Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

Crossing road intersections in old age—With or without risks?

Perceptions of risk and crossing behaviours among the elderly
Sébastien Lord a,⇑, Marie-Soleil Cloutier b, Benoît Garnier c, Zoi Christoforou d
a
School of Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, University of Montréal, 2940, Chemin de la Côte Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, QC H3S 2C2, Canada
b
Centre Urbanisation Culture Société, Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, 385, Sherbrooke Est, Montréal, QC H2X 1E3, Canada
c
École nationale des ponts et chaussées (ENPC), Observatoire de la mobilité durable, 6 et 8 ave Blaise-Pascal, Cité Descartes, Champs-sur-Marne, France
d
École nationale des ponts et chaussées (ENPC), Laboratoire Ville, Mobilité, Transport (LVMT), 6 et 8 ave Blaise-Pascal, Cité Descartes, Champs-sur-Marne, France

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Pedestrians aged over 65 are known to be a critical group in terms of road safety because
Received 14 February 2017 they represent the age group with the highest number of fatalities or injured persons in road
Accepted 3 March 2018 accidents. It is widely recognized that the latter is due to the physical vulnerability of this
age group in case of injury. However, physical and cognitive decline come into play during
the action of crossing a street. Various studies have attempted to connect the crossing beha-
Keywords: viours of the elderly with variables such as age, gender, sensory acuity, level of attentive-
Elderly pedestrians
ness, physical decline and the design of intersections. In demonstrating the complexity of
Crossing behaviours
Risk perceptions
the relationship between people and their environments, the literature suggests that age,
Environmental perceptions physical ability, and the spatial configuration of roads are major components of road safety.
Road safety Moreover, people’s knowledge and mastery of their environments, as well as their ability to
adapt to change affects how they move through space. Taking these factors into account,
this study examines the perceptions of elderly pedestrians with regards to the quality
and risks of road crossings in the context of Montréal, Québec, in Canada. The analyze are
based on observations and questionnaires in order to bring to light a better understanding
of the relationship between the crossing behaviours, characteristics and perceptions of the
elderly. While previous studies have examined perception and observation separately, this
study is unique in having looked at both angles simultaneously. Five profiles of elderly peo-
ple in both urban and suburban environments were established. A sample of 181 elderly
pedestrians (65–93 years of age, AVG = 74) were surveyed using a questionnaire. In addition
to close-ended questions, respondents were asked to evaluate 17 environmental ambiance
and risk behaviours according to various scales. Using principal component analysis (PCA)
and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), the data was grouped into 6 categories that define
and distinguish 7 profiles of elderly people. These profiles were explored according to the
socioeconomic status and crossing behaviours of respondents. The probabilities of adopting
different crossing behaviours were tested by employing logistic regression models. The
results reveal greater variability in the perceptions of the elderly in terms of risk related
to crossing behaviours and type of signalisation at intersections. Even among seniors, the
perceptions of risk varied greatly, which may have had an impact on their behaviours.
While some of the behaviours observed coincided with the perceptions of respondents,
the results of this study suggest that they only play a marginal role.
Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sebastien.lord@umontreal.ca (S. Lord), marie-soleil.cloutier@ucs.inrs.ca (M.-S. Cloutier), bgarnier@hotmail.fr (B. Garnier), zoi.
christoforou@enpc.fr (Z. Christoforou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.03.005
1369-8478/Ó 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296 283

1. Background

1.1. Aging population, daily mobility and crash involvement

The reality of an aging population, particularly in ‘‘economically developed” countries, has made the everyday mobility of
seniors an issue of growing interest. In a context where an increasing number of people globally are dependent on cars,
efforts to encourage walking—both utilitarian and leisurely—has become a public health priority (Kohl et al., 2012). However,
public transportation and walking environments are not always well-adapted to accommodate the elderly. In order for walk-
ing to become an attractive, efficient, and safe mode of transportation for the elderly, the way public spaces are designed
must be rethought/reconsidered in order to accommodate to their needs and preferences. In addition to improving the
health and autonomy of seniors, quality walking environments/pedestrian spaces provide benefits to other social groups
such as children.
As a result of ill-adapted urban environments, the elderly have demonstrated a strong ability to/great adaptability in their
spatial use according to different modes of transportation (Lord, Després, & Ramadier, 2011). Depending on both the real
road risks and the perceived quality of urban spaces, elderly pedestrians adapt in order to get around in a space that they
consider appropriate to their capabilities. Older pedestrians modify their walking behaviours, by limiting the distances they
travel, choosing certain paths over others, or employing other coping tactics (Huguenin-Richard, Granié, Coquelet, Dommes,
& Cloutier, 2014; Lord, 2012; Negron-Poblete, Séguin, & Apparicio, 2012). At the same time, these actions can increase their
exposure to risk.
The elders are more highly represented than other sociodemographic groups in pedestrian crashes. According to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, almost 20% of pedestrians killed in road crashes in the United States in
2012 were over 65 years of age, despite the fact that this group constituted only 13% of the total population (NHTSA,
2012). Similarly, 40% of pedestrians in fatal accidents in France in 2012 were over 75 years of age (Observatoire National
Interministériel de la Sécurité Routière., 2013) although they represented only 9% of the population (Institut national de
la statistique et des études économiques, 2012). Furthermore, it is reported that up to 50% of all injured pedestrians in OECD
countries are seniors (Forum International des Transports, 2012). Not only are they overrepresented in such cases, they also
tend to suffer more severe injuries (Abou-Raya & Elmeguid, 2009; Martin, Hand, Trace, & O’Neill, 2010; Nicaj, Wilt, &
Henning, 2006) and have longer stays in hospitals (Loo & Tsui, 2009).

1.2. Determinants of safe crossing for older adult pedestrians

Research on the risk of elderly pedestrians being involved in a car crash has resulted in a better understanding of the prin-
cipal causes of their heightened vulnerability. From a psycho-cognitive standpoint, this can be explained by the overconfi-
dence of the elderly in their ability to cross the road in the time allotted. This is affected by not only their walking speed and
strength, but also their cognitive and physical impairments such as hearing and vision. When choosing a safe clearing in the
road to cross between cars, pedestrians have to consider their ability to cross the intersection in the available time before the
arrival of the next vehicle (Lobjois & Cavallo, 2007; Oxley, Ihsen, Fildes, Charlton, & Day, 2005). This can be problematic for
the elderly given their physical and cognitive impairments that can affect their ability to effectively evaluate situations. For
instance, they may overestimate/misperceive their walking speed, which tends to slow with age (Lassarre, Papadimitriou,
Yannis, & Golias, 2007), or there may be a greater lapse of time between the moment they mentally decide to cross and
the moment they physically begin to (Dunbar, Holland, & Maylor, 2004; Gates, Noyce, Bill, & Van Ee, 2006; Holland &
Hill, 2010; Montufar, Arango, Porter, & Nakagawa, 2007; Oxley et al., 2005). In the case of signalized crossings, the design
speed is often higher than seniors’ walking speed capacity and the green light phase does not suffice. Similarly, the chal-
lenges associated with crossing the street increase as the environment becomes more complex, as with two-way streets
or multi-lane roads (Dommes, Cavallo, Dubuisson, Tournier, & Vienne, 2014). One explanation is that seniors may fail to
pay attention to spatially complex information, concentrating instead on their immediate surroundings (Oxley, Fildes,
Ihsen, Charlton, & Day, 1997). However, one study suggests that adults who are able to more accurately judge their capabil-
ities tend to allow themselves more time to cross than younger pedestrians (Lobjois & Cavallo, 2007, 2009). In any case, due
to a decline in physiological functions such as hearing and vision, the elders have a harder time assessing the risks at hand.
Many struggle to discern the speed at which cars are approaching. Therefore, distance alone is often the sole factor consid-
ered in gaging whether or not it is safe to cross (Lobjois & Cavallo, 2007; Oxley et al., 2005).

1.3. Crash risk of older adult pedestrians and road environment perceptions

The perceptions of the hazards and ambiance at crossing points is another common point of interest for researchers when
analyzing and predicting pedestrian behaviours. This is typically determined by observing individuals’ head movements and
gaze (see Avineri, Shinar, & Susilo, 2012 or Holland & Hill, 2010) which hint at the location of the hazards which they are
most concerned with. For example, a fear of falling can be deduced from a head movement directed toward the ground while
crossing. What has been termed ‘‘delegating” can be witnessed at signalized intersections when pedestrians spend more
284 S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296

time staring at traffic lights than they do at the traffic itself (Avineri et al., 2012; Dommes, Granié, Cloutier, Coquelet, &
Huguenin-Richard, 2015). More broadly, some studies suggest that infrastructure influences on perception. For instance,
Granié, Brenac, Montel, Millot, and Coquelet (2014) show that pedestrians scan different elements of the road design, such
as parking lots, to assess the risk of crossing. Pedestrians evaluate the road risk based on speed, vehicles and pedestrian den-
sity around the crossing site.
The effect of social representations on mobility habits is yet another aspect to consider (Clémént, Mantovani, &
Membrado, 1996). According to Clément et al.’s study, older people intentionally minimize the risk of any unwanted con-
frontation and possible discomfort stemming from social and physical interactions with others. As such, they may be more
likely to choose paths that incorporate signalized intersections which make it easier for them to cross safely. Crosswalk lights
for pedestrians help ensure that the elderly have enough time to make it across the street without having to worry about the
surrounding traffic.
Thus/in sum, many elements influence the crossing behaviours of elderly pedestrians. Yet little research has sought to
explore the direct relationship between crossing behaviours and perceptions of the elderly. In light of this/As such, this arti-
cle explores the complex interconnection between socio-demographic characteristics, behaviour, street ambiance and per-
ceptions of road risk.

