• No results found

Pedestrians’ behaviour in cross walks : the effects of fear of falling and age

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Pedestrians’ behaviour in cross walks : the effects of fear of falling and age"

Copied!
7
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

P

A

Pede

of p

to th

beha

head

indic

fear

atten

repo

pede

cros

cros

sign

dow

K

J

Cent

SE-1

Swe

www

Pedestria

E

Abstract

estrians are e

edestrians w

heir involvem

aviour: cross

ds down (rath

cator of the (

of falling (F

ntion to cros

orts on a field

estrians in tw

ssing the road

sswalks were

nificant effect

wnward head

Keywords: C

JEL Codes: I

tre for Tra

100 44 Sto

eden

w.cts.kth.s

ans’ beha

Erel Avineri

David Shin

Yusak O.

exposed to ri

was studied as

ment in road

sing speed an

her than tow

(lack of) atte

FOF) among

s traffic, and

d study that c

wo sites (sign

d. The FOF o

e revealed by

ts on crossin

pitches durin

rossing beha

I00, O18, Z0

ansport Stu

ockholm

se

aviour in

fall

– University

nar - Ben Gur

Susilo – Roy

CTS Work

isks when cro

s a factor con

accidents. Th

nd head pitch

ards the traff

ention to cros

pedestrians,

d more attent

combined an

nalised and u

of pedestrian

y means of qu

ng speed, and

ng crossing.

aviour, FOF (

0

udies

cross wa

ling and a

y of the West

rion Univers

yal Institute

king Paper

ossing roads

ntributing to

his work exp

hes—the prop

ffic) when cro

ss-traffic. We

as it might b

tion to the pa

n observatory

unsignalised c

ns and other m

uestionnaire.

d FOF had a

(fear of fallin

alks: The

age

t of England

sity of the Ne

of Technolo

r 2011:18

in urban are

their exposu

plores two sp

portion of tim

ossing a road

e also explor

be associated

avement and

y technique w

crosswalks)

measures of

. Age and ge

significant e

ng), Age

e effects

, Bristol, UK

egev, Israel

gy (KTH)

eas. The cros

ure to risks on

pecific aspect

me pedestria

d. The last on

red the possib

d with slow w

their footstep

with short sur

were video r

pedestrian b

nder had the

ffect on the p

of fear o

K

ssing behavio

n the road an

cts of crossin

ans point thei

ne is used as

ible effect of

walking, less

ps. This pap

urvey. 203

recorded whi

behaviour at

e most

proportion o

of

our

nd

g

ir

an

f

s

er

ile

of

(2)
(3)

Author's personal copy

AccidentAnalysisandPrevention44 (2012) 30–34

ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect

Accident

Analysis

and

Prevention

j ou rna l h o me pag e :w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / a a p

Pedestrians’

behaviour

in

cross

walks:

The

effects

of

fear

of

falling

and

age

Erel

Avineri

a,∗

, David

Shinar

b

, Yusak

O.

Susilo

a

aCentreforTransport&Society,UniversityoftheWestofEngland,FrenchayCampus,ColdharbourLane,BristolBS161QY,UK

bDepartmentofIndustrialEngineeringandManagement,BenGurionUniversityoftheNegev,Ben-GurionAvenue1,P.O.Box653,BeerSheva84105,Israel

a

r

t

i

c

l

e

i

n

f

o

Articlehistory: Received14June2010 Receivedinrevisedform 26November2010 Accepted27November2010 Keywords:

Crossingbehaviour FOF(fearoffalling) Age

a

b

s

t

r

a

c

t

Pedestriansareexposedtoriskswhencrossingroadsinurbanareas.Thecrossingbehaviourofpedestrians wasstudiedasafactorcontributingtotheirexposuretorisksontheroadandtotheirinvolvementin roadaccidents.Thisworkexplorestwospecificaspectsofcrossingbehaviour:crossingspeedandhead pitches—theproportionoftimepedestrianspointtheirheadsdown(ratherthantowardsthetraffic) whencrossingaroad.Thelastoneisusedasanindicatorofthe(lackof)attentiontocross-traffic.We alsoexploredthepossibleeffectoffearoffalling(FOF)amongpedestrians,asitmightbeassociatedwith slowwalking,lessattentiontocrosstraffic,andmoreattentiontothepavementandtheirfootsteps.This paperreportsonafieldstudythatcombinedanobservatorytechniquewithshortsurvey.203pedestrians intwosites(signalisedandunsignalisedcrosswalks)werevideorecordedwhilecrossingtheroad.The FOFofpedestriansandothermeasuresofpedestrianbehaviouratcrosswalkswererevealedbymeansof questionnaire.Ageandgenderhadthemostsignificanteffectsoncrossingspeed,andFOFhadasignificant effectontheproportionofdownwardheadpitchesduringcrossing.

© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Understandingandanalysingtheriskspedestriansareexposed to when crossing a road has been the subject of many stud-iesaddressingaspectsrelatingtothetraffic,roaddesign,traffic signals and road users’ behaviours. Thereis extensive research onpedestrianbehaviour andthe evaluationof safety measures for pedestrians at urban areas. Two specific aspects of cross-ing behaviour that are studied in this work are pedestrians’ crossingspeedandheadpitches—theproportionoftime pedes-trians have their heads down. Both measures are interesting because they might be associated with pedestrians’ age and the so-called ‘fear of falling’ (that is associated by itself with olderage) thathasnot beenstudiedin thecontext ofcrossing behaviour.

Theincreasingproportionof olderpeopleinthecommunity inindustrializedcountries(inmanyofthemthisproportionhas reached10%andaboveit),andtheincreaseintheirlevelof mobil-ityandphysicalactivity,make thesafetyofolderroadusersan increasinglycriticalissue.

Olderpeopleareseenasavulnerablegroupofroadusers.A widerange offactorshasbeenexaminedin thiscontext. Older people are those individuals who are most likely tobe

physi-∗ Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+441173283197;fax:+441173283002. E-mailaddress:Erel.Avineri@uwe.ac.uk(E.Avineri).

cal vulnerable(DfT, 2001;Musselwhite,2006).Theyexperience deteriorationinsensoryandcognitiveskills(Dunbaretal.,2004; Kovalchik et al., 2004;Salthouse, 1996),and a progressive loss offeelingindependent(Orimoetal.,2006).Someorallofthese factorsmighthaveaffectonthecrossingbehaviourofolder pedes-trians.

Observationaltechniqueshavebeenwidelyusedtounderstand crossingbehaviourandidentifyriskybehavioursofdifferentage groups(see,for example,Oxleyetal.,1997).Theeffectsof age-relatedattitudinalfactorsandtheircontributiontoroadcrossing behaviourhavebeenalsoaddressedintheliterature,butmostof theresearchhasfocusedontherisktakingattitudesofyounger adults(HollandandHill,2007;Parkeretal.,1992).Therehavebeen veryfewstudiesontheattitudesofolderpedestrianstowardsrisky behaviour.For anolderpedestriannot payingenoughattention tocrossingtrafficmightbedescribedasariskybehaviour.But,in general,olderpedestriansexhibitsaferbehaviourwhencrossing a street(seeforexample Harrell,1991).Thehypothesisofhigh levelofrisk-takingamongolderpedestrianscontradictsthegeneral observationthatrisktakingdecreaseswithage;olderroadusers tendtotakefewerrisksthanyoungerpeopleinmanydifferentroad safetycontexts,andinroadcrossinginparticular(HollandandHill, 2007).

One shortcoming of olderpeople is theirslower gait. Older people walk more slowly when crossing the road (Coffin and Morrall, 1995; Oxleyet al., 1997). Thus, thetime spent bythe pedestrianatcrossing aroad(so-called “thetimeofexposure”) 0001-4575/$–seefrontmatter © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

(4)

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 Under 1 Yr

1-4 yrs 5-14 yrs15-24 yrs25-34 yrs35-44 yrs45-54 yrs55-64 yrs65-74 yrs75-84 yrs 85 and over

age group

percentage was attributed

Motor Vehicle Falls

Fig.1. CausesofaccidentaldeathintheUSbyagegroups:fallsvs.motorvehicles (basedonCDC,2002).

increaseswith ageand increases risk exposure(Lassarreet al., 2007).

Inadditiontotheirvulnerabilitytotraffic,peopleofallagesare exposedandvulnerabletofalls.Cummingetal.(2000)definefear offalling(FOF)asageneralconceptthatdescribeslowconfidence atavoidingfalls,coupledwiththegreaterfearoftheconsequences offalling.FOFisknowntobemultifactorialwith,ataminimum, physical,psychological,andfunctionalcomponents.Inolder peo-pleitisassociatedwithpoorerhealthstatusandfunctionaldecline, increasein restrictionofactivity,psychologicalfactors (suchas depression and anxiety), and decreasedquality of life (Legters, 2002).DiagnosingFOFhasbeenthesubjectof atleast28 stud-iesusingarangeofmeasurementmethods(seereviewinScheffer etal.,2008).

