Older pedestrians would like more signal-controlled crossings, longer crossing time allowances, and signals whose meaning is clearer (Savill and Chinn, 1993). Jacobs and Wilson (1967) reported that older pedestrians in London and four other English towns were more likely to use crossing facilities than younger adults. At younger ages, more women than men used crossings, but over 60 years the difference was less. Bailey et al. (1992, p. 71) found that 86% of their sample of older Americans ‘‘frequently or always cross only at designated crosswalks’’. The design of
pedestrian crossings needs to be considered carefully, and issues such as signalling, provision of central refuges, and the siting of crossings, in relation to junctions for example, can affect the safety of a crossing (DUMAS, 1998). PROMISING (2001) cited the meta-analysis of Elvik et al. (1997), which found that at an ordinary marked pedestrian crossing, accidents increased by 25% compared to the same location before the crossing was installed, although results vary from country to country (Boot, 1987; cited in Hummel, 1999). Bailey et al. (1992) cited unpublished data from Florida, indicating that 70% of older pedestrian fatalities happen when they have right of way at a signal-controlled pedestrian crossing. The explanation for this is unclear, but may in part be that some pedestrians become overconfident or
place too much faith in driver behaviour at a crossing (Ekman and Hyden, 1999). A number of measures were found to improve safety at crossings, such as better lighting, safety barriers, central refuges, and raised crossings. A package of these measures could reduce accidents by as much as 60% (PROMISING, 2001).
Bailey et al. (1992) found that almost 25% of their sample of pedestrians aged over 56 years reported that they had difficulty seeing pedestrian signals. A recent study in the USA compared different lighting systems for pedestrian signals, using older people aged 62 or more as participants (Mace et al., 1997). Three different types of light (incandescent, fibre optic, and light-emitting diode; LED) were evaluated for recognition of the signal, uncertainty, and judgements that the light was too bright. Testing was carried out at different brightness levels and distances. Phantom signals, observations for which the person believed the signal was on when it was not, were more common for incandescent than LED signals, and were more common for larger than smaller signals, but were not observed for fibre optic lights. Mace et al. recommended a minimum intensity of 25cd under most lighting conditions, but noted that lower intensities may be acceptable for fibre optic signals.
One problem in the use of signal-controlled pedestrian crossings is that people do not generally use crossings as they were intended. For example, in a survey by Davies (1992), 51% of people using a particular crossing in a small UK town did not press the button, and 73% of those using a particular crossing in central London did not do so. A comparative figure from a crossing in Toulouse, France, was 82% not using the request button (Levelt, 1992a). People may believe that the button has no effect and that the light is controlled by some external system. However, research suggests that older people may be more likely to follow signals as long as they understand them (Wilson and Rennie, 1981). Job et al. (1998) observed people crossing at two busy signal-controlled intersections in Sydney, and found that older people (over 60 years) were less likely to cross against the signal (22% of older men and 10% of older women versus 34% and 25% of younger men and women,
respectively).
Many older people report being anxious when using signal-controlled crossings because they perceive that the green signal time is not long enough (Bailey et al., 1992; Savill and Chinn, 1993), and similar concerns can also occur on rail crossings (Smith, 2002). Studies of walking speed and road-crossing speed are reviewed in 0 above. Older people in particular often do not understand that they have the right to continue to cross when the green man is flashing (Al-Kaisy, 1996; Todd and Walker, 1980; Wilson and Rennie, 1981), producing anxiety when the non-flashing green phase is not long enough for people’s walking speeds. Similar observations in the USA led to a change in guidelines, to recommending that flashing ‘‘Walk’’ or ‘‘Do not walk’’ signals should not be used (Hauer, 1988). Studies on signal phasing and on the effect of increasing the available crossing time have indicated that safety can be improved (e.g. Garder, 1989). An Australian study made a detailed evaluation of extending the clearance phase at two signal-controlled crossings at one intersection
to allow for a walking speed of 0.9m/s (Job et al., 1994). Although across all pedestrians there was a reduction in pedestrian–vehicle conflicts, three out of four periods of observation after the intervention showed higher levels of conflict for over 65 year olds. Pedestrians who were asked had very rarely noticed the change in crossing timing. Department of Transport (1995) gave specifications for the timing at different types of crossing in the UK, and recommended, for example, that
timings be lengthened for wider roads or roads where many disabled or older people used the crossing.
As well as signal timing, the uniformity of crossings along common routes is also important. As shown in the sections above, older people are particularly
compromised by unexpected behaviour of vehicles. There needs to be consistency of operation and phasing, particularly in complex scenarios such as crossings at
junctions, so that accurate anticipation is made possible.
The European DRIVE II project VRU-TOO (Vulnerable Road User Traffic Observation and Optimization) tested the usefulness of puffin crossings for pedestrians (Carsten et al., 1998). Puffins use microwave devices to detect pedestrians. Detectors activate the pedestrian phase earlier (replacing a request button), and extend the crossing phase for pedestrians who arrive late or when there are many people crossing at once. Puffins can also cancel the pedestrian phase if the pedestrian abandons their request. Hagenzieker (1996) argued that this is better than simply extending crossing times, because it is likely to lead to less frustration in, and possibly violation by, drivers. In a validation study across six sites in three different countries (UK, Portugal and Greece), Carsten et al. found a small but consistent decrease in the number of pedestrian–vehicle conflicts (defined as either a pedestrian or a vehicle having to change speed or direction to avoid each other). At UK sites (Leeds), fewer pedestrians crossed against the signal, and a larger
proportion of pedestrians started to cross on green and completed the crossing still on a green signal. These studies found no major side effects on vehicle travel times or queuing. Innovations such as this would increase the comfort of slower walkers at crossings.
Older people’s slower reactions, as well as their slower walking, should be
accommodated in crossing design. Older people can react up to twice as slowly as young adults (Cerella, 1985, 1990). Because older people tend to consider different information sources in series, rather than in parallel (Rabitt, 1985), this delay could be multiplied in complex situations in which several things must be considered, such as different traffic streams, other pedestrian movements, and signals. Thus, the more complex the crossing task, the longer it could take an older person to start. Staplin et al. (2001) advised that to allow for the longer time older pedestrians take to leave the kerb, and their slower walking pace, a design walking rate of 0.85m/s should be used.
example using ‘‘countdown’’ signals, in use in some US states, which tell
pedestrians how many seconds there are until the end of the green phase. Belanger- Bonneau et al. (1994; cited in Van Houten and Malenfant, 1999) evaluated
countdown signals during the green phase. Although there was no measured safety improvement, pedestrians, especially older pedestrians and children, reported feeling more secure.
A number of studies have examined ways to make the light signals easier for pedestrians to interpret. Janssen and van der Horst (1991; cited in Hummel, 1999) evaluated a flashing yellow ‘‘cross at your own risk’’ opposed to green ‘‘no
conflicting traffic’’ scheme in comparison to the conventional red/green opposition, which did not guarantee no conflict, even on green. They found no change in the number of pedestrian–vehicle conflicts, even for older pedestrians, and found that pedestrians were prepared to cross during flashing yellow, thus avoiding the delay that a red signal would have imposed. However, de Lange (1996; cited in Hummel, 1999) reported that the over 65s, interviewed at busy junctions, did not regard waiting times as a problem. Janssen and van der Horst suggested that this type of arrangement could be helpful for crossings at less busy junctions. Levelt (1992b) described pussycat crossings in the Netherlands. These used a number of features, such as sensors to detect pedestrians. The most intriguing feature was the placement of the signal on the pavement at the start of the crossing, so that a pedestrian could not see the signal once they began to cross. There were two reasons: to encourage pedestrians to look at the traffic rather than the signal while crossing, and to forestall anxiety that arises when the signal changes while a pedestrian is still crossing. Their evaluation used observation of, and interviews with, pedestrians. They found that pedestrians did make more head movements, but some felt less safe and said this was because they were not able to see the signal while crossing.
Van Houten and Malenfant (1999) summarised a study by Gouvril et al. (1994), which tried adding a third, yellow, light to the pedestrian signal sequence. They found that although pedestrians said they understood the yellow light better than the previous ‘‘do not begin to cross’’ signal, given by a flashing ‘‘do not walk’’ signal, they did not prefer it, and did not comply better.
In Enschede, some older pedestrians were given a portable switch they could use to double the length of the green phase at crossings (Municipality of Enschede, 1992; cited in Hummel, 1999). A survey of users found the device was regularly used, and 70% said it allowed them to use routes they would not otherwise be able to follow. Allowing more time at signalled crossings is likely to increase feelings of security, and in this case increased mobility.
Signal-controlled pedestrian crossings in the UK include an audible beep during the green phase. This is intended for pedestrians with impaired vision, but could also help other road users (Department of Transport, 1995). Van Houten et al. (1997) used a woman’s or child’s voice to supplement light signals at an intersection in
Florida. Just before the visual signal, the voice instructed pedestrians to look for turning vehicles while crossing. They found fewer than 5% of pedestrians failed to look when the voice was present, compared to typically 10–15% not looking without it. Pedestrian–vehicle conflicts were almost eliminated.
An early survey in the USA found that 36% of older pedestrians were concerned about confusion at road crossings (Carp, 1972). They reported concern with too many signals, but also with inconsistent signals and layouts from crossing to
crossing. Part of the older people’s concern was that drivers would become confused, creating a hazard for the pedestrian.
An alternative to a crossing at road level is to separate pedestrian crosswalks physically, using a subway or footbridge. This prevents conflict from occurring and spares traffic flow. However, older people typically dislike such arrangements because of the extra physical difficulty of climbing up steps, or feelings of insecurity. According to DUMAS (1998), they see them as barriers to mobility. Stevenage New Town built major roads on embankments so that underpasses were at ground level with no slopes for pedestrians (C.G.B. Mitchell, October 2002, personal communication). DUMAS identified the Donaukanal pedestrian–cycle bridge in Vienna as an example of good practice, with high user acceptance. DUMAS also advised particular care be taken at roundabouts to avoid locating crossings in ways that create excessive detours for pedestrians.