Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Ave, Box 359960, Seattle, WA 98104-2499, USA; Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St., Box 356320, Seattle, WA 98195-6320, USA; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St., Box 357236, Seattle, WA 98195-7236, USA.
Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Ave, Box 359960, Seattle, WA 98104-2499, USA; Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Washington, 1959 NE Pacific St., Box 357236, Seattle, WA 98195-7236, USA.
Accid Anal Prev. 2014 Sep;70:273-81. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2014.04.012. Epub 2014 May 10.
Safe walking environments are essential for protecting pedestrians and promoting physical activity. In Peru, pedestrians comprise over three-quarters of road fatality victims. Pedestrian signalization plays an important role managing pedestrian and vehicle traffic and may help improve pedestrian safety. We examined the relationship between pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions and the presence of visible traffic signals, pedestrian signals, and signal timing to determine whether these countermeasures improved pedestrian safety. A matched case-control design was used where the units of study were crossing locations. We randomly sampled 97 control-matched collisions (weighted N=1134) at intersections occurring from October, 2010 to January, 2011 in Lima. Each case-control pair was matched on proximity, street classification, and number of lanes. Sites were visited between February, 2011 and September, 2011. Each analysis accounted for sampling weight and matching and was adjusted for vehicle and pedestrian traffic flow, crossing width, and mean vehicle speed. Collisions were more common where a phased pedestrian signal (green or red-light signal) was present compared to no signalization (odds ratio [OR] 8.88, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 1.32-59.6). A longer pedestrian-specific signal duration was associated with collision risk (OR 5.31, 95% CI 1.02-9.60 per 15-s interval). Collisions occurred more commonly in the presence of any signalization visible to pedestrians or pedestrian-specific signalization, though these associations were not statistically significant. Signalization efforts were not associated with lower risk for pedestrians; rather, they were associated with an increased risk of pedestrian-vehicle collisions.
安全的步行环境对于保护行人和促进体育活动至关重要。在秘鲁,行人占道路死亡事故受害者的四分之三以上。行人信号在管理行人和车辆交通方面起着重要作用,可能有助于提高行人安全性。我们研究了行人-机动车碰撞与可视交通信号、行人信号和信号定时的存在之间的关系,以确定这些对策是否提高了行人安全性。采用了病例对照设计,研究单位是交叉口的行人穿越点。我们随机抽取了 2010 年 10 月至 2011 年 1 月在利马发生的交叉口 97 个对照匹配的碰撞点(加权 N=1134)。每个病例对照对都按接近度、街道分类和车道数量进行匹配。在 2011 年 2 月至 9 月进行了现场调查。每个分析都考虑了抽样权重和匹配,并调整了车辆和行人交通流量、穿越宽度和平均车速。与没有信号指示的情况相比,相位式行人信号灯(绿灯或红灯信号)存在的地方发生碰撞的情况更为常见(比值比[OR]8.88,95%置信区间[CI]1.32-59.6)。行人专用信号持续时间较长与碰撞风险相关(每增加 15 秒,比值比[OR]为 5.31,95%置信区间[CI]为 1.02-9.60)。在行人或行人专用信号可见的情况下,碰撞更常见,但这些关联没有统计学意义。信号指示并没有降低行人的风险,反而增加了行人与车辆碰撞的风险。