FOFhasbeenlargelyassociatedwitholdage.Amongpeopleage 60andolder,fallsaretheleadingcauseofinjurydeaths(Stevens, 2005).Morethanathirdofolderpeoplefalleachyear(Hausdorff etal.,1994),andaboutquarterofthosewhofallsuffermoderate tosevere injuries (Alexander et al., 1992).It is the third lead-ingcauseofdeath(aftermotor-vehicleaccidentsand‘unspecified non-transportaccidents’)intheU.S.(CDC,2002).Fig.1showsthe frequencyofmotor-vehicleaccidentsandfallsascausesofdeath asafunctionofage:withtheformerpeakingaroundage20and thelatterincreasingexponentiallywithagetothepointwherethe poseagreaterriskthanmotor-vehicleaccidentsatage75+.

FOFis a concernto12–65%of olderadults (seea review in

Legters,2002).Thus,itispossiblethatpedestrianswhoaremore likelytobeafraidoffallingmightwalkslowerthanother pedestri-answhoarenot.Itcouldbealsohypothesizedthattheyaremore likelytopayless attentiontocrosstraffic,andpaymore atten-tiontothepavementandtheirfootstepswhencrossingaroad—a behaviourthatmightcompromisetheirsafety.

ObservationalmeasuresofFOFmightprovideadditional expla-nationofcrosswalkbehaviour.Forexample,itcouldbeassociated withthespeedofwalking(whichisexpectedtodecreasewithFOF). FOFcouldalsobeassociatedwithapedestrian’slevelofattention tocross trafficduringcrosswalking: theperceived riskofbeing involved,asapedestrian,inatrafficaccidentmightbetraded-off withthepsychologicaleffectofFOF;pedestrianswhoareafraidof fallingmightpaylessattentiontothecrossingtraffic,andpaymore attentiontothepavementandtotheirfootsteps.

Itisdifficulttocapturepedestrians’eyemovementsinthefield environment.Therefore,downwardheadpitches–specificallythe proportionof time pedestrianshave theirheads pointed down (ratherthantowardsthetraffic)whencrossingaroad–issuggested asanindicatorofthe(lackof)apedestrian’sattentionto cross-traffic.Whilethecorrelationbetweeneyemovementsandhead pitcheshavenotbeenexploredinthecontextofcrossingbehaviour,

thereissomeevidencethattheyarerelatedorevencoordinatedin arangeofhumanandanimalbehaviours(Pratt,1981;Guittonand Volle,1987;Land,1992;Gilchristetal.,1997;RomoserandFisher, 2009).

Largesaccadesareaccompaniedbyrotationsofthehead(see

Guitton,1988forareview).Moreover,accordingtoSparks(1991), theeyesandheadofsubjectsmoveinthesamedirectiononlyuntil theeyesreachtheiroculomotorlimitoruntilthelineofsightis directedatthetarget.Then,usually,theheadcontinuestomove andtheeyesmoveintheoppositedirection,compensatingforthe stillongoingheadmovement.Itmightbethereforearguedthatin suchsituationsheadmovementscouldmakebeagoodindicator ofcognitiveandvisualattention.

Cross-traffic and otherroad hazardscould be situated both withinandbeyondtheoculomotorrangehumanhave(whichis about±55◦); thereforea certainfrequency of headmovements towardssuchtargetsduringcrossingwouldbeexpected.

Using afield studyof crossingbehaviour,we exploredwhat measuresofpedestrianbehaviourexplaintheircrossingspeedand proportionofdownwardheadpitches.Wehypothesizedthat cross-ingspeedisreduced,andproportionofdownwardheadpitches duringcrossingisincreased,withageandwithFOF.

2. Methods

2.1. Sitesandparticipants

Thesiteschosenforthisstudywereastandardsignalised cross-walkandastandardunsignalisedcrosswalk,bothlocatedincentral Tel-Aviv,Israel.

Pedestrians’ crossing speed and other aspects of crossing behaviourareaffectedbythewalkingenvironment,andby pedes-trians’ motivation and the purpose of the journey (Finnis and Walton,2008).Toensurethatthepopulationsofpedestriansand driversat bothsitesaresimilaraspossible,thetwocrosswalks chosenforthisstudywerelocatedlessthan50mfromeachother. Therearenodesignedelements(suchashumps)orenhanced featurestoassistdisabledpeopleatthesecrosswalks.Thewalking surfacesatbothsiteshadessentiallynogradient.Bothcrosswalks wereclearlysignedand marked(withzebracrossings). Mainte-nanceconditionsofthecrosswalksweregood(withnocracked pavements,potholes,etc.thatmightaffectcrossingbehaviour).The speedlimitinthisurbanareais40km/h.

