2008
DOI: 10.1136/ip.2007.018234
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Urban and rural variation in walking patterns and pedestrian crashes

Abstract: The rate of pedestrian crashes and injuries in small and mid-size urban areas was twice that in rural areas, whether based on resident years or miles walked. The high rate of pedestrian crashes in the large urban area based on resident years could be partly explained by the fact that residents in such areas walk about twice as much as residents in rural areas. The rate of fatal pedestrian injury based on miles walked was similar in the large urban area and rural areas.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…(1) GES does not include crashes never reported to the police; however, these are the property damage only crashes and crashes resulting in minor injuries and the under-reporting would be similar according to gender 27. (2) NHTS reported walking on trips of about 0.5 km daily, which may be an underestimate as respondents tend to report only trips they consider transportation related 16 28. (3)The walking exposure was estimated from the NHTS, which was subject to sampling variation and possible limited representativeness of a landline-only phone survey 16 28.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…(1) GES does not include crashes never reported to the police; however, these are the property damage only crashes and crashes resulting in minor injuries and the under-reporting would be similar according to gender 27. (2) NHTS reported walking on trips of about 0.5 km daily, which may be an underestimate as respondents tend to report only trips they consider transportation related 16 28. (3)The walking exposure was estimated from the NHTS, which was subject to sampling variation and possible limited representativeness of a landline-only phone survey 16 28.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…(2) NHTS reported walking on trips of about 0.5 km daily, which may be an underestimate as respondents tend to report only trips they consider transportation related 16 28. (3)The walking exposure was estimated from the NHTS, which was subject to sampling variation and possible limited representativeness of a landline-only phone survey 16 28. Sampling weights in NHTS were adjusted for nonresponse, undercoverage and multiple phones in a household 16 28.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Appendix A online highlights some of the pedestrian injury prevention efforts and driving regulations implemented around the study period which may have influenced incidence rates. Variations in population density have also been suggested to affect pedestrian crash patterns (Chakravarthy et al, 2012;Sebert Kuhlmann et al, 2009;Zhu et al, 2008;Lascala et al, 2000). When prior studies were done in New York City, the population of children <19 yo was 2,028,159 (6701.6/square mile based on 302.64 square miles in New York City) while the population of children 19 yo in Chicago during our study was estimated to be 699,363 (3072.4/square mile based on 227.63 square miles in Chicago) (US Census, 2010;New York Vital Statistics, 1997).…”
Section: Pedestrian Injury Incidence and Case-fatality Implicationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Pedestrian injury and fatality rates are considerably higher in developing countries than in developed economies. For example, pedestrian fatality rates were 65% in Nairobi, Kenya (Khayesi 1997), 54% in Latin America (Donroe et al, 2008), and 60% among urban regions in Ghana (Afukaar et al, 2008), compared with 11% in the US (Retting et al, 2003); (Zhu et al 2008); (NHTSA, 2004). The livability of modern cities in developing countries poses a challenge to vulnerable road users.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%