2. Methodology

2.1. Observation site, data collection and participant selection

For the purposes of this study, the sample population was drawn from five cities within the province of Québec, Canada:
Laval, Longueuil, Montréal, Québec City and Gatineau. The observation sites were chosen so as to represent a variety of envi-
ronments in areas that either (1) have higher proportions of older adult individuals according to the 2006 Canadian census;
(2) have major retirement homes; or (3) are near major points of interest for seniors such as drugstores, banks, medical clin-
ics, coffee shops, hair dressers, etc. (Lord et al., 2011). Observers were provided with a preliminary list of intersections to be
studied but were allowed to change locations if few pedestrians were crossing. First, the physical environment of the inter-
section was assessed according to a grid that considered variables such as the presence of traffic lights, one-way, markings,
etc. (for a complete list of the crossing characteristics, see Lachapelle and Cloutier (2016)). The database drew on behavioural
observations at 54 crossings, where anywhere between 1 and 28 elderly pedestrians were observed. Of these crossings, 14
were one-way streets (26%), 32 had traffic and pedestrian lights (59%), 9 (17%) had only traffic lights, 9 (17%) had a stop sign,
and 4 (7%) had no signage at all. Markings on the pavement (either zebra lines or white parallel lines) or changes in the road
material were present at 47 (87%) of the sites.
The observations were recorded between June and October 2013 by 9 trained researchers. To do so, each worked in
groups of 3 to ensure crossing behaviours were well recorded and questionnaires completed. Observers were posted on
either side of the street so as to record pedestrian and vehicular movements where applicable (see Fig. 1). Street crossings
were typically recorded between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. In the months of July and August, the elderly pedestrians ques-
tioned were asked to fill out a short questionnaire on-site, lasting 5 to 10 min, after having crossed the street. Those who
acquiesced (about 1 out of 4) were seated on a nearby bench or bus shelter while they completed the questionnaire on
an electronic tablet with the help of the observer.

2.2. Observation grids for crossing behaviours

Observation of pedestrians crossing streets were noted using an observation grid based on/inspired by existing exam-
ples/models/the work of other researchers (Thouez, Bergeron, Rannou, Bourbeau, & Bussière, 2007; Tom & Granié, 2011).
The grid included 11 behavioural categories and 6 situational ones, which were recorded at two phases of street crossing:
first, while pedestrians were approaching the curb but had not yet crossed, and second, while in the midst of crossing the
street. In addition, the dynamic between cars and individuals was recorded. At this step, observers paid careful attention
to whether or not cars went past crosswalks while pedestrians were still making their way across. Lastly, behaviours were
grouped into three categories: (1) transgression, i.e. when crossing on a red light; (2) anticipation, i.e. when beginning to
cross before the traffic signal allows for it; and (3) insufficient time, i.e. when a car or pedestrian do not make their way fully
across before the light turns red again. All variables used in this study can be found in Table 1.

2.3. On-site questionnaire on environment and road risk perceptions

Because questionnaire respondents were sought on-site, questionnaires were completed in person, data regarding not
only the perceptions of road risk and street ambiance, but also the cognitive and physical abilities of respondents was col-
lected (Centre d’expertise en santé de Sherbrooke, 2010; Huguenin-Richard et al., 2014; Leclercq, Deloche, & Rousseaux,
2002; Neugarten, Havighurst, & Tobin, 1961; Ponsford & Kinsella, 1991). This questionnaire included 68 questions divided
into eight sections. Respondents were asked to evaluate their perceptions on 4-point Likert scale/Questions on perception
were rated on a 4-point Likert scale. All variables used in this study are presented in Table 2.
 S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296 285

Fig. 1. Data collection scheme and interaction observation.

Table 1
Pedestrians’ observed crossing behaviours.

Number (total = 181) %

Waiting position
Authorized (on the sidewalk) 124 68.5%
Non-authorized (on the street) 18 9.9%
Undefined 39 21.5%
Looking toward (. . .) before crossing (not exclusive)
traffic 111 61.3%
the ground 42 23.2%
Looking towards (. . .) while crossing (not exclusive)
Traffic 69 38.1%
the ground 63 34.8%
Crossing trajectory
Straight 134 74.0%
Not straight 47 26.0%
Interaction with vehicles while crossing
Yes 11 6.1%
No 170 93.9%
Crossing at traffic-light crosswalks
Transgression 24 18.9%
Anticipation 7 5.5%
Insufficient time 7 5.5%

1. Knowledge of the crossing site

2. Pedestrians’ mobility habits
3. Street ambiance perception scale
4. Self-perceived well-being scale
5. Road risk perception scale
6. Individuals’ concentration abilities
7. Individuals’ autonomy and past crash experiences
8. Demographic and socioeconomic characteristics
286 S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296

Table 2
Pedestrian on-site perception questionnaire variables (n = 198).

