Advertisement

Journal of Community Health

, Volume 44, Issue 1, pp 103–111 | Cite as

Knowledge and Beliefs About Pedestrian Safety in an Urban Community: Implications for Promoting Safe Walking

  • Elizabeth D. NesoffEmail author
  • Keshia M. Pollack Porter
  • Maryanne Bailey
  • Andrea C. Gielen
Original Paper
  • 174 Downloads

Abstract

As more people walk for transport and exercise, it is possible to avoid a concomitant increase in the number of pedestrian injuries. Understanding how the public views pedestrian safety can help inform the development of prevention strategies that support national efforts to promote walking and walkable communities. As part of the formative research for a community pedestrian safety health promotion campaign, we administered an online questionnaire to employees and students at a large urban medical campus, along with residents in the neighboring communities, to determine their knowledge, attitudes, and behavior regarding pedestrian safety; awareness of relevant traffic safety laws; and effective strategies that could improve pedestrian safety. Pearson Chi square Test of Independence was used to investigate differences between individuals who mainly traveled as drivers versus those who mainly traveled as pedestrians. Statistical significance was established at p < .05. A total of 3808 adults completed the online survey. More drivers than pedestrians reported that pedestrian safety was an important problem (73 and 64%, respectively; p < .001). A large proportion of respondents incorrectly reported the existing state laws addressing right of way, fines, and enforcement, with significant differences between drivers and pedestrians (p < .001). Significantly more pedestrians than drivers supported changing traffic signals to increase crossing time (p = .001), while more drivers than pedestrians supported creating structures to prevent midblock crossing (p = .003). Effective interventions to improve pedestrian safety need to tailor messages for both drivers and pedestrians, increase awareness of the laws, and implement comprehensive strategies.

Keywords

Pedestrian safety Injury prevention Health promotion Formative research Health communication 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO), Johns Hopkins University, and the Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC) for providing funding and resources. Additional thanks are extended to survey participants; Bala Akundi at BMC; Ernie Lehr at MHSO; Mark Beisser, graphics designer from the Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs; Sue Baker, Eileen McDonald, Jim Williams, Nasir Mohd Ismail, Basant Motawi, and Xia Ma from the Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy.

