Valerie Cadorett^*1, Rodney N Hammond¹

1. Research Assistant, Department of Public Health, William Paterson University, USA

^*Corresponding author:Valerie Cadorett, BS, REHS, Research Assistant, Department of Public Health, William Paterson University, University Hall 366, Wayne, NJ 07470, USA, Tel: 973-720-2603;

Abstract

On average in 2013, every 2 hours a pedestrian was killed and every 8 minutes a pedestrian was injured in traffic crashes in the United States. An estimated 30% of pedestrian fatalities in NYC are a direct result of pedestrians’ choices.Four Manhattan intersections were observed-3rd& 22nd, 3rd& 57th, 6th& 57th, and 8th& 57th. Ten cycles of signal changes were observed twice at each of the four corners of each of the four intersections. At each intersection, data was collected at four times: once during the morning, twice during a recreation time, and once during the evening. A total of 13,747 pedestrians were crossing during the ‘Walk’ signal. The most common distraction was headphone use (n=1,399; 10.2%) followed by talking on a device (n=813; 5.9%). There were 581 pedestrians who were crossing the street during the ‘Don’t Walk’ signal. The most common distraction was headphone use (n=74, 12.7%) followed by looking at a device (n=33; 5.7%). The highest number of distracted pedestrians crossing during the ‘Walk’ signal was during the p.m. commute (n=902). 8th& 57th had the highest number (n=1,209) of distracted pedestrian across all times during the ‘Walk’ signal while 3rd& 22nd had the highest number (n=91) of distracted pedestrians across all times during the ‘Don’t Walk’ signal.Rates of distraction in this study were consistent with prior research and the data collection methods used in these studies is adoptable.

Keywords: pedestrians; technology; phone; distracted; walk; intersections

Introduction

On average in 2013, every 2 hours a pedestrian was killed and every 8 minutes a pedestrian was injured in traffic crashes in the United States [1]. In other words, 4,735 pedestrians were killed and approximately 66,000 pedestrians were injured[1]. In 2013, New York City, New York (NYC) had a resident population of 8,344,397, a total of 293 traffic fatalities, and 178 pedestrian fatalities [1]. An estimated 30% of pedestrian fatalities in NYC are a direct result of pedestrians’ choices [2]. Mobile phone use injuries among pedestrians have increased considerably from 2005 to 2010 [3]. Based on an analysis of countrywide hospital emergency room records, pedestrian injuries associated with using mobile phones had a tenfold increase from .37% in 2005 to 3.67% in 2010[3].

Simulated studies on distracted pedestrians illustrate that using handheld devices, such as cell phones, while walking are dangerous [4]. Overall, observational studies assessing the impact of cellular device use while crossing streets concluded that pedestrians cross the street at a slower speed when talking on a mobile device,have a higher rate of not looking at traffic before stepping into the road, and non-distracted pedestrians cross more safely than those distracted [5-7]. Liberty Mutual Insurance conducted a phone survey of 1,004 American adults aged 18 to 65 in 2013 and revealed that 3 out of 5, or 60%, use smartphones when crossing the street[8]. Furthermore, while crossing the street, 51% of respondents stated they talk on the phone, 26% email or text, and 34% listen to music [8]. Kuzel et al. found that using cell phones while walking can significantly change pedestrians’ ability to observe and gather information about objects in their environment [9]. Byington and Schwebel discovered that young adult pedestrian behavior was substantially risker when preoccupied with internet on their cellular device than when undistracted [10].

Cell phone use may impact physical demands among distracted walkers, like decreased arm swinging and changed head orientation[11]. Typing and reading texts on a mobile phone may lead to a higher chance of not walking in a straight path [11]. In Schabrun et al. study, researchers reported that 35% of participants answered being in a recent accident, like falling, tripping, or bumping into objects or other individuals, while walking and texting on a mobile device[11].

Basch et al. was the first to do research on technology based distracted walking behaviors in NYC[12]. In the pilot study, the distracted walking rate during the “walk” signal was 28.8% and the distracted walking rate was 42% during the “don’t walk” signal[12]. In the subsequent study by Basch et al. which was based on the pilot study, revealed that the distracted walking rate during the “walk” signal was 27.8% and the distracted walking rate was 26.3% during the “don’t walk” signal [13]. Basch et al. observed 21,760 pedestrians at the five most dangerous intersections in midtown Manhattan and nearly one third of pedestrians crossing during the “walk” signal were distracted by headphones, which headphone use is the most common distraction followed by looking down at a mobile device [13]. Nearly one half of pedestrians who crossed during a “don’t walk” signal were distracted, with wearing headphones being the most common distraction and looking down at a device being the second most common [13].

Beyond NYC, other largely populated cities, such as San Francisco and Seattle, have done research on distracted pedestrians. One Seattle study observed 1,102 pedestrians at 20 intersections and noted that nearly 30% of pedestrians were distracted and the most common observed distraction was headphone use [14]. A San Francisco study found that rates of pedestrians distracted by technology was different with each intersection but was highest at 18% [15].

The use of handheld and cellular devices has greatly increased over the years.In 2014, smartphone subscriptions were 2,600 million and in 2015 it was 3,200 million[16]. It is projected that in 2021, smartphone subscriptions will jump to 6,300 million [16]. In 2015, monthly data traffic per smartphone in North America was 3.7 GB/month, which is nearly a four times higher usage than it was in Asia Pacific and Middle East and Africa (1.0 GB/month), and almost doublethe use of Western Europe (1.9 GB/month)[16]. It is projected that by 2021, monthly data traffic per smartphone in North America will be 22 GB/month, which is double Western Europe (10 GB/month) and Central and Eastern Europe (11 GB/month)[16].

All around the world, efforts are being made to ensure the safety of walkers and reduce the number of distracted pedestrians. In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania officials made an “E-Lane” (Electronic Device Lane) on 1,400 blocks to raise awareness on distracted walking [17].In Toronto, Canada police handed out educational safety brochures to distracted walkers and launched a “Heads Up” campaign to teach students about the dangers of distracted walking near traffic [17]. Throughout the United States, distracted walking is acknowledged as dangerous and distracted walking bills have been proposed, but to date have not been successful[17]. New York Senator Kruger introduced a bill in 2011 to ban using electronic devices in crosswalks of cities that have a population of more than one million[17]. The bill would have applied to individuals who are holding mobile devices to their ear or texting and a person would be fined $100[17].However, it wasn’t passed[17].The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) encourages researchers to capture the magnitude of moving pedestrians using handheld mobile devices [18]. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to assess technology related distracted pedestrians’ behavior at four dangerous and busy intersections in midtown Manhattan at different commuting times—morning, early recreational, late recreational, and evening. Additionally, this study had an aim to further test the coding scheme used by Basch et al. to determine its ability to be adopted and replicated by other researchers [12, 13].

Methods

Pedestrians were observed at four intersections: 3rd & 22nd, 3rd& 57th, 6th& 57th, and 8th & 57th. These intersections were picked because they appeared on the Top Twenty High Pedestrian Crash Locations in 2011 where pedestrians were killed or seriously injured and their proximity to mid-town Manhattan[19].

Data was collected in July and August 2016. The coding process was adopted from previous research conducted by Basch et al. [12, 13]. The first step in the data collection process included one coder (R.H.) counting and categorizing the numbers of pedestrians doing the following behaviors coming towards him: talking on a mobile phone, wearing headphones, looking down at a mobile device, or engaging in a combination of these behaviors. A second coder (V.C.) counted the total number of pedestrians. This was done during both the ‘Walk’ signal and the ‘Don’t Walk’ signal.

