lot calmer during non-peak hours.
3022
Observation
Non-signalized pedestrian crossings such as zebra crossings and raised crosswalks are provided.
There are also signalized crossings to accommodate main, larger, and more heavily traveled
roads. The condition of the crossing on the main road is well maintained and still functional
for pedestrian use, as opposed to other arterial roads with lower traffic volumes where the color
has faded, and the marked crossing almost disappears from public view. In terms of pedestrian
crossing behavior, many pedestrians were observed crossing at any desired location. Long
walks on campus and non-strategic crossing placement have resulted in such behavior.
Nonetheless, many pedestrians choose designated crossings, especially when vehicles are
speeding, and they have failed to cross at any convenient location several times. When a
pedestrian attempts to cross the road, vehicles on the road must yield more to the pedestrian,
whether at a designated or undesignated crossing. The study's findings revealed that different
documents reveal different ways of addressing different types of crossing facilities. Figure 4.7
indicates the number of pedestrian crossing presented according to crossing types found based
on these three areas. As can be seen, for two location compromises commercial and mixed use,
there are almost equal number of either signalized or non-signalized crossing. Contradict
shown for education where more non-signalized crossing was implemented as to influences
such as traffic speeds limit and other safety measures as such raised crossing.
Figure 4.7: Mapping location transcend to each type of crossings
5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
The provision and placement of pedestrian crossings was based on the needs of pedestrians in
various land use activities. According to the Malaysia Public Works Department (1997),
pedestrian crossings in Malaysia are typically uncontrolled crossings, controlled crossings, and
grade separated crossings; the same is true for the study area. In every location with varying
land uses, the most common and widely used pedestrian crossing type was controlled crossing,
which signalized pedestrian crossing. This crossing was discovered to be more concentrated in
3023
areas with a high population density and traffic volume due to its features of being controlled
by traffic lights that alert other road users to any pedestrian who wishes to cross. Furthermore,
zebra crossings are commonly found that will channel pedestrians from one road to the other.
In contrast to signalized crossings, zebra crossings are uncontrolled crossings that do not have
traffic signals and instead instruct other road users to yield whenever any desired pedestrian
uses the road.
The behavior of pedestrians crossing the street is investigated by looking at several
influencing factors that are associated with pedestrian behavior. When looking for people who
walk or cross the road in a specific area, the reason for walking or crossing the road must be
discovered to ensure that the pedestrian being examined matches the objectives. Even though
different areas perceived different purposes for walking, many pedestrians find the need to
cross the road. Next, the demographic and socioeconomic profile of the pedestrian, including
age, gender, educational level, and employment status, has been identified, which influences
the pedestrian's choice of crossing type to cross the road. According to the preceding chapter,
males have demonstrated riskier behavior, such as crossing at an illegal location due to shorter
waiting time, as compared to females, who are willing to walk for an additional time for safety
(Tiwari et al., 2017; Qureshi at al., 2015). This is related to the location choices made when
crossing the street. As seen in Bukit Bintang and Universiti Malaya, these places with younger
pedestrians and males frequently choose any convenient location to cross the road. In Pantai
Dalam, the behavior of young adults and the elderly is different, whereas schoolchildren prefer
to walk any extra time and use the pedestrian crossing provided. Other than demographic
background, various factors have been discovered to influence this decision. As a result, when
looking at land use activities, places with a focus on commercial use choose waiting time as
less time spent when crossing anywhere, whereas institutional areas have pedestrians who say
that traffic speed influences where they cross when there is slow traffic approaching, and mixed
land uses have a shorter crossing distance because the road width is narrower. Factors for when
pedestrians choose to cross at any convenient location include pedestrian number and
pedestrian number when crossing in a group. It is undeniable that increased pedestrian numbers
have resulted in increased pedestrian confidence in crossing at desirable locations, as supported
by Hamed's research (2001). Not only does it boost confidences, but it also reduces waiting
time rather than searching for the designated crossing. However, the location to cross the road
is influenced by traffic volume and speed, with lower traffic flow and speed contributing to
pedestrian jaywalking (Zarifah et al.,2017). This was emphasized when pedestrians in Bukit
Bintang preferred signalized crossings over crossing at any convenient location. Akin and
Sisiopiku (2006) found that signalized crossings are somewhat more appealing because they
provide better pedestrian channelization and legitimate crossing spots for them and other road
users. However, they were unable to persuade pedestrians to comply with the signal indication,
particularly under low traffic demand conditions.
The location and design of the designated crossing had the greatest impact on crosswalk
neglect. Waiting time is one of the factors that contribute to the location of pedestrian crossings,
as demonstrated by the pedestrians of Bukit Bintang and Universiti Malaya. Most pedestrians
are not willing to walk an additional time to desired crossing place. This can also be attributed
to the fact that different land use activities have a different amount of traffic volume as an
influencing factor, whereby Bukit Bintang, which is occupied with commercial activity, and
Pantai Dalam, which serves mixed land uses, have a higher tendency for pedestrians to use
designated crossings than Universiti Malaya, which is an educational center. In terms of design,
the most common favorable crosswalk to alert the surrounding area of pedestrian presence is
signalized pedestrian crossing. Following that, the pedestrian inquiries about the frequency
with which pedestrian crossings are used. Bukit Bintang and Pantai Dalam pedestrian said it is
3024
rather often for them cross at designated crossing and sometimes for Universiti Malaya's
pedestrian. During the observation, traffic in Universiti Malaya is much lower in volume than
during peak hours. In contrast to Bukit Bintang and Pantai Dalam, these two have higher traffic
volume and speed due to higher population density. As a result, it is safe to say that pedestrians
have a better chance of using designated crossings in these locations. The behavior of
pedestrians when crossing the road for those who chose designated pedestrian crossings was
determined by the time and level of security and comfort felt by the crossing types. Based on
the six types of pedestrian crossings identified in previous research objectives, signalized
crossings provide high levels of security and comfort to pedestrians in all locations. Other road
users may not yield to pedestrians when they attempt to cross the road, even when the traffic
light indicates a stop sign, so the choices may be reflected. Despite this, some were seen
crossing during the red man phase because some motorcyclists were unaware of the traffic sign,
as can be seen in the preceding chapter where cars illegally stop at pedestrian crossings, causing
pedestrians to stray from the provided crossing. This was also demonstrated in a study by Poo
et al (2018), in which drivers frequently fail to yield to pedestrians and stop at signalized
crossings, causing pedestrians to cross during the red man phase. Ironically, zebra crossings,
overpasses, underpasses, and school children's crossings provide all pedestrians in various land
use activities with a sense of security and comfort. In contrast to the findings of Agah (2018),
most people believe that zebra crossings are the least secure. When it comes to unsignalized
crossings, different areas have different pedestrian views.
Influences on crossing at a specific location can be despite signalized or non-signalized
crosswalks, such as the presence of a pedestrian signal in Bukit Bintang and Universiti Malaya.
To maintain a peaceful and safe interaction between human and vehicle traffic, pedestrian
signals allow for temporary segregation because complete segregation between these two road
users is impossible (Asmah et al., 2014). Unlike in Singapore, to add more safety when road
vehicles approaching pedestrian crossing, self-explaining roads was widely implement in
ensuring pedestrian safety (GRSF,2019). Different perspectives for Pantai Dalam pedestrians,
where the presence of other pedestrians attempting to cross the road in their area has allowed
them to cross in a specific location, as demonstrated by a study conducted by Waled et al (2016).
Pedestrians from all areas said they sometimes look for designated crossings, which leads to
the discovery of things that make it difficult for them to do so. The trends are clear in every
area where the rank falls from highest to lowest with far location of designated crossing to
willingness to detour and unreasonable design. Anciases (2018) also demonstrated that when
crossing facilities are located too far away, people prefer not to use them, which is especially
true among the elderly. Somehow, only a small number of pedestrians have been hit while
crossing the road, and motorcycles are the most common road vehicles that hit pedestrians. The
main factor that contributes to accidents is when pedestrians fail to use the designated crossing.
As a country that has experienced urbanization, Malaysia must ensure that pedestrian needs are
met, particularly pedestrian crosswalks in high-traffic areas. With the addition of convenient
crossing facilities, this will encourage Malaysians to walk. Even though many facilities are
available, pedestrians are still seen neglecting to use the designated crossing when crossing the
road, and there is a need to investigate pedestrian perception of pedestrian crossing. As a result,
this study sheds light on pedestrian perceptions of pedestrian crossings in Kuala Lumpur. To
begin, identifying the types of pedestrian crossings reveals that there are variations of
pedestrian crossings available, whether signalized or non-signalized. Different pedestrian
crossings serve different purposes; however, all pedestrian crossings serve as a tool for
pedestrian safety elements. Pedestrian crossings are widely distributed and located in high-
traffic areas to facilitate and encourage more people to walk while ensuring their safety.
3025
Even though there are numerous pedestrian crossings, some pedestrians choose not to use
them. There are several influencing factors that can be correlated to the survey and observations
made. One of the several factors that contribute to the neglecting designated crossing is due to
the placement and design of designated crossing according to respective land use activities.
Following that, to maximize pedestrian crossing usage, pedestrians suggested their preferred
pedestrian crossing. Pedestrians in Kuala Lumpur have chosen signalized pedestrian crossings
and zebra crossings as their preferred pedestrian crossing types. The reason behind the
popularity of both crossing due to these crossings are commonly found and widely used as to
serve pedestrians. Bukit Bintang pedestrians are also interested in grade separated crossings,
whereas Universiti Malaya students are interested in crossings with creative markings, as
demographic profile and land use activities influence these choices to meet their needs. Even
though there are provisions for pedestrian crossings, they are insufficient to encourage their
use because the provisions focus on capacity and design rather than pedestrian needs and
preferences. As a result, it is critical for local governments to include pedestrians in the design,
location, development, and improvement of pedestrian crossings to ensure pedestrian safety.
Road vehicles are not the only users of the road; pedestrians are more fragile and vulnerable in
this area, so it is critical that pedestrians feel safe and belong to use the road to keep them
mobile. Finally, the study's recommendation of pedestrian crossing based on their needs and
preferences is expected to benefit the pedestrian and increase the use of pedestrian crossing.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors with deepest gratitude would like to thank all the fellow pedestrian for their
participation in ensuring the success of this research. Nur Ellysha writes, collect the data, and
conduct the data analysis while Yong Adilah is responsible in the direction of the paper, writing
and edited the paper writing.
REFERENCES
Anciaes, R.P. & Jonse, P. (2018). Estimating Preferences for Different Types of Pedestrian
Crossing Facilities. Transport Research: Part F Traffic Psychological Behaviour. 52,
222–237
Agureev, Igor & Andreev, K & Ionov, E & Svistunova, A & Terentyev, V. (2020). The use of
intelligent systems when regulating road traffic. IOP Conference Series: Materials
Science and Engineering. 832. 012090. 10.1088/1757-899X/832/1/012090.
Aqbal Hafeez Ariffin, Zulhaidi Mohd Jawi, Mohd Hafzi Md Isa, Khairil Anwar Abu Kassim
and Wong S.V. (2010). Pedestrian Casualties in Road Accidents – Malaysia Perspective
Basile, O., Persia, L. & Usami, D.S. (2010). A Methodology to Assess Pedestrian Crossing
Safety.European Transport Research Review, 2, 129–137.
Barbara, C., Stenstkie, C. & Duivenboden, D. (2020). Smart Crossing System.

https://www.eps2020-
wiki6.dee.isep.ipp.pt/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=smart_pedestrian_crossing_t6_eps_ise
p_2020.pdf
Dommes, A., Cavallo, V., Vienne, F., Aillerie, I. (2012). Age-Related Differences in Street-
Crossing Safety Before and After Training of Older Pedestrians, Accident Analysis &
Prevention. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. aap.2010.12.012, 44(1): 42-47.
3026
Goh, B. H., Subramaniam, K., Wai, Y. T., & Mohamed, A. A. (2012). Pedestrian crossing
speed : The case of Malaysia. International Journal for Traffic and Transport
Engineering, 34(595): 323–332
Guo, H., Zhao, F., Wang, W., Zhou, Y., Zhang, Y., & Wets, G. (2014). Modeling the
perceptions and preferences of pedestrians on crossing facilities. Discrete dynamics in
nature and society. DOI: 10.1155/2014/949475
Hamed, M.M. (2001). Analysis of Pedestrian’s Behavior at Pedestrian Crossings, Safety
Science. DOI: http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00058-8, 38(1): 63-82
Holland, C. & Hill, R. (2007). The effect of age, gender and driver status on pedestrians’
intentions to cross the road in risky situations. Accident Analysis Prevention, 39, 224–
237
Hydén, C. (2010). The safety of pedestrians. In 23rd ICTCT workshop. Retrieved from
https://www.ictct.net/wp-content/uploads/23-Hague-2010/ictct_document_nr_771.pdf
Ishaque, M. M., & Noland, R. B. (2006). Making Roads Safe for Pedestrians or Keeping them
Out of the Way? – An Historical Perspective on Pedestrian Policies in Britain. In 85th
TRB Annual Meeting, paper 06‐1035. Washington: Transportation Research Board.
Javid, M.A., Khalid, M., Ali, N., Campisi, T., Canale, A. & Suparp, S. Analysis of Pedestrians’
Perceptions about the Design Aspects of Crossing Facilities: A Case in Nizwa, Oman.
Infrastructures 2021, 6, 175. DOI: https:// doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures6120175
Kadali,B.R. & Vedagiri, P. (2013). Effect of Vehicular Lanes on Pedestrian Gap
Acceptance Behaviour. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 104, 678-687
Khan, F.M., Jawaid, M., Chotani, H. & Luby, S. (1999). Pedestrian Environment and Behavior
in Karachi, Pakistan, Accident Analysis and Prevention. DOI: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(98)00075-X, 31(4): 335-339.
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities.
Educational and psychological measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Nur Zarifah Harun, Azzuhana Roslan, Rizati Hamidun, Siti Zaharah Ishak, Akmalia Shabadin,
Wong S.V. (2017). Research Report: The Impact of Waiting Time towards Pedestrian
Crossing Behavior at Signalized Intersection. 363.125072
Oxley, J.A., Ihsen, E., Fildes, B.N., Charlton, J.L. & Day, R.H. (2005). Crossing Roads Safely:
An Experimental Study of Age Differences in Gap Selection by Pedestrians, Accident
Analysis and Prevention. DOI: http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.04.017, 37(5):
962-971.
Poo, F.M., Ledesma, R.D., &Trujillo, R. (2018). Pedestrian crossing behavior, an observational
study in the city of Ushuaia, Argentina. DOI: 10.1080/15389588.2017.1391380.
Public Work Department (1997). Basic Guideline on Pedestrian Facilities. JKR Department,
Kuala Lumpur.
Qureshi, M., Khan, N. Rasli, A. & Zaman, K. (2015). The battle of health with environmental
evils of Asian countries: Promises to keep. Environmental Science Pollution Research
International, 22, 11708–11715.
Rizati, H. 2018. Pedestrian Safety in Malaysia - dspace.unimap.edu.my.
http://dspace.unimap.edu.my/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/55725/Pedestrian%2
0safety%20in%20Malaysia.pdf
3027

15 3010 Unlocked

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

15 3010 Unlocked

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies Vol.

Perception of Pedestrian Towards Pedestrian Crossings in Kuala Lumpur

NUR ELLYSHA, YONG ADILAH SHAMSUL HARUMAIN*

Keywords: Pedestrian, Pedestrian Crossings, Walking, Safety

School’s children crossing

Grade Separated Crossing

2.1 Sociodemographic Factor

2.2 Psychological Factor

2.3 Crossing Speed

Jordan (Tarawneh, 2001). In comparison to Thailand and Singapore, Malaysian pedestrian

2.4 Climate and Environment

2.6 Enforcement and Awareness

2.7 External Factor

2.8 Design and Location

4. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

Section A: Respondent’s Profile

Table 4.1: Frequency of Respondents based on Demographic Background in Bukit Bintang

Table 4.2: Frequency of Respondents based on Demographic Background in Universiti Malaya

Table 4.3: Frequency of Respondents based on Demographic Background in Pantai Dalam

Section B: Attitudes and Behavior

Needs to walk on daily basis

Others (State) 010

Location to cross the road.

Factors that contribute to at any convenient location

Influences on cross at a certain location.

Network of pedestrian walkway increases 13 8 8

Figure 4.7: Mapping location transcend to each type of crossings

5. CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

Barbara, C., Stenstkie, C. & Duivenboden, D. (2020). Smart Crossing System.

You might also like