Thewidthofthesignalisedcrosswalkis10m.Itcrossesa two-wayroad.Thelengthofthegreenlightphase(23s)shouldprovide mostpedestriansareasonableamountoftimetocross.Atan aver-agewalkingspeedof1.2m/s(commonlyusedtocalculatetimings at pedestrian crosswalks) it takes 5.8sto cross theroad. Most pedestrians,eventhosewhowalkatspeedslessthan1m/s,should havesufficienttimetocrosstheroadduringthegreenphase.The unsignalisedcrosswalkis6.6mwideone-waystreet.Bylaw, pedes-trianscrossingsuchroadhavepriorityoverroadtraffic(although notalldriversinTel-Avivcomplywiththislaw).Bothcrosswalks areveryclosetoalargesupermarketandtoamedicalcentrethat attractpeopleofawiderangeofages.

2.2. Procedureandanalysis

Thisstudyusedamixedapproach:anobservationaltechnique wasappliedtostudythecrossingbehaviourofpedestriansatthe twocrosswalks,andaface-tofacesurveywasheldwithpedestrians immediatelyaftercrossing.

Pedestrianscrossingatbothsiteswererandomlysampled.At bothsites,thevideocamerawaslocatedatanunobtrusivefixed location on one side of the street. In order to make surethat

(5)

Author's personal copy

32 E.Avinerietal./AccidentAnalysisandPrevention44 (2012) 30–34

Table1

Ageandgenderfrequenciesofthepedestriansatthetwosites.

Site Numberofpedestrians Gender Agegroup(years)

Male Female 18–35 36–64 65andover

Signalisedcrosswalk 102 39 63 23 37 42

Unsignalisedcrosswalk 101 29 72 26 42 33

Total 203 68 135 49 79 75

headpitchesarewellcaptured,onlypedestrianscrossingthestreet towardsthelocationofthecamerawereincludedinthesample. Inordertoanalysetheregularwalkingspeed,whennotcrossinga road,pedestrianswerevideorecordedwalkingonthesidewalk sec-tionnearthecrosswalk.Allobservationsweremadeonamid-week daybetween10amand2pm.Thereweregoodweatherconditions (brightsun,norain)throughoutthestudy.

Aftertheycrossedtheroad,face-to-faceshortinterviewswere heldwiththepedestrians.Itincludedquestionssuchasthe pedes-trian’sage,maritalstatus,andhowoftendoesthepedestriancross this road. Pedestrians wereasked about whethertheywere in ahurrywhen crossingtheroad,aboutwhethertheyhave been involvedin roadaccidents,and whethertheyhavevision prob-lems.Inaddition,pedestrianswereaskedtodescribetheirFOFon a5-pointLikertscale(possibleresponseswere:Iamnotafraidof, usuallyIamnotafraidof,Iamabitafraidof,Iamafraidof,andI ammuchafraidoffalling).

Thedataanalysedinthisstudyincludesonlythosepedestrians whoprovidedafullresponsetothequestionnaire,andwho pro-videdtheirconsenttobeincludedinthestudy.Theresponselevel wasabout60%.

3. Results

Table1providesthenumberofpedestriansobservedateach crossingasafunctionofageandgender.

3.1. Crossingspeed

The effects of age, gender and the crosswalk type (sig-nalised/unsignalised)onthewalkingspeedofpedestriansatthe two sites were examined witha linear regression model. Also examinedwerethepedestrians’responsestoquestionsonbeingin ahurry,beinginvolvedinroadaccidents,havingvisionproblems, andbeingafraidoffalls.Becausetheproportionofpedestrianswho reportedanylevelofFOFwasratherlow(about14%atallthree lev-elsofFOF,representingpedestrianswhoare“abitafraid”,“afraid” and“muchafraid”offalling)thisvariablewasdichotomized.Tests onmulticollinearitydidnotshowthatanyofthevariableswere significantlycorrelatedwithothers.

The beta weights of the regression model are presented in

Table2.As expected agehad a significanteffect on the cross-ing speed: the crossing speed of younger adults (18–35) was significantlyhigher than thecrossingspeed of 36–64years old Table2

Theregressionmodelforwalkingspeedatthecrosswalk.

B Sig. (Constant) 1.450 .000 Female(dummy) −0.74 .056 Age18–35 0.116 .013 Age65+ −0.238 .000 Inahurry 0.02 .959

Notinvolvedinroadaccident −0.070 .304

Afraidoffalling −0.075 .198

Unsignalisedcrosswalk 0.02 .979 Hasavisionproblem −0.013 .714

1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

18-35 yrs 35-64 yrs 65 and over

age group

walking speed (meter/sec)

signalised crosswalk unsignalised crosswalk sidewalk

Fig.2. Averagewalkingspeedsatthesignalisedcrosswalk,unsignalisedcrosswalk, andthenearbysidewalkfordifferentagegroups.

pedestrians,who,inturnwerefasterthanolderpedestrians(65+). Theageeffectwasconsistentinbothcrossingsandinthe‘normal’ walkingspeedonthesidewalk,asillustratedinFig.2.

Otherthanage,themodelalsoshowsthatfemaleswalkslower than males,though therelationship ismarginally significantat ˛=10%.Noneoftheothervariableshasasignificanteffecton cross-ingspeed.Specifically,wewereunabletoacceptthehypothesis aboutcrossingspeedbeingassociatedwithFOF.

Interestingly, Fig. 2 alsoindicates that pedestrians’ speed is fastestonthesidewalkandslowestattheunsignalisedcrossing, butthesedifferencesarenotsignificant.

3.2. Theproportionofdownwardheadpitchesduringcrossing The variables associated with the proportion of downward head pitches at the two sites were studied through a linear regression model, and the results are presented in Table 3. The variablesincluded inthemodel were:crosswalktype (sig-nalised/unsignalised),age,gender,andtheresponsesofpedestrians toquestionsontheirindividualcrossing-relatedexperiences:being involved in road accidents, having vision problems, and being afraidoffalls.However,thevariablesrelatedtopedestrians’ expe-rience(madeinresponsetothesurveyquestions)turnedouttobe insignificant.Thiswasnotsurprising;whilethere wasnot mul-ticollinearity betweenvariables, theinclusion of agemade the influencesoftheexperience-relatedvariablesweaker.Inamodel thatincludedagetheonlyvariablethatwasmarginallysignificant (at˛=10%)wasFOF.Therefore,forthepurposeofunderstanding theimpactoftheindividualexperiencevariablesmighthaveonthe frequencyofheadpitches,theagefactorhasbeenexcludedfrom theanalysispresentedinTables3and4.

Table3

Theregressionmodelfordownwardheadpitchesduringcrosswalking.

B Sig.

(Constant) 0.117 .121

Female(dummy) 0.040 .295

Inahurry −0.030 .403

Notinvolvedinroadaccident 0.008 .908

Afraidoffalling 0.119 .030

Unsignalisedcrosswalk −0.009 .896

(6)

Table4

Theregressionmodelfordownwardheadpitchesatthemidsectionofthecrosswalk.

B Sig.

(Constant) −3.689 .500

Female(dummy) 0.939 .064

Inahurry −0.332 .416

Notinvolvedinroadaccident 1.259 .110

Afraidoffalling 1.113 .026

Unsignalisedcrosswalk 1.207 .125

Hasavisionproblem 0.215 .593

Table 3shows that theonlyvariablesignificantly associated withdownwardheadpitchwasFOF,withthoseadmittingtoFOF atsomelevelspendingmoretimelookingatthepavement(26.4% versus14.0%).

Foramoredetailedanalysisofthephenomenonoflookingat thepavementwhilecrossing,weanalysedthepedestrians’head pitchesatthreedifferentsegmentsofthecrosswalks:atthestart andattheendofthecrosswalk,wherepedestriansstepdownor upthesidewalk,and inthemiddle,i.e.,themainsectionofthe crosswalk.Table4showsthebinarylogitmodelresultofwhether therespondents’headfaces downatthemiddle section ofthe cross(1=headis down;0=otherwise).Again,FOFwastheonly significantvariableinthemodel(thoughtheproportionof down-wardheadpitchesseemtobehigheramongfemalepedestriansat ˛=10%).

Noneofthevariableswasfoundtobesignificantintheanalysis oftheproportionofdownwardheadpitchesatthefirstandthird sectionofthecrosswalk.Thisisprobablybecausethebeginning andendofthecrosswalkinvolveaperceptualandphysicalchange thatcompelsmostpeopletoattendtoit(regardlessofFOF).