Ten cycles of signal changes (i.e., ‘Walk’ to ‘Don’t Walk’) were observed twice at each of the four corners, of each of the four intersections. Coders observed both directions on each corner separately. For example, when standing on a corner coders collected data for 10 light changes while looking straight and then collected data for 10 light changes looking to the left or right, depending upon where they were standing. Data was collected for 10 light changes in each direction for ‘Walk’ signals totaling 80 light changes per intersection. Also at each intersection, 10 light changes in each direction for ‘Don’t Walk’ signals were collected totaling 80 light changes per intersection. At each intersection, the duration of 3 light changes in a row were recorded to demonstrate consistency.

Data for ‘Walk’ and ‘Don’t Walk’ signals were tallied separately. ‘Don’t Walk’ included pedestrians who initiated crossing the street when the traffic signal was solid green, indicating that cars should be proceeding through the light.

At each intersection, data was collected at four times: once during the morning (starting any time before 10:30 a.m.), twice during a recreation time (starting at 10:31 a.m. and ending at 3:59 p.m.), and once during the evening (starting at 4:00 and after).

Results

A total of 13,747 pedestrians were crossing during the ‘Walk’ signal (Table 1). Of these, over 1 in 5 (n=2,986; 21.7%) were distracted in some way. The most common distraction was headphone use (n=1,399; 10.2%) followed by talking on a device (n=813; 5.9%), looking at a device (n=551; 4.0%), and performing multiple tasks at once (n=223; 1.6%).

There were 581 pedestrians who were crossing the street during the ‘Don’t Walk’ signal (Table 2). Of these 581, 145 (24.9%) were distracted. The most common distraction was headphone use (n=74, 12.7%) followed by looking at a device (n=33; 5.7%), talking on a device (n=28; 4.8%), and performing multiple tasks at once (n=10; 1.7%).

The highest number of distracted pedestrians crossing during the ‘Walk’ signal was during the p.m. commute (n=902) (Table 3), followed by p.m. recreation (n=744), a.m. commute (n=675), and a.m. recreation (n=665). The highest number of distracted pedestrians crossing during the ‘Don’t Walk’ signal was during the a.m. commute (n=39), followed by a.m. recreation (n=38), p.m. recreation (n=35), and p.m. commute (n=33). 8th& 57th had the highest number (n=1,209) of distracted pedestrian across all times during the ‘Walk’ signal while 3rd& 22nd had the highest number (n=91) of distracted pedestrians across all times during the ‘Don’t Walk’ signal.

Table 1. Distracted walking at all times by intersection crossing during the ‘Walk’ signal.

Table 2. Distracted walking at all times by intersection crossing during the ‘Don’t Walk’ signal

Table 3. Distracted walking during‘Walk’ and ‘Don’t Walk’ signals by location and commute times.

Discussion

This study indicated nearly 1 in 5 (21.7%)pedestrians were distracted during the ‘Walk’ signal and nearly 1 in 4 pedestrians (24.9%) were distracted during the ‘Don’t Walk’ signal. Rates of distraction in this study were consistent with prior research conducted by Basch et al. [12, 13]. In Basch et al. 2014 study, 28.8% were distracted in the crosswalk during the ‘Walk’ signals, and 26.3% were distracted while crossing the street during the ‘Don’t Walk’ signals [12].In Basch et al. 2015 study, 27.8% of pedestrians were distracted during the ‘Walk’ signals, and 42% were distractedduring the ‘Don’t Walk’ signals [13]. As the rates of distraction are so similar in all three of these studies, it highlights that this coding scheme is adoptable and staff can be trained on how to replicate this method to capture distracted pedestrians.

The ACEP discourages pedestrians from using handheld devices while moving and encourages educational interventions to address the dangers of distracted pedestrians [18]. Technology can be addictive [20]. In fact, when users are restricted from using their mobile devices, they experience anxiety and this separation anxiety was the highest among the most frequent users [21].Pedestrians aged 18-30 years old were more likely to initiate, monitor, and respond to text messages while crossing the road[22]. Lennon et al. found that there is a positive relationship between positive attitudes (related to safety, satisfaction, and enjoyment of texting or using the internet) and intentions to cross the street distracted [22].

