There has been relatively little research on the extent to which older pedestrians understand the road environment. There is indirect evidence that some may not have a good understanding. Silcock et al. (1998) reported that older women commonly appeared not to assess traffic adequately when they were crossing a road. However, their paper did not provide detailed data relating to this observation.
Jonah and Engel (1983) speculated that perhaps older people were less aware of risks in the traffic environment. They based this on a lower average reported level of ‘‘fear of being struck by a vehicle’’ on the target day, the day before the exposure survey interview. Only 7.1% of the 65+ group said yes, compared to about 14.8% for younger adults (18–65 years). However, as Jonah and Engel pointed out, it could have been that the objective risk was lower, because older people walked at different times and places, made fewer trips, for shorter distances and less time, and were less likely to have been drinking.
Writers sometimes suggest that non-drivers will have a poorer understanding of traffic than drivers (OECD, 1970). Sadler (1972) compared the road safety advice given to young children by mothers with and without driving licences. There were some small specific differences. Mothers with licences were a little more likely to say they offered a given piece of advice, and were more likely to advise stopping at the kerb and crossing quickly. However, the pattern of advice given and relative priorities were similar. Carsten et al. (1989) reported that, among their sample of urban road accident victims, pedestrians, who mostly did not have driving licences, had very similar views to drivers on which traffic movements were the most
dangerous. For example, both thought speeding was dangerous. Similarly, Sheppard et al. (1988) found little difference between drivers and non-drivers in their
to use such crossings among both groups. However, it should be noted that at the time of that study, such crossings may have been novel to some people. One particular area of difficulty appears to be in the understanding of the ‘‘flashing go’’ signal at pedestrian crossings. This signal is used in many countries, although the precise form varies. The intended meaning is typically ‘‘do not start to cross, but if you have started, complete the crossing’’. Sheppard et al.’s research was directed towards teaching older people how to use such crossings, but an alternative is to try to design the facility so that users can understand it more easily. We discuss these approaches further in section 7.
5.7
Summary
Older pedestrians cross roads in ways that they may perceive to be cautious. There are several changes to their crossing behaviour that are consistent with this. For example, they are more likely to stop at the kerb, stand further back from the edge, and they increase this distance at night. They also look for traffic at least as carefully as other pedestrians, and the gaps they accept are on average longer in terms of distance than those accepted by younger adults. They are also more likely to use marked crossings. Finally, they often break the crossing of two-way roads into parts, which may reflect an adaptation to the complexity of this particular task. Jacobs and Wilson (1967, see section 1.3.4 above, and section 7.3.1 below) concluded that ‘‘For both sexes, elderly people had the best crossing behaviour’’ (p. 4).
Paradoxically, these behaviours may not increase their safety. Kerb delay could mean that the full width of an available gap is not utilised. Although they cross when approaching vehicles are more distant, they may be less effective at allowing for vehicle speed, and the older old in particular may not make full allowance for the decline in their own walking speed. There is evidence that older pedestrians depend on drivers accommodating their crossing.
5.8
Research implications
Many of the observational and simulation studies have examined mid-block
crossing, although some (e.g. Harrell and Bereska, 1992a) have looked at crossings near junctions. Ward et al. (1994) did report that older people made a higher proportion of mid-block crossings than younger adults (25% rather than 20%), but detailed studies examining crossing near junctions would be useful.
We found no observational studies of older pedestrians walking in the road environment other than those looking at road crossing. Of course, this reflects the fact that many of the worst accidents happen crossing roads. Nevertheless, a more complete understanding of older pedestrian behaviour would be possible if there were data for example on how they negotiate obstacles on the pavement. Studies on the kinds of route older people choose would also be helpful.
More work is needed to develop the methodology of laboratory simulations of road crossing. Previous research has found conflicting results for video-based simulations and practical simulations (Demetre et al., 1993). It would be interesting to see studies based on the pretend road method of Lee et al. (1984) with older people as participants. This would help determine the validity of simulation-based studies, which can allow more systematic and controlled investigation of behaviour. Interviews similar to those conducted by Sheppard and Pattinson (1986) could be used to investigate whether older people accepting tight fits do so with a conscious expectation that drivers will accommodate them. Similar methods could help determine the reasons behind interactive crossing.
There is no information on what older pedestrians actually see when they look for traffic. The rate at which accident victims report the failure to detect the vehicle does not appear to vary with age (Sheppard and Pattinson, 1986). Nevertheless, it would be useful to examine this directly, given, for instance, the data on decline in UFOV discussed in section 2.4.3, and evidence of its relationship with accident risk among drivers. Such research would not necessarily need to use the UFOV measure. Few studies have systematically contrasted road types. Oxley et al. (1997a)
compared two-way and one-way roads, but there were other differences between these roads such as vehicle speed. Wilson and Grayson (1980) gathered data at three sites (and a fourth in their pilot work), and made some post hoc comparisons. These studies suggest that differences between roads have effects on behaviour that may be greater than differences between age groups. Systematic observational studies comparing different road types would address this gap in knowledge.
Work examining sub-groups of older pedestrians who adopt different strategies in various situations would be useful. Similarly, psychological research on the different responses of men and women to an approaching car would be interesting.