4. Studylimitations

Therewereseverallimitationstothisstudy.Ithasbeenimplied that a pedestrian’s head pitches while crossing is indicative of his/herattentionleveltothecross-traffic,thepavements,his/her ownfootsteps,orotherobjectsandmovementsinthewalking envi-ronment.Howeverheadpitchesmightnotbethebestindicatorof thedirectioninwhichhervisualorcognitiveattentionisfocused (thoughthetwoaregenerallycorrelated).Moreover,older pedes-triansmightsuffer,morethanpeopleinotheragegroups,from physiological,sensoryandcognitivelimitationsthatmightaffect headmovementand headpitches. Forexample, withadvanced agetheneckcanbecomemore stiff;coordination andspeed of movementswiththearms,handsandheadisdeclining,andeye sightdecreased(Isleretal.,1997;DoriotandWang,2006),among otherfactors,restrictthedegreeoffreedomofheadmovements andaffecttheproportionofheadpitches.Studyingdrivers’the fre-quencyofside-to-sideheadturnswhileexecutingturns,Romoser andFisherfoundthat cognitiveability ratherthanphysical fac-torsasasignificantpredictorofheadturns.Itmightbethatsuch age-relatedfactors,whichwerenottestedinthisstudy,andother controlledindicatorsofvisualandcognitiveattention(suchaseye movements)wouldprovideasignificantcontributiontothe expla-nationofheadpitches.Thiscallsforastudyofcrossingbehaviour inamorecontrolledenvironment(i.e.,asimulation experiment ratherthananaturalisticfieldstudy).

Also,itwassometimesdifficulttoestimatedownward,forward, ortowardstrafficheadpitches duringcrossingduetothefixed cameraangle,crossingtrafficandthedirectionpedestrianswere walkingin.

Toobtainthepedestrians’cooperationthequestionnairewas severelylimitedbylengthandincludedonly10questions. Pedes-trians’FOFhasbeenassessedusingasinglequestion,onarather

generalnatureofFOF.Althoughdirectlyderivedfromthe defini-tionofFOF,theresponsestothisquestionrevealnothingabout theindividuals’experiencewithfalling,theirriskperceptions,risk attitudes,andperceivedbehaviourcontrol.Futureresearchcould explorehowthesemeasuresmightbelinkedtocrossingbehaviour, andwhichofthemprovideabetterexplanationandvalidationof FOFamongpedestrians.

Finally,thestudyislimitedbyitsscale.Lackofsignificanceof someofthevariablesmightbeduetotherelativelysmall num-berofobservationswithineachcellinTable1.Asitwasnotthe mainfocusofthiswork,itwasnotattemptedtodrawspecific con-clusionsoncrosswalkdesignelementsandtheireffectoncrossing behaviour.Moreover,thetwositesdifferfromeachotherinmore thanonedimension(thesignalisedintersectionisatwo-wayroad andtheunsignalisedintersectionisaone-waystreet).Observing crossingbehaviourintwositesprovideonlylimitedgroundsfor anunderstandingofcrossingbehaviourinamoregeneralcontext, asavarietyoffactorsinthecrosswalkenvironment(suchas sur-facelevel,lighting,volumeoftraffic,andsafetymeasures)canbe associatedwithpedestrians’crossingbehaviour.

5. Discussionandconclusions

The safetyof olderpedestriansin theurbanenvironmentis a pressing issue for industrialized countries with an increas-ingly ageing demographic structure. The increase in conflicts betweenpedestriansandvehicleswhichresultsfromthegrowth inmotorisedtrafficinurbanareas,callsforgreateremphasison improving thedesignof the walking environmentfor vulnera-blepedestrians.Byunderstandingthespecificneedsofvulnerable pedestrians,and theirbehaviourinthecrossingofroads, cross-walkscouldbebetterplannedanddesignedtoimprovetheirsafety. ThisstudyhasshownthatagedifferencesandFOFhave signifi-canteffectsonpedestrianbehaviouratcrosswalks.Crossingspeed islargelyexplainedbyageandgender,whereastheproportionof downwardheadpitcheswhilecrossingcanbeexplainedbygender andFOF(whichbyitselfmightbeassociatedwitholdage).

Futureresearchcouldalsoaddresstheeffectofage,gender,FOF andotherrelevantvariablesonotheraspectsofcrossingbehaviour, suchasthechoiceofcrossing location(i.e.,wherea pedestrian is more likely to cross) or their potential contributionto gap-acceptancetheory(Hamed,2001;Manuszacetal.,2005;Lassarre etal.,2007).

Futureresearchshouldincorporatefindings and understand-ingofcrosswalkbehaviourintothedesignofinterventionstotreat FOFandgazebehaviourinboththetransportandgeneralcontexts. InterventionstotreatFOFintheplanninganddesignof pedestri-ans’walkingenvironmentcouldbeevaluatedbytheireffectson walkingspeed,attentionprovidedtocrosstraffic,headpitch,and –ultimately–numberofaccidentsinjuriesandfatalitiesamong olderpedestrianswhilecrossingthestreet.

Acknowledgments

TheauthorsacknowledgethehelpprovidedbyNoaSobeland LiatZoraninthecollectionofdata.Theauthorswouldalsolike tothankthethreeanonymousreviewersfortheirinsightful com-ments,whichhelpedimprovethecontentofthispaper.

References

Alexander,B.H.,Rivara,F.P.,Wolf,M.E.,1992.Thecostandfrequencyof hospitaliza-tionforfall-relatedinjuriesinolderadults.AmericanJournalofPublicHealth 82(7),1020–1023.

CDC,2002.Deaths:LeadingCausesfor2000.NationalVitalStatisticsReport(NVSR) 50(16). Centersfor DiseaseControl and Prevention, US.Available online: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

(7)

Author's personal copy

34 E.Avinerietal./AccidentAnalysisandPrevention44 (2012) 30–34

Coffin,A.,Morrall,J.,1995.Walkingspeedsofelderlypedestriansatcrosswalks. TransportationResearchRecord1487,63–67.

Cumming,R.G.,Salkeld,G.,Thomas,M.,Szonyi,G.,2000.Prospectivestudyofthe impactoffearoffallingonactivitiesofdailyliving,SF-36scores,andnursing homeadmission.JournalofGerontologyA:BiologicalSciences55,M299–M305. DfT,2001.OlderDrivers:ALiteratureReview.DepartmentforTransport,London. Doriot,N.,Wang,X.,2006.Effectsofageandgenderonmaximumvoluntaryrange

ofmotionoftheupperbodyjoints.Ergonomics49(3),269–281.

Dunbar,G.,Holland,C.A.,Maylor,E.A.,2004.OlderPedestrians:ACriticalReviewof theLiterature.DfT,London.

Finnis,K.K.,Walton,D.,2008.Fieldobservationstodeterminetheinfluenceof populationsize,locationandindividualfactorsonpedestrianwalkingspeeds. Ergonomics51(6),827–842.

Gilchrist,I.D.,Brown,V.,Findlay,J.M.,1997.Saccadeswithouteyemovements. Nature390,130–131.

Guitton,D.,1988.Eye-headcoordinationingazecontrol.In:Peterson,B.W., Rich-mond,F.J.(Eds.),ControlofHeadMovement.OxfordUniv.Press,NewYork,pp. 196–207.

Guitton,D.,Volle,M.,1987.Gazecontrolinhumans:eye-headcoordination dur-ingorientingmovementstotargetswithinandbeyondtheoculomotorrange. JournalofNeurophysiology58,427–459.

Hamed,M.M.,2001.Analysisofpedestrians’behavioratpedestriancrossings.Safety Science38(1),63–82.

Harrell,W.,1991.Precautionarystreetcrossingbyelderlypedestrians.International JournalofAgingandHumanDevelopment32(1),65–80.

Hausdorff,J.M.,Rios,D.A.,Edelber,H.K.,1994.Gait variabilityand fallriskin community-livingolderadults:a1-yearprospectivestudy.ArchivesofPhysical MedicineandRehabilitation82(8),1050–1056.

Holland,C.,Hill,R.,2007.Theeffectofage,genderanddriverstatusonpedestrians’ intentionstocrosstheroadinriskysituations.AccidentAnalysis&Prevention 39(2),224–237.

Isler,R.B.,Parsonson,B.S.,Hansson,G.J.,1997.Agerelatedeffectsofrestrictedhead movementsontheusefulfieldofviewofdrivers.AccidentAnalysis&Prevention 29(6),793–801.

Kovalchik,S.,Camerer,C.F.,Grether,D.M.,Plott,C.R.,Allman,J.M.,2004.Agingand decisionmaking:acomparisonbetweenneurologicallyhealthyelderlyand youngindividuals.JournalofEconomicBehaviorandOrganization58(2),79–94.