Perceptions of street ambiance Do not Agree Mean Standard

agree Deviation
1 2 3 4
VA_01 It is pleasant to walk here 19 11 27 140 3.46 0.97
VA_02 It is easy to cross in the given time here 34 25 18 119 3.13 1.19
VA_03 There are enough rest areas on this street (benches, bus shelters) 60 17 22 88 2.74 1.34
VA_04 Strangers on this street make me uncomfortable 126 22 16 30 1.74 1.14
VA_05 There is enough vegetation on this street 60 14 23 100 2.83 1.33
VA_06 Drivers respect the speed limit on this street 64 32 46 52 2.44 1.20
VA_07 Cyclists are careful towards pedestrians on this street 85 41 20 45 2.13 1.22
VA_08 Drivers are careful towards pedestrians when turning on this street 60 35 31 67 2.54 1.25
VA_09 Sidewalks are wide enough for walking 9 5 17 165 3.72 0.73
Perceptions of risks for pedestrians Never Always Mean Standard
dangerous dangerous Deviation
1 2 3 4
VR_01 Walking on the sidewalk 93 48 44 13 1.88 0.94
VR_02 Crossing on a red light (without cars) 9 26 39 124 3.40 0.88
VR_03 Crossing when permitted (on the walking light) 92 70 20 16 1.80 0.92
VR_04 Jaywalking 5 23 43 126 3.47 0.80
VR_05 Crossing at an intersection without traffic lights 16 41 62 79 3.03 0.97
VR_06 Crossing on a crosswalk away from an intersection and without traffic lights 22 35 54 86 3.04 1.03
VR_07 Crossing without looking at traffic 3 3 4 188 3.90 0.46
VR_08 Crossing between parked vehicles 6 17 28 146 3.59 0.77

2.4. Analyses

The analysis of the data collected through observation and questionnaires brought to light a better understanding of the
relationship between the crossing behaviours, characteristics and perceptions of the elderly. While previous studies have
examined perception and observation separately, this study is unique in having looked at both angles simultaneously.

2.4.1. Creating elderly pedestrian profiles according to the variables in the questionnaire
Principal component analysis (PCA) was developed in the 1930s and has been used extensively to reveal structure in road
safety data (see (Gitelman, Doveh, & Hakkert, 2010; Papadimitriou & Yannis, 2014) and in user perception data in particular
(as Papadimitriou, Theofilatos, and Yannis (2013)). In essence, PCA explains the variance–covariance structure of a set of
variables through linear combinations. When performing PCA, the variables should at least approximate a normal distribu-
tion (Kolenikov & Angeles, 2004). The descriptive statistics (see Table 1) of the sample used provided no indication that the
distributional assumption was violated. PCA relies on the correlation matrix of variables so it is suitable for numerical vari-
ables measured on the interval and ratio scales. In the case of nominal data, the main problem that arises is which numerical
values should be given to each category. In the case of ordinal data, the main problem is the inequality between perceived
(i.e. respondents) mutual distances and numerical distances. Optimal scaling techniques turn qualitative variables into quan-
titative ones and are used to tackle this issue. In our case, the Likert scale is ordinal with four levels of measurements (1–4)
for all of the variables considered. However, the respondents were asked to give a score directly (from 1 to 4) and not a qual-
itative answer to their evaluations. As a result, we can assume that no difference exists between perceived and numerical
distances. Besides, other researchers apply PCA to non-numerical data even for more subjective and entirely arbitrary scales
(Gitelman et al., 2010; Papadimitriou et al., 2013).
The next involved using the PCA coordinates to define elderly pedestrian profiles by way of a Hierarchical Cluster Analysis
(HCA). This method creates groups based on individuals’ characteristics by merging them step-by-step/little by little. The
aim is to preserve maximum variability in the sample while reducing the number of cases: according to Ward’s method,
as the individuals are aggregated into larger groups, the distance between them decrease.

2.4.2. The relationship between the profiles of elderly pedestrian and other variables
Lastly, ANOVA and Chi-Square tests were used to highlight significant associations between the profiles of the elderly
drawn up and variables drawn from the questionnaire and observation grid/the study of the crosswalk characteristics, as
well as the crossing behaviours observed.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive statistics

A little under 200 questionnaires were distributed on-site (198) with a response rate of 19%, while a total of 1033 obser-
vations undertaken in July and August. Respondents were between 65 and 93 years of age (mean and median of 74) and 69%
 S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296 287

