The impact of pedestrian countdown signals on pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions: a reanalysis of data from a quasi-experimental study

Abstract

ObjectiveTo perform a more sophisticated analysis of previously published data that advances the understanding of the efficacy of pedestrian countdown signal (PCS) installation on pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions (PMVCs), in the city of Toronto, Canada.MethodsThis is an updated analysis of the same dataset from Camden et al. A quasi-experimental design was used to evaluate the effect of PCS on PMVC. A Poisson regression analysis, using a one-group comparison of PMVC, pre-PCS installation to post-PCS installation was used, controlling for season and temporal effects. The outcome was the frequency of reported PMVC (January 2000–December 2009). Similar models were used to analyse specific types of collisions defined by age of pedestrian, injury severity, and pedestrian and vehicle action. Incidence rate ratios with 95% CI are presented.ResultsThis analysis included 9262 PMVC, 2760 during or after PCS installation, at 1965 intersections. There was a 26% increase in the rate of collisions, pre to post-PCS installation (incidence rate ratio=1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.42).ConclusionsThe installation of PCS at 1965 signalised intersections in the city of Toronto resulted in an increase in PMVC rates post-PCS installation. PCSs may have an unintended consequence of increasing pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions in some settings.

The impact of pedestrian countdown signals on single and two vehicle motor vehicle collisions: a quasi-experimental study

“…The body of peer-reviewed literature examining the effect of PCS on MVCs is limited and conflicting in its conclusions. Our findings are consistent with our recent publication by Richmond et al (2013) of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions with these same intersections and countdown signals. This study demonstrated a 26% increase in the rate of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions, pre-to post-PCS installation (Richmond et al, 2013).…”

“…Our findings are consistent with our recent publication by Richmond et al (2013) of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions with these same intersections and countdown signals. This study demonstrated a 26% increase in the rate of pedestrian motor vehicle collisions, pre-to post-PCS installation (Richmond et al, 2013). Our findings, however, contradict results published by Pulugurtha et al (2010) who found a decrease in MVCs after installation of PCS.…”

“…Our recent publication on the same intervention examined the effect of PCS on pedestrian MVCs (Richmond et al, 2013). The study demonstrated a 26% increase (incidence rate ratio D International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 2016http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2016 pedestrian-MVCs, post-PCS installation.…”

Urban crash-related child pedestrian injury incidence and characteristics associated with injury severity

“…These have likely decreased child pedestrian versus auto events. While data are conflicting about the utility of pedestrian countdown signals as an injury prevention strategy, in 2006 Chicago regulated that all new pedestrian signals and all those needing repair be done with countdown signals Markowitz et al, 2006;Federal Highway Administration, 2008;Richmond et al, 2013).…”

Pedestrian fatality and impact speed squared: Cloglog modeling from French national data

“…It also corresponds to differences in road-user behavior regarding safety, and especially motorists' consideration for pedestrians (or cyclists) with whom they need to share the road. In all countries, pedestrians injured in road crashes are mainly hit by motor vehicles, and most often by passenger cars (Alhajyaseen et al 2013;Pulugurtha and Sambhara 2011;Richmond et al 2014a;Richmond et al 2014b). The interest of developing active and passive safety devices in cars is clear (Zegeer and Bushell 2012).…”