Future research is needed to capture the prevalence of distracted walkers, especially as mobile device use and dependency continues to increase. This study is limited by its cross-sectional design and only looks at four intersections. However, this paper adds to the current literature by confirming the results of Basch et al. studies [12, 13] and showcases the adoptability of the coding method used in these studies [12,13].

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Corey H. Basch, for her guidance in establishing the methodology for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Traffic Safety Facts Data. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.2013.

2. Vision Zero One Year Report 2015.

3. Nasar J, Troyer D. Pedestrian injuries due to mobile phone use in public places. AcciAnal Preven.2013; 57:91–95.

4. Stavrinos D, Byington K, Schwebel D. Effect of cell phone distraction on pediatric pedestrian injury risk. Pediatr. 2009;123(2): 179-185.

5. Bungum TJ, Day C, Henry LJ. The association of distraction and caution displayed by pedestrians at a lighted crosswalk. J CommunHealth. 2005; 30(4): 269-279.

6. Nasar J, Hecht P, Wener R. Mobile telephones, distracted attention, and pedestrian safety. Accid Anal Prev. 2008; 40(1): 69-75.

7. Hatfield J, Murphy S. The effects of mobile phone use on pedestrian crossing behaviour at signalised and unsignalised intersections.Accid Anal Prev. 2007; 39(1): 197–205.

8. Liberty Mutual Insurance. Liberty Mutual Insurance Website.2013.

9. Kuzel M, Heller M, Gray R, et al. Perception and cognition during walking while concurrently using a cellular phone. In ContempErgon.2008; 663-668.

10. Byington KW, Schwebel DC. Effects of mobile Internet use on college student pedestrian injury risk. Accid Anal Prev. 2013; 51:78-83.

11. Schabrun SM, van den Hoorn W, Moorcroft A, et al. Texting and walking: strategies for postural control and implications for safety. Plos One. 2014; 9(1): e91489.

12. Basch CH, Ethan D, Rajan S, et al. Technology related distracted walking behaviors in Manhattan’s most dangerous intersections. Inj Prev. 2014; 20(5): 343–346.

13. Basch CH, Ethan D, Zybert P, et al. Pedestrian behavior at five dangerous and busy Manhattan intersections. J Community Health. 2015; 40(4): 789-792.

14. Thompson L, Rivara F, Ayyagari R, et al. (2013). Impact of social and technological distraction on pedestrian crossing behavior: An observational study. Inj Prev.2013; 19(4): 232–37.

15. Cooper JF, Schneider JR, Ryan S, et al. Documenting targeted behaviors associated with pedestrian safety. Transportation Research Record: J the Transp Res Board. 2012; 2299: 1-10.

16. Ericsson. Ericsson Mobility Report on the Pule of the Networked Society June 2016.

17. Mwakalonge J, Siuhi S, White J. Distracted walking: Examining the extent to pedestrian safety problems. J. Traffic Transp Eng. 2015; 2(5): 327-37.

18. American Collage of Emergency Physicians.Participation in activities while distracted by mobile device use.Ann Emerg Med. 2014; 64(5): 563.

19. High Pedestrian Crash Locations. Pedestrian Safety Improvements at the Top 20 Crash Intersections: 2014.

20. Bianchi A, Phillips JG. Psychological Predictors of Problem Mobile Phone Use.CyberpsycholBehav. 2005; 8(1): 39-51.

21. Cheever NA, Rosen LD, Carrier LM, et al. Out of sight is not out of mind: The impact of restricting wireless mobile device use on anxiety levels among low, moderate and high users. Comput Human Behav.2014; 37: 290-297.

22. Lennon A, Oviedo-Trespalacios O, Matthews S. Pedestrian self-reported use of smart phones: Positive attitudes and high exposure influence intentions to cross the road while distracted. Acci Anal Preven.2017; 98:338-347.

Received: July 30, 2018;
Accepted: August 16, 2018;
Published: August 19, 2018.

To cite this article : Cadorett V, Hammond RN.Replication study: Distracted walking at four dangerous intersections in Manhattan. Health EducPublic Health. 2018: 1:1.

© Cadorett V. 2018.