Throughout the 90's and the 00's, Danish traffic planners have had the same, and still unanswered, question: How do we provide pedestrians with the best possible conditions for them to cross roads safely? Is it by establishing zebra crossings, by which cyclists and motor vehicles are obligated to give way for the crossing pedestrians, but in reality, rarely do it? Or is it by establishing pedestrian islands by which the pedestrians are obligated to wait until the road is clear from any cyclists or motor vehicle? This unclarity is the reason that many former counties and districts have replaced many of their zebra crossings with pedestrian islands. The only argument in favour of this seems to be found in a Swedish PhD thesis, which postulated that pedestrian islands are better than zebra crossings, at least under Swedish traffic conditions.
This master’s thesis has its starting point in these questions, and seeks to answer them by investigating four different zebra crossings, as well as four different pedestrian islands, all located in Aalborg and Nørresundby; using conflict technique as the method of investigation.

The investigation uses two different conflict definitions: a behaviour-based and a time-based definition. The behaviour-based definition is determined on the basis of a modified focus group interview, in which a number of potential conflicts were assessed by competent professionals. The time-based definition is based on definitions from other projects involving conflicts between vulnerable road users and vehicles.

As evidenced by the results in this project; the two types of locations do not show statically significant differences in the pedestrian risk. It is however observed that the two different types locations cause differences in the behaviour of both the pedestrians and the car drivers.