Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
The purpose of this study was to provide an exploratory analysis of the proportion of pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers exhibiting four specific behaviors at 12 intersections near transit stations in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Those target behaviors were (a) pedestrians crossing a roadway while using a mobile device, such as a cell phone; (b) pedestrians crossing a signalized intersection against a red light; (c) bicyclists running a red light at a signalized intersection; and (d) automobiles turning right on red without stopping. Those four behaviors are important because they may lead to pedestrian crashes. Overall, 8% of pedestrians used mobile devices while crossing, but the proportion ranged from less than 3% to more than 18% at specific study sites. At some locations, fewer than 3% of nonmotorized road users violated red lights, whereas approximately 70% did at other sites. The percentage of motorists turning right on red without stopping ranged from zero to more than 70%. Female pedestrians were more likely than were males to talk on mobile devices while crossing a street, but males were more likely to violate traffic signals while walking or bicycling. However, these observations did not control for differences in gender and other characteristics at sites. As pedestrian and bicycle mode shares increase, it will be essential for all users to understand their rights and responsibilities in the environment of the roadway. The documentation of behaviors helps provide a foundation for engineering, education, enforcement, and encouragement countermeasures that will improve safety for pedestrians and other roadway users.
The purpose of this study was to provide an exploratory analysis of the proportion of pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers exhibiting four specific behaviors at 12 intersections near transit stations in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. Those target behaviors were (a) pedestrians crossing a roadway while using a mobile device, such as a cell phone; (b) pedestrians crossing a signalized intersection against a red light; (c) bicyclists running a red light at a signalized intersection; and (d) automobiles turning right on red without stopping. Those four behaviors are important because they may lead to pedestrian crashes. Overall, 8% of pedestrians used mobile devices while crossing, but the proportion ranged from less than 3% to more than 18% at specific study sites. At some locations, fewer than 3% of nonmotorized road users violated red lights, whereas approximately 70% did at other sites. The percentage of motorists turning right on red without stopping ranged from zero to more than 70%. Female pedestrians were more likely than were males to talk on mobile devices while crossing a street, but males were more likely to violate traffic signals while walking or bicycling. However, these observations did not control for differences in gender and other characteristics at sites. As pedestrian and bicycle mode shares increase, it will be essential for all users to understand their rights and responsibilities in the environment of the roadway. The documentation of behaviors helps provide a foundation for engineering, education, enforcement, and encouragement countermeasures that will improve safety for pedestrians and other roadway users.
1 Пермский национальный исследовательский политехнический университет, Пермь, Россия 2 Пермский военный институт войск национальной гвардии Российской Федерации, Пермь, Россия ПОВЫШЕНИЕ БЕЗОПАСНОСТИ ДОРОЖНОГО ДВИЖЕНИЯ ПРИ РЕКОНСТРУКЦИИ ТРАНСПОРТНОГО УЗЛА ШОССЕ КОСМОНАВТОВ И УЛИЦЫ МИРА В ГОРОДЕ ПЕРМИВ настоящее время в связи с ростом автомобильного парка и, как следствие, c увеличением интенсивности движения и коэффициента загрузки дорог все более актуальной становится пробле-ма несоответствия параметров улично-дорожной сети требованиям безопасности движения. Это приводит к таким последствиям, как человеческие жертвы, материальный ущерб в результате до-рожно-транспортных происшествий, транспортные заторы, снижение скорости движения. В данной статье затронута проблема ухудшения состояния безопасности дорожного движения в российских городах вследствие несоответствия параметров улично-дорожной сети темпам автомобилизации. Предпринята попытка анализа возможных вариантов реконструкции транспортного узла с целью доведения его параметров до соответствия существующей интенсивности. Выдвинуто предполо-жение об эффективности применения современных кольцевых пересечений как метода повышения безопасности дорожного движения. Проведен анализ международной практики модернизации обычных пересечений в одном уровне в малые кольцевые или современные кольцевые пересече-ния. По данным статистики определен один из участков г. Перми, на который приходится наиболь-шее количество дорожно-транспортных происшествий. Выполнен анализ работы данного транс-портного узла (пересечение шоссе Космонавтов и ул. Мира в Индустриальном районе г. Перми). Проведена его оценка на соответствие безопасности для всех участников дорожного движения. Степень опасности пересечения оценивается согласно ВСН 25-86 показателем безопасности дви-жения, характеризующим количество дорожно-транспортных происшествий на 10 млн автомобилей, прошедших через это пересечение. Для решения возникающих проблем предложен вариант рекон-струкции транспортного узла в современное кольцевое пересечение.Ключевые слова: интенсивность движения, аварийность, безопасность дорожного дви-жения, транспортный поток, степень опасности пересечения, современное кольцевое пересече-ние, пересечение в одном уровне.
BackgroundRoad Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high‐income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence‐based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high‐income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.ObjectivesThe objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.Search MethodsThe EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.Selection CriteriaThe interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post‐crash pre‐hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non‐fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.Data Collection and AnalysisThe EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case‐control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.Main ResultsThe EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post‐crash pre‐hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non‐fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety‐six percent of the studies were reported from high‐income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper‐middle‐income countries, and only 1.4% from lower‐middle and low‐income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.Authors' ConclusionsThe EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence‐synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.