were women, which is consistent with a prior finding that states that/is consistent with the finding that female seniors tend
to walk more than men in Canadian cities (Turcotte, 2012). More than half of respondents (54%) did not have a driver’s
license and 60% had a low autonomy score, i.e. they answered ‘‘yes” when asked if they experienced any of the following:
difficulty while walking, limited activity, staying home because of a physical condition, or needing help for daily tasks or
experiencing a loss of balance. In terms of walking, a majority of respondents claimed they walked at least once a day
(83%), generally for longer than 20 min (84%). Lastly, almost all respondents (97%) were familiar with the neighbourhood
in which they were interviewed, with 67% expressing that they were using the pedestrian crossing because it was near their
home and 76% because they were shopping. Of the 198 questionnaires collected, 181 were retained since some were
misidentified during the data collection phase and in others, too few questions were answered.
Of the respondents, two-thirds were waiting at the curb before crossing and three-quarters had a ‘‘straight” crossing path
(see Table 1). Looking toward traffic was observed for 61% of them before crossing, but the proportion drops down to 38% for
looking toward traffic in the middle of the crossing. On the contrary, looking toward the ground was observed for 23% of
pedestrians, a percentage that increases to 35% in the middle of the crossing. Transgression behaviours (crossing on a red
light) was seen in 19% of cases, and proved to be much higher than anticipation behaviours (starting on a red light which
changes to a pedestrian authorized phase in the middle of the crossing), and insufficient time diagnosis (starting in a pedes-
trian authorized phase and finishing on a red light), which were both respectively at 5%.

3.2. Principal component analysis of street ambiance and perceptions of road risk

Fig. 2 illustrates the 6 components of the PCA, which explains 59% of the total variability (see variable names in Table 2).
Interestingly, variables relating to ambiance and perception of risk are often left separately during the PCA analysis, but
grouped into categories during the other phases of analysis.

1. The ‘‘risks of unsuitable crossing” category groups together 4 variables associated with behaviours thought to be very
dangerous: crossing without looking at traffic, on a red light but without incoming traffic, between parked vehicles
and jaywalking.
2. The ‘‘risks of crossing without traffic regulation” category represents 3 variables, 2 of which are related to a stronger percep-
tion of risk while crossing at unregulated traffic zones (on a crosswalk between two intersections or at an intersection with-
out traffic lights), while the other relates to the sidewalk width. In this case, the sidewalk width is inversely related to
perception of risk: the riskier a situation is thought to be, the more likely it is that sidewalks will be perceived as too narrow.
3. The ‘‘drivers and cyclists respect” category incorporates 3 variables that deal with their respect of the rules of the road in
terms of speeding and paying attention to pedestrians.
4. The ‘‘quality of the walking environment” category is concerned with urban attractiveness (‘‘it is pleasant to walk here”),
vegetation, and rest areas (‘‘benches”, ‘‘bus shelters”).
5. The ‘‘fear of the street” category brings together/unites 4 variables seen as highly dangerous. The first 3 represent ‘‘general
walking actions”, namely walking on the sidewalk crossing at the appropriate time/during the appropriate traffic signal,
and the presence of strangers. The fourth variable in this category examines the positive or negative perceptions of the
street/sidewalk for walking/pedestrians.
6. The last category taken into account, the ‘‘street crossing ability,” revealed that the vast majority of pedestrians did not
claim/feel they struggled to cross the streets in the allotted time. They also tended to perceive cyclists’ behaviour as dis-
respectful and that strangers were not a source of discomfort on the street.

3.3. Elderly pedestrian profiles based on category values

Seven pedestrian profiles were developed based on the hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA). Table 3 presents the mean val-
ues for categories with significant ANOVA within each profile.

1. The ‘‘fearful” profile considered that unsuitable crossings were less risky, but they were also more afraid of the street than
the other profiles and enjoyed the quality of the walking environment less.
2. The ‘‘insecure” profile considered the walking environment to be pleasant but found the street crossing more dangerous
when outside of intersections with traffic lights. They also tended to agree that there was not enough time to cross safely.
3. The ‘‘offender” profile included only four individuals and was mainly characterized by a very low perceived risk of unsuit-
able crossing situations.
4. The ‘‘critic” profile is positively associated with the components related to street users and crossing time, and is nega-
tively associated with the four remaining categories. The respondents in this profile seemed to perceive components
of risk and ambiance positively (little danger outside signalized intersections, little fear of strangers, respect from other
road users) and negatively (low quality of the walking environment, not enough time to cross).
5. The ‘‘perfect” profile represents the ‘‘average good pedestrian citizen” where each component was perceived to be in
keeping with what is generally considered to be ‘‘right”. For example, illegal crossing was considered more dangerous,
crossing at traffic lights less dangerous, other road users (drivers and cyclists) were perceived to be respectful of rules
288 S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296

Fig. 2. Perception categories of elderly pedestrian respondents.

Table 3
Significant mean component values in each of the 7 elderly pedestrian profiles.

Elderly pedestrian Component values

profiles (n = 198)
Risks of Risks of crossing without Driver and Walking Fear of the Street users and
unsuitable traffic regulation cyclist respect environment street crossing time
crossing quality
Fearful (20) 0.53* 1.33*** 1.21***
Insecure (35) 0.63*** 0.68*** 0.97***
Offender (4) 4.36***
Critic (31) 0.55** 0.48** 0.79*** 0.59*** 0.85***
Perfect (31) 0.60*** 0.57** 0.55** 0.91*** 0.80*** 0.68***
Unconscious (37) 0.32* 1.06*** 0.79***
Delegator (40) 0.60*** 0.86***
*
p < 0.050.
**
p < 0.010.
***
p = 0.000.

and pedestrians, and it was deemed that there was enough time to cross the street. The ‘‘perfect” pedestrians also enjoyed
the quality of the walking environment, while still somewhat fearing the street.
6. The ‘‘unconscious” pedestrians felt that it was less risky than other profiles to cross without traffic regulation, were less
afraid of stranger danger than other profiles and thought that other road users were less respectful than other profiles.
 S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296 289

7. The ‘‘delegator” profile found it riskier than other profiles to cross at not-signalized intersections and thought that it was
difficult to cross the streets within the allotted time.