Funding

Funding for this work was made possible through multiple sources: Maryland Highway Safety Office; the Johns Hopkins University; and a Grant from the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Grant Number 1R49CE002466).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2015). Step it up! The surgeon generals call to action to promote walking and walkable communities. Washington, D. C. Retrieved from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/calls/walking-and-walkable-communities/call-to-action-walking-and-walkable-communites.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Hamer, M., & Chida, Y. (2008). Walking and primary prevention: A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 42(4), 238–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robertson, R., Robertson, A., Jepson, R., & Maxwell, M. (2012). Walking for depression or depressive symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mental Health and Physical Activity, 5(1), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Murphy, M. H., Nevill, A. M., Murtagh, E. M., & Holder, R. L. (2007). The effect of walking on fitness, fatness and resting blood pressure: A meta-analysis of randomised, controlled trials. Preventive Medicine, 44(5), 377–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roe, J., & Aspinall, P. (2011). The restorative benefits of walking in urban and rural settings in adults with good and poor mental health. Health & Place, 17(1), 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    National Center for Statistics and Analysis. (2017). Pedestrians: 2015 data (traffic safety facts. Report No. DOT HS 812 375). U.S. Department of Transportation. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sleet, D. A., Pollack, K. M., Rivara, F., Frattaroli, S., & Peek-Asa, C. (2010). It wouldn’t hurt to walk: Promoting pedestrian injury research. Injury Prevention, 16(3), 211–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pollack, K. M., Kercher, C., Frattaroli, S., Peek-Asa, C., Sleet, D. A., & Rivara, F. P. (2012). Toward environments and policies that promote injury-free active living—It wouldn’t hurt. Health & Place, 18(1), 106–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin-Diener, E., Brügger, O., & Martin, B. (2010). Physical activity promotion and injury prevention: Relationship in sports and other forms of physical activity. Berne. Retrieved from http://www.bfu.ch/sites/assets/Shop/bfu_2.068.08_bfu-report no. 64%25E2%2580%2593PhysicalActivityPromotionandInjuryPrevention.pdf.
  10. 10.
    Lorenc, T., Brunton, G., Oliver, S., Oliver, K., & Oakley, A. (2008). Attitudes to walking and cycling among children, young people and parents: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62(10), 852–857.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2007.070250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blacksher, E., & Lovasi, G. S. (2012). Place-focused physical activity research, human agency, and social justice in public health: Taking agency seriously in studies of the built environment. Health and Place.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.08.019.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rossen, L. M., Pollack, K. M., Curriero, F. C., Shields, T. M., Smart, M. J., Furr-Holden, C. D. M., & Cooley-Strickland, M. (2011). Neighborhood incivilities, perceived neighborhood safety, and walking to school among urban-dwelling children. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 8(2), 262–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sisiopiku, V., & Akin, D. (2003). Pedestrian behaviors at and perceptions towards various pedestrian facilities: An examination based on observation and survey data. Transportation Research Part F, 6(4), 249–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maryland State Highway Administration. (n.d.). GIS Traffic count data. Traffic monitoring system. Retrieved June 24, 2016, from http://www.roads.maryland.gov/Index.aspx?PageId=251.
  15. 15.
    Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy. (2015). Be alert, dont get hurt: A pedestrian safety campaign on an urban, academic campus. Baltimore, Maryland. Retrieved from https://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-injury-research-and-policy/_docs/materials/pedestrian-safety-campaign/pedestrian-safety-brochure.pdf.
  16. 16.
    Granié, M.-A., Pannetier, M., & Guého, L. (2013). Developing a self-reporting method to measure pedestrian behaviors at all ages. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50, 830–839.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AAP.2012.07.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zhou, R., Horrey, W. J., & Yu, R. (2009). The effect of conformity tendency on pedestrians’ road-crossing intentions in China: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 41(3), 491–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Beasley, T. M., & Schumacker, R. E. (1995). Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: Post Hoc and planned comparison procedures. Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    García-pérez, M. A., & Núñez-antón, V. (2003). Cellwise residual analysis in two-way contingency tables. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(5), 825–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sarkar, S., & Andreas, M. (2004). Drivers’ perception of pedestrians’ rights and walking environments. Transportation Research Record, 1878, 75–82.  https://doi.org/10.3141/1878-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mitman, M., & Ragland, D. (2007). Crosswalk confusion: More evidence why pedestrian and driver knowledge of the vehicle code should not be assumed. Transportation Research Record, 2002, 55–63.  https://doi.org/10.3141/2002-07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hebert Martinez, K. L., & Porter, B. E. (2004). The likelihood of becoming a pedestrian fatality and drivers’ knowledge of pedestrian rights and responsibilities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7(1), 43–58.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRF.2003.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sivak, M., & Schoettle, B. (2011). Recent changes in the age composition of U.S. drivers: Implications for the extent, safety, and environmental consequences of personal transportation. Traffic Injury Prevention, 12(6), 588–592.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2011.605817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lee, C., & Abdel-Aty, M. (2005). Comprehensive analysis of vehicle-pedestrian crashes at intersections in Florida. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37(4), 775–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Preusser, D. F., Wells, J. K., Williams, A. F., & Weinstein, H. B. (2002). Pedestrian crashes in Washington, D.C., and Baltimore. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 34(5), 703–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kim, J.-K., Ulfarsson, G. F., Shankar, V. N., & Kim, S. (2008). Age and pedestrian injury severity in motor-vehicle crashes: A heteroskedastic logit analysis. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40(5), 1695–1702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ulfarsson, G. F., Kim, S., & Booth, K. M. (2010). Analyzing fault in pedestrian–motor vehicle crashes in North Carolina. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 1805–1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gielen, A. C., & Sleet, D. A. (2003). Application of behavior-change theories and methods to injury prevention. Epidemiologic Reviews, 25(1), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Frieden, T. R. (2010). A framework for public health action: The health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public Health, 100(4), 590–595.  https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.185652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Gielen, A. C., & Green, L. W. (2015). The impact of policy, environmental, and educational interventions: A synthesis of the evidence from two public health success stories. Health Education & Behavior, 42(1 Suppl), 20S–34S.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elizabeth D. Nesoff
    • 1
    • 5
    Email author
  • Keshia M. Pollack Porter
    • 2
  • Maryanne Bailey
    • 3
    • 5
  • Andrea C. Gielen
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of EpidemiologyColumbia University Mailman School of Public HealthNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthThe Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and PolicyBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of NursingThe Johns Hopkins HospitalBaltimoreUSA
  4. 4.Department of Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Behavior, and SocietyThe Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and PolicyBaltimoreUSA
  5. 5.The Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and PolicyBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations