For the first time ever, ACI (Automobile Club d'Italia) and its partner clubs (all members of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile - FIA) tested pedestrian crossings within the scope of EuroTest, the international test programme involving 18 automobile clubs. The high number of pedestrians killed in road accidents in Europe pushed ACI and its partners to start an assessment programme focussed on pedestrian crossings. As in previous EuroTest surveys, a methodology was developed aimed at assessing the safety levels of individual pedestrian crossings supported by an awareness campaign targeting pedestrians and drivers. The evaluation and comparison of crossings systems in Europe provide the first-ever opportunity to identify shortcomings and possibilities for improvement, as well as model solutions.

215 pedestrian crossings were tested in 17 European main cities: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Brussels, Copenhagen, Helsinki, Ljubljana, London, Madrid, Munich, Oslo, Paris, Rome, Stockholm, Vienna, Zagreb and Zurich. To make the assessments as comparable as possible across the different cities, all the tested crossings have been selected inside well defined areas of each city, all possessing the following common criteria:

• High tourist interest
• Good transport facilities
• Close to critical traffic conditions
• Similar sized geographic areas

Within each area, a minimum of 12 crossings were inspected, with a view covering all the possible kind of crossings (signalised/not signalised, intersection/road link, one way/two ways roads, single lane/multiple lanes per direction). The inspections were performed directly by ACI's technical experts (two teams of three units), who travelled around the European capitals from 3 July to 26 September 2008, walking some 140 km to cover the 215 crossings selected. Each crossing was tested both during the day and at night.

The ACI, as project leader, commissioned the CTL (Centre for Transport and Logistics) at "La Sapienza" University of Rome, to develop a methodology for this safety assessment of pedestrian crossings.

On the basis of literature review results, 22 safety factors were defined and clustered into four safety categories. The weighting process was developed by the CTL by means of cross-comparison submitted to a qualified focus group (Analytical Hierarchy Process) and endorsed by the results of in-depth surveys on serious accidents involving pedestrians.

Then two checklists were developed for signalised and for non-signalised pedestrian crossings.
Using the checklist, the following five theme blocks were checked:

Spatial and temporal design                    Weighting: 19% (20% without traffic light)

• Crossing distance (from sidewalk to sidewalk)
• Pedestrian: vehicles conflict points
• Pedestrian refuge islands (crossing islands)
• Exclusive pedestrian signal phase
• Green phase efficiency
• Transition phase efficiency (between green and red phase)
• Red phase duration
• Pedestrian countdown signal

Daylight visibility                                     Weighting: 24% (22% without traffic light)

• Minimum approach sight distance (distance needed for a driver to recognise the presence of a pedestrian waiting to cross at the pedestrian crossing)
• Visibility of Pedestrian crossing signs (for drivers)
• Visibility of road markings (for drivers).
• Pedestrian crossing width.
• Specific traffic direction markings (e.g. triangles/arrows or "Look left/Look right" road markings).

Night time visibility                                  Weighting: 41%

• Lighting conditions
• Minimum approach sight distance in the night time (distance needed for a driver to recognise the presence of a pedestrian waiting to cross at the pedestrian crossing)
• Visibility of Pedestrian crossing signs at night time(for drivers)
• Visibility of road markings at night time (for drivers).

Accessibility                                             Weighting: 16% (17% without traffic light)

• Presence of dropped or ground level kerbs
• Presence of tactile paving (for visually impaired people) 
• Presence of acoustic devices (for blind or partially sighted pedestrians)
• Presence of obstacles (parked vehicles, utility poles, signs, holes, etc.) that could be a hazard for approaching pedestrians or pushing them to cross outside the crossings 
• Kerb width

The crossings were rated on the basis of a points system with the following ratings: Very good, Good, Acceptable, Poor and Very poor.

The results of the single pedestrian crossings belonging to each city were finally analysed, in order to better understand the number of crossings rated in each rating category and the variability of the single crossings results. This enabled to underline the cities with the major number of positive crossings and to highlight those with the highest number of negative situations. Of course this kind of aggregation is more reliable the lower is the variability of the results in respect to the average.