3.4. Association between individual variables, observed crosswalk characteristics, and elderly pedestrian profiles

Once the pedestrian profiles were defined, we tested for an association between each profile and both individual variables
and crosswalk characteristics. Age was the only significant variable for individual characteristics, with ‘‘delegators” being the
oldest group (mean of 77 years old, p = 0.042) and ‘‘perfect” pedestrians being the youngest (mean of 71, p = 0.001). As for the
crosswalk characteristics, the presence of a traffic light (with or without a pedestrian light) was the only significant variable,
with the ‘‘insecure” profile being present at these intersections less often (55%, p = 0.034) and the ‘‘fearful” group being there
almost exclusively (94%, p = 0.015).

3.5. Association between elderly pedestrian profiles and observed crossing behaviours

We tested the association between each profile (excluding ‘‘offenders”, since there were only three respondents in this
profile) and eleven different behaviours separately (Chi-Square: only significant results shown here). Of these behaviours,
three separate ones related to traffic lights were tested on a sub-sample of observations located at crossings with traffic
lights (n = 129).
Of the six profiles tested, four had significant results in relation to eight different behaviours. Table 4 presents the signif-
icant results for behaviours both negatively (LESS) or positively (MORE) associated with these profiles. A minimum signifi-
cance threshold of p < 0.1 was chosen given the exploratory nature of the results. A higher percentage of both the ‘‘fearful”
and ‘‘perfect” profile pedestrians looked toward the ground while crossing compared to the rest of the respondents: respec-
tively 50% and 46% against 33% for pedestrians outside the ‘‘fearful” group and 33% for those outside the ‘‘perfect” group. The
‘‘insecure” pedestrians had the most significant associations with crossing behaviours; all members of the group went
against safety principles, except for the total absence of interactions with cars in this group. Indeed, ‘‘insecure” pedestrians
were the ones who waited least at the curb (55% against 71% for the rest of the observed pedestrians), looked least at traffic
while crossing (27% against 40%), and crossed in a straight line least often (59% against 77%). Similarly, they were the group
with the most transgressions: 25% against 12% for the rest of the observed pedestrians. The pedestrians in the ‘‘perfect” pro-
file looked least toward traffic before crossing (46% against 64% for the non-‘‘perfect”), and they were also the ones, along
with the ‘‘unconscious”, who had the highest proportion of pedestrians without enough time to cross (14% against 4% for
the rest of the observed pedestrians). Finally, pedestrians in the ‘‘unconscious” group were the ones with the most interac-
tions with cars while crossing (17% against 3%).
In order to understand the role of risk perception in crossing behaviour, as well as the influence of pedestrian and walking
environment characteristics, we built exploratory regression models (see Appendix Tables A1 and A2, where results in bold
mean significant probabilities). This allowed us to highlight, ceteris paribus, factors likely to influence the crossing behaviours
observed while isolating for potential structural effects. Two series of analyses were performed.
The first series attempts to predict the crossing behaviours observed on all intersections (n = 181) according to the fol-
lowing independent variables: (1) groups of perceptions, (2) elderly pedestrian socio-demographic characteristics, (3)
elderly pedestrian mobility characteristics and autonomy, and (4) physical characteristics of intersections. The second series
of analysis considers only crossing behaviours on intersections with traffic lights (n = 129) according to the same indepen-
dent variables. Table 5 shows the 18 dependent variables explored. Given the possibility of adopting more than one beha-
viour when crossing the street, binomial logistic regression models were constructed for each behaviour. The models allow
us to consider the complexity of the interactions of built environment, pedestrian characteristics and risk perceptions.

Table 4
Association between elderly pedestrian profiles and observed crossing behaviours.

Older adult Number of respondents Behaviours LESS present in profile Behaviours MORE present in profile
pedestrian profiles
Total Where there was
a traffic light
Fearful 18 17 – Looks toward the ground while crossing*
Insecure 29 16 Waits at the curb* Transgression*
Looks toward traffic while crossing*
Crosses in straight line**
Interaction with cars*
Critic 30 26 – –
Perfect 28 22 Looks toward traffic before crossing* Looks toward the ground while crossing*
Not enough time to cross**
Unconscious 36 22 Looks toward the ground while crossing** Interaction with cars**
Not enough time to cross**
Delegator 37 23 – –
*
p < 0.1.
**
p < 0.05.
290 S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296

Table 5
Behaviours explored with binomial logistic regression modeling.

