Advertisement

Have Information Technologies Forgotten Pedestrians? To What Extent Can It/Its Improve Pedestrian’s Mobility and Safety

  • Hector Monterde-i-Bort
  • Socrates BasbasEmail author
  • Charlotta Johansson
  • Lars Leden
  • Per Gårder
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 879)

Abstract

Worldwide, pedestrians make up close to half of all motor-vehicle related fatalities but disproportionally little of the research in Information Technologies (IT) in general and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) in particular has aimed at pedestrian safety improvements. This paper analyses and compiles three different ways so that IT and ITS can be used in order to improve mobility and safety of pedestrians in urban spaces: (a) for contacting and/or being localized, (b) for guidance (leading/navigating), (c) for alerting or informing of a danger.

The aim is to categorize recent experiences where ITS can improve pedestrians’ mobility and safety so that new ideas based on ITS will be developed. These new ideas will better meet pedestrians’ functional quality needs today as well as in the future in a society with an aging population and aging infrastructure. This is very important for a society where people will not accept high fatality risks. The most important developments are described with links to websites in which one can gather more information.

Target groups of this paper are professionals working in the field of traffic planning; practitioners, planners and researchers.

Keywords

Information technologies Intelligent Transportation Systems Pedestrians Traffic safety eSafety 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been developed within the framework of the PQN (Pedestrian Quality Needs) project (2006–2010) under auspices of the European Science Foundation (ESF), COST Action 358, EU RTD Framework Programme [23].

References

  1. 1.
    CaSE project, Vulnerable Road Users CaSE Highway Design Note 3/01: International Division of Transport Research Laboratory. Berkshire, UK. http://www.grsproadsafety.org/themes/default/pdfs/Vulnerable%20Road%20Users.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2009
  2. 2.
    Elvik, R., Vaa, T.: The Handbook of Road Safety Measures. Elsevier Science Ltd. baserad på Elvik, R., Mysen, A.B., Vaa, T., 1997 Transportøkonomisk institutt., Oslo (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gårder, P.: The impact of speed and other variables on pedestrian safety in maine. Accid. Anal. Prev. 36(4), 533–542 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guo, L., Ge, P.-S., Zhang, M.-H., Li, L.-H., Zhao, Y.-B.: Pedestrian detection for intelligent transportation systems combining AdaBoost algorithm and support vector machine. Expert Syst. Appl. 39, 4274–4286 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gaikwada, V., Lokhandea, S.: Vision based pedestrian detection for advanced driver assistance. Procedia Comput. Sci. 46, 321–328 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schmeidler, K., Fencl, I.: Intelligent transportation systems for Czech ageing generation. Perspect. Sci. 7, 304–311 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wehbe, R., Massaad, Z., Otayek, E.: Using intelligent transportation systems to enhance pedestrian safety at Beirut signalized intersection. In: 5th IEEE International Conference on Models and Technologies for Intelligent Transportation Systems (MT-ITS), Naples, Italy (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Solodkiy, A., Yenokayev, V.: Cooperative ITS—a strategic way to ensure road safety. Transp. Res. Procedia 20, 630–634 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Virtanen, N., Schirokoff, A., Luom, J.: Impacts of an automatic emergency call system on accident consequences. 18th ICTCT Workshop: Transport Telematics and Safety, Helsinki (2005). E publication in: http://www.ictct.org/dlObject.php?document_nr=43&/S6_Virtanen.pdf
  10. 10.
    Moreno-Ribas, D., Monterde-i-Bort, H.: The ordinary mobile telephone as an enhancing factor for senior citizens’ mobility. In: 18th ICTCT Workshop: Transport Telematics and Safety, Helsinki (2005). E-publication in: http://www.ictct.org/dlObject.php?document_nr=30&/S3_Monterde.pdf
  11. 11.
    Zakowska, L., Monterde-i-Bort, H.: Results of focus-groups interviews and in-depth interviews with senior citizens and experts. Size Deliverable D5 and D6. SIZE EU Project, 5th Framework Programme (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Monterde-i-Bort, H., Moreno-Ribas, D.: The Mobility Conditions of the Elderly in Spain from the Point of View of the Affected Citizens and Experts: Qualitative Analysis. EU Project SIZE – University of Valencia (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    SIZE Consortium, Life Quality of Senior Citizens in Relation to Mobility Conditions (SIZE): Project number QLK6-CT-2002-02399. European Commission - Fifth Framework Programme. “Quality of Life and Management of Living Resources”, Key action 6: “The Ageing of Population and Disabilities”, 2003–2006. Website: http://www.size-project.at/
  14. 14.
    Monterde-i-Bort, H.: Factorial structure of recklessness: to what extent are older drivers different? J. Saf. Res. 35, 329–335 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ito, M.: Introduction: personal, portable, pedestrian. In: Ito, M., Okabe, D., Matsuda, M. (eds.) Personal, Portable, Pedestrian: Mobile Phones in Japanese Life. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ito, M., Okabe, D.: Mobile phones, Japanese youth, and the re-placement of social contact. Paper presented at the Front Stage – Back Stage: Mobile Communication and the Renegotiation of the Public Sphere, Grimstad, Norway (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hile, H., Vedantham, R., Cuellar, G., Liu, A., Gelfand, N., Grzeszczuk, R., Borriello, G.: Landmark-based pedestrian navigation from collections of geotagged photos. In: MUM 2008 Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia, pp. 145–152. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lambrianidou, P., Basbas, S., Politis, I.: Can pedestrians’ crossing countdown signal timers promote green and safe mobility? Sustain. Cities Soc. 6(1), 33–39 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hughes, R., et al.: ITS and pedestrian safety at signalized inter-sections. ITS Quaterly 7(2) (1999). http://www.itscosts.its.dot.gov/its/benecost.nsf/ID/7078FF2298C3E152852569610051E26C. Accessed 19 Feb 2009
  20. 20.
    US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, PedSmart: ITS Applications for Pedestrians. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (2000). http://www.walkinginfo.org/pedsmart/home.htm. Accessed 24 Feb 2009
  21. 21.
    Ulster County Transportation Council. Ulster County Non-Motorized Transportation Plan (2007). http://www.co.ulster.ny.us/planning/bikeped.html. Accessed 24 Feb 2009
  22. 22.
    WALKINGINFO org., Effect of APS features on Street Crossings. Accesible Pedestrian Signals, Synthesis and Guide to Best Practice. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. http://www.walkinginfo.org/aps/2-9.cfm. Accessed 24 Feb 2009
  23. 23.
    Methorst, R., Monterde i Bort, H., Risser, R., Sauter, D., Tight, M., Walker, J., (eds.): Pedestrian Quality Needs (PQN), Final report of the COST Project 358. Cheltenham: Walk-21 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hector Monterde-i-Bort
    • 1
  • Socrates Basbas
    • 2
    Email author
  • Charlotta Johansson
    • 3
  • Lars Leden
    • 3
    • 4
  • Per Gårder
    • 5
  1. 1.Psychonomy Research Unit, Department Methodology of Behavioral SciencesUniversity of ValenciaValenciaSpain
  2. 2.Department of Transportation and Hydraulic EngineeringAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  3. 3.Luleå University of TechnologyLuleåSweden
  4. 4.VTTEspooFinland
  5. 5.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations