The incidence of pedestrian distraction at urban intersections after implementation of a Streets Smarts campaign
The incidence of pedestrian distraction at urban intersections after implementation of a Streets Smarts campaign
复制标题
实施“街道智慧”活动后城市十字路口行人分心的发生率
作者：
Pina Violano;L. Roney;K. Bechtel
被数字设备或其他活动分心的行人在穿过街道时受伤的风险更高。我们试图描述的发生率的行人分心的数字设备或其他活动在两个高度行驶的城市交叉口后，实施行人安全干预在一个intersect.MethodsThis是一个观察性的两个城市交叉口的实地研究。十字路口的四个角落各有两名调查员。每对观察者包括一个“人计数器”和一个“行为计数器”。“人计数器”记录了从三个对角中的任何一个接近那个角的每个人。“行为计数器”记录了从三个相对角落接近的每个人，他们表现出以下任何行为：1）吃，2）喝，3）戴耳塞/耳机，4）发短信，5）看移动的电话或在移动的电话上阅读东西，或6）在移动的电话上交谈。每隔15分钟，每对观察者旋转到同一交叉口的下一个角落，允许每对观察者在交叉口的四个角落中的每一个完成一次15分钟的观察。交叉路口A在每个拐角的路缘切割处都有支架，提醒行人在穿过交叉路口时放下数字设备，而交叉路口B没有。结果观察了1362名行人;其中19%的人在两个交叉路口都被另一项活动分心。其中，9%的人使用耳塞/耳机; 8%的人使用数字设备（说话、发短信或低头看）; 2%的人在吃饭或喝水。观察者之间的观察者间有效性（kappa）为98%。在那些分心的人中，5%的人要么使用辅助设备（手杖、步行者、电动滑板车），要么带着孩子走路（步行或坐婴儿车）。在任何一个十字路口分心的行人的比例没有差异，除了更多的行人在过十字路口B.ConclusionsIt是不清楚在何种程度上行人安全信息活动是有效的减少分心的数字设备。需要进一步评估张贴的行人注意力分散警告对过街行为安全的影响。
BackgroundPedestrians distracted by digital devices or other activities are at a higher risk of injury as they cross streets. We sought to describe the incidence of pedestrians distracted by digital devices or other activities at two highly traveled urban intersections after the implementation of a pedestrian safety intervention at one of the intersections.MethodsThis was an observational field study of two urban intersections. Two investigators were stationed at each of the four corners of the intersection. Each pair of observers included one “person counter” and one “behavior counter”. The “person counter” tallied every individual who approached that corner from any of the three opposing corners. The “behavior counter” tallied every individual approaching from the three opposing corners who were exhibiting any of the following behaviors: 1) eating, 2) drinking, 3) wearing ear buds/headphones, 4) texting, 5) looking at mobile phone or reading something on mobile phone, or 6) talking on mobile phone. Every 15 min, each pair of observers rotated to the next corner of the same intersection, allowing each pair of observers to complete one 15-min observation at each of the four corners of the intersection. Intersection A had stencils at the curb cuts of each corner alerting pedestrians to put down a digital device while crossing the intersection while intersection B did not.Results1362 pedestrians were observed; of those, 19 % were distracted by another activity at both intersections. Of the total, 9 % were using ear buds/headphones; 8 % were using a digital device (talking, texting, or looking down at it); and 2 % were eating or drinking. Inter-observer validity among observers (kappa) was 98 %. Of those that were distracted, 5 % were either using an assistive device (cane, walker, motorized scooter) or walking with a child (either on foot or in stroller). There were no differences in the proportion of pedestrians who were distracted at either intersection, except that more pedestrians were talking on a cell phone while crossing intersection B.ConclusionsIt is unclear to what degree a pedestrian safety messaging campaign is effective in decreasing distraction by digital devices. Further evaluation of the effect of posted warnings about pedestrian distraction on the safety of crossing behaviors is needed.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Byington, Katherine W.;Schwebel, David C.
通讯作者：
Schwebel, David C.
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Schwebel, David C.;Stavrinos, Despina;Byington, Katherine W.;Davis, Tiffany;O'Neal, Elizabeth E.;de Jong, Desiree
通讯作者：
de Jong, Desiree
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Neider, Mark B.;McCarley, Jason S.;Kramer, Arthur F.
通讯作者：
Kramer, Arthur F.
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Neider, Mark B.;Gaspar, John G.;McCarley, Jason S.;Crowell, James A.;Kaczmarski, Henry;Kramer, Arthur F.
通讯作者：
Kramer, Arthur F.