Dependent variables Intersection

Crossing behaviours Without traffic lights With traffic lights
1. Waiting in authorized area x x
2. Waiting in non-authorized area x x
3. Looking at the ground before crossing x x
4. Looking at the traffic before crossing x x
5. Looking at the ground during the crossing x x
6. Looking at the traffic during crossing x x
7. Looking at the ground and traffic during crossing x x
8. Starting crossing at a non-authorized light x
9. Starting crossing at an authorized light x
10. Ending crossing at a non-authorized light x
11. Ending crossing at an authorized light x
12. Crossing in straight line x x
13. Crossing straight and branch diagonally x x
14. Crossing diagonally x x
15. Transgressing the safety code x x
16. Anticipating the crossing x
17. Lacking time to cross x
18. Having conflict with a vehicle x x

First, as expected, the physical environment emerged as a key feature in this study. The morphology and functional
configuration of the walking environment appear to fundamentally condition pedestrian crossing behaviour. For example,
people were nearly three times more likely to wait in authorized area before crossing at intersections with traffic lights,
and almost eight times more likely to pass through in a straight line, while also in the presence traffic lights. A one-way
street configuration also seemed to influence behaviour. Pedestrians were 3.5 times more likely to cross through in a straight
line, but also much less likely (0.3) to look at traffic while crossing. When taking into account intersections with traffic lights,
the one-way streets, those are narrower and more predictable configuration, seem to cause pedestrians to be 32 times more
likely to adopt more transgressive behaviours (32.1), whereby they begin crossing in a straight line and branch diagonally
(7.8). That said, observed elderly pedestrians are more likely to end their crossing within the allotted time (7.4) than outside
the allotted time (4.9). This means that the safety display features, urban design and technical crossing elements seem, over-
all, to result in prudent behaviours, but also indicated that simpler configurations might lead to riskier behaviour.
Secondly, elderly pedestrian’s socio-economic characteristics and their limitations to autonomy seem clearly associated
with specific observed behaviours. As expected, for all observed intersections, more limited mobility was associated with
precautionary behaviour; this may nonetheless pose a risk for problems of cohabitation with other road users. For example,
looking at the ground before (3.1) and during (2.9) crossing was three times more likely to be a behaviour of people with
walking difficulties, particularly for women. Pedestrians that mentioned needing help in their daily lives were also nearly
six times more likely to look at the ground during the crossing. Women, unlike men, had a very little likelihood (0.2) of
beginning their street crossing on a red light, while pedestrians crossing alone were nearly four times more likely (3.6) to
adopt such behaviour compared to those that were accompanied. As expected, the elderly pedestrians over 85 years of
age seemed more likely to adopt authorized behaviours than those between 65 and 74 years of age, and were not likely
to start crossing on a green light (0.1). Pedestrians aged between 75 and 84 years old were over 120 times more likely to
engage crossing in a transgressive manner (123.4). As in other research on the mobility of seniors, age is less significant than
the level of autonomy in mobility patterns (Cloutier, et al., 2017). In fact, people who mention problems of equilibrium, dif-
ficulty walking or requiring help with their daily activities were more likely to focus on the ground than on the traffic when
crossing the street. However, it is difficult to discern whether a transgression occurs following an anticipated risk by the
elderly pedestrian or without them realizing it. These exploratory results suggest that much of the observed behaviours
might be contingent on the socialization of individuals and their health.
Finally, the influence of perceptions on crossing behaviour also appears to be relatively clear in our exploratory models. This
influence is stronger at the time of the street crossing and on waiting areas, and weaker on pedestrian interactions with other
road users. Taking all observed intersections into account, and relative to the ‘‘perfect” profile, ‘‘insecure” pedestrians (5.6)
were nearly six times more likely to wait in a non-authorized area. The ‘‘unconscious” (3.8) as well as the ‘‘delegators”
(4.2), still in relation to the ‘‘perfect” profile, were almost four times more likely to cross in a straight line. The ‘‘unconscious”
pedestrians (0.2) also took few chances to look at the ground at the time of crossing. ‘‘Unconscious” pedestrians were nine
times more likely to start crossing on a red light, and 28 times more likely to cross in a straight line. As for the ‘‘delegators”,
they were 18 times more likely to wait in an unauthorized area, and 13 times more likely to cross in a straight line. ‘‘Insecure”
pedestrians were 11 times more likely to start crossing on a red light. As mentioned above, the start on a red light in the absence
of traffic could be a way to cross the intersection as quickly as possible, as well as going straight or taking the shortest route.
The proportion of potentially at-risk seniors with perceptions that minimize the danger of crossing is relatively low. The
physical aspects of the crossing environment greatly influence elderly pedestrian behaviour observed. The majority of pedes-
trians seems to strongly perceive the risk of crossing transgressions. Both poorly assessed or perceived risks may be signif-
 S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296 291

icant concerns for some pedestrian profiles. In addition, the results allow for the identification of groups that are at risk, such
as the ‘‘offenders”, the ‘‘unconscious”, and to some extent the ‘‘delegators”.