Land,M.F.,1992.Predictableeye-headcoordinationduringdriving.Nature359, 318–320.

Lassarre,S.,Papadimitriou,E.,Yannis,G.,Golias,J.,2007.Measuringaccidentrisk exposureforpedestriansindifferentmicro-environments.AccidentAnalysis& Prevention39(6),1226–1238.

Legters,K.,2002.Fearoffalling.PhysicalTherapy82(3),264–272.

Manuszac,M.,Manski,C.,Das,S.,2005.Walkorwait?Anempiricalanalysisofstreet crossingdecisions.JournalofAppliedEconometrics20(4),529–548. Musselwhite,C.B.A.,2006.Prolongingsafedrivingbehaviourthroughtechnology:

attitudesofolderdrivers.In:26thInternationalCongressofAppliedPsychology ,Athens,Greece,16–21July2006.

Orimo,H.,Ito,H.,Suzuki,T.,Araki,A.,Hosoi,T.,Sawabe,M.,2006.Reviewingthe definitionof“elderly”.InternationalJournalofGeriatricsGerontology6,149– 158.

Oxley,J.,Fildes,B.,Ihsen,E.,Charlton,J.,Day,R.,1997.Differencesintrafficjudgments betweenyoungandoldadultpedestrians.AccidentsAnalysis&Prevention29, 839–847.

Parker,D.,Manstead,A.S.R.,Stradling,S.G.,Reason,J.T.,1992.Determinantsof intentiontocommitdrivingviolations.AccidentAnalysis&Prevention24(2), 117–131.

Pratt,D.W.,1981.Saccadiceyemovementsarecoordinatedwithheadmovements inwalkingchickens.TheJournalofExperimentalBiology97,217–223. Romoser,M.,Fisher,D.L.,2009.Effectsofcognitiveandphysicaldeclineonolder

drivers’side-to-sidescanningforhazardswhileexecutingturns.In: Proceed-ingsoftheFifthInternationalDrivingSymposiumonHumanFactorsinDriver Assessment,TrainingandVehicleDesign.

Salthouse,T.A.,1996.Theprocessingspeedtheoryofadultagedifferencesin cogni-tion.PsychologicalReview103,403–428.

Scheffer,A.C.,Schuurmans,M.J.,VanDijk,N.,Vanderhooft,T.,DeRooij,S.E.,2008. Fearoffalling:measurementstrategy,prevalence,riskfactorsandconsequences amongolderpersons.AgeandAgeing37,19–24.

Sparks,D.L.,1991.Theneuralcontroloforientingeyeandheadmovements.In: Humphrey,D.R.,Freund,H.-J.(Eds.),MotorControl:ConceptsandIssues.John Wiley&SonsLtd.,Chichester,pp.263–275.

Stevens,J.A.,2005.Fallsamongolderadults—riskfactorsandpreventionstrategies. JournalofSafetyResearch36,409–411.

Figure

Fig. 1. Causes of accidental death in the US by age groups: falls vs. motor vehicles (based on CDC, 2002).
Fig. 2. Average walking speeds at the signalised crosswalk, unsignalised crosswalk, and the nearby sidewalk for different age groups.

References

Related documents

Däremot är denna studie endast begränsat till direkta effekter av reformen, det vill säga vi tittar exempelvis inte närmare på andra indirekta effekter för de individer som

Key questions such a review might ask include: is the objective to promote a number of growth com- panies or the long-term development of regional risk capital markets?; Is the

The increasing availability of data and attention to services has increased the understanding of the contribution of services to innovation and productivity in

I regleringsbrevet för 2014 uppdrog Regeringen åt Tillväxtanalys att ”föreslå mätmetoder och indikatorer som kan användas vid utvärdering av de samhällsekonomiska effekterna av

a) Inom den regionala utvecklingen betonas allt oftare betydelsen av de kvalitativa faktorerna och kunnandet. En kvalitativ faktor är samarbetet mellan de olika

Närmare 90 procent av de statliga medlen (intäkter och utgifter) för näringslivets klimatomställning går till generella styrmedel, det vill säga styrmedel som påverkar

• Utbildningsnivåerna i Sveriges FA-regioner varierar kraftigt. I Stockholm har 46 procent av de sysselsatta eftergymnasial utbildning, medan samma andel i Dorotea endast

Det finns en bred mångfald av främjandeinsatser som bedrivs av en rad olika myndigheter och andra statligt finansierade aktörer. Tillväxtanalys anser inte att samtliga insatser kan