4. Discussion

Several prior studies have focused on the differences between older and younger pedestrians by connecting observed
behaviours and crash statistics. Through the integration of post-crossing on-site surveys with our crossing behaviour data-
base, our study explored associations between the characteristics of elderly individuals, their perceptions of risk and street
ambiance, and their behaviours.
Elderly pedestrian profiles showed that, even for seniors, there is a strong variability in the perceptions of road risk and
street ambiance. Furthermore, the results of the PCA suggested that stated perceptions in the walking environment and
crossing risks were quite distinct from each other.
Our findings demonstrate that the only significant crosswalk variable was the presence of traffic lights, and only for two
particular profiles. This result is partly in keeping with our field experience intuition since older adult pedestrians seem to be
more present at intersections with traffic regulation, specifically traffic lights. Even if our results do not validate this hypoth-
esis, it is in line with research on gap acceptance and the decision-making process, which attempts to explain this possible
over-representation at traffic lights as being related to cautious and respectful behaviour from elderly pedestrians and pos-
sibly from drivers (Dommes et al., 2015; Ren, Zhou, Wang, Zhang, & Wang, 2011).
Lastly, while pedestrian’s perception profiles explain some of the observed behaviours, they also allow us to hypothesize
that these perceptions are not the only determinants of these behaviours. In fact, only four profiles had significant associa-
tions with at least one crossing behaviour, and the profile sometimes did not match the hypothesis made about the observed
behaviours. For example, pedestrians part of the ‘‘insecure” profile were observed demonstrating incautious behaviour such
as not waiting at the curb and not crossing in a straight line. This might be explained in part by the fact that they are the most
present at crossings without traffic light regulation: interactions and unconventional behaviours are more likely to occur at
these intersections in order for pedestrians to be able to cross (or even see incoming traffic). On the other hand, respondents
in the ‘‘unconscious” group did demonstrate expected behaviours such as more interactions with street users and not
enough time to cross. This profile was in fact partly described in Dommes et al. (2015), who referred to these pedestrians
as people who ‘‘delegate” the crossing decision-making process to other users or to infrastructure/equipment (i.e.: traffic
lights) by respecting the signalization carefully regardless of the context, most likely because of their functional decline.

5. Conclusion

While our results shed new light on elderly pedestrian perceptions and behaviours when crossing the street, our study
nonetheless has certain limitations. First, the small and unrepresentative nature of the sample makes it difficult to generalize
our results. This bias is due in part to the research protocol, which required on-field observations—the sample could there-
fore not be chosen beforehand and had to be selected arbitrarily in situ. For example, older adult persons who walk less or go
out less often might not be represented in our sample, although they undoubtedly represent a truly vulnerable category.
Another limitation to our results is the fact that each of the pedestrians included in this study were observed only once, at
the time of one specific crossing event. Since other results (not shown) tend to indicate that the crossing environment strongly
influences pedestrian behaviour, to conclude a general behaviour type based on a single observed crossing may be insufficient.
The MAPISE project (Huguenin-Richard et al., 2014), for instance, qualitatively analyzed senior walking itineraries and con-
cluded that there were no crossing behaviour patterns along a specific path: seniors may very well cross properly at one cross-
walk and behave in an entirely different manner at the next. Future research should therefore focus on investigating the
variability of behaviour along walking routes. Walking interviews (Evans & Jones, 2011; Miaux et al., 2010) prove to be a
promising qualitative and systematic method for identifying specific behaviour-environment configurations. Such configura-
tions could subsequently be tested quantitatively, based on observations and surveys, perhaps using logistic regression mod-
els. It is by continuing to innovate in methodology and data collection that we will be able to learn more about risk for elderly
pedestrians, and therefore alleviate the burden of pedestrian insecurity on their (and our) shoulders.

Acknowledgements

This project was supported by a grant from the Actions concertées Research Program, jointly funded by the Société de
l’assurance automobile du Québec (SAAQ), the Fonds québécois de recherche sur la société et la culture (FRQ-SC) and the
Fonds québécois de recherche sur la santé (FRQ-S). The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent those of the sponsoring agencies. We thank Marie-Axelle Granié, Jacques Bergeron and Ugo Lachapelle for taking
part in the development of the observation tools and we are grateful to all the students involved in the data collection. We
finally thank Jasmine Bradet and Alexandra Laham for the English review.

Appendix A

See Tables A1 and A2.

Table A1

292
Exploratory binomial logistic regression models for observed behaviors (all intersections).

Waiting in Waiting in Looking at the Looking at the Looking at the Looking at the Crossing in Crossing Transgressing
non- authorized ground before traffic before ground during traffic during straight line straight and the safety code
authorized area crossing crossing the crossing crossing branch
area diagonally
Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B)
Pedestrian profiles
Fearful 0.870 0.9 0.303 4.4 0.528 1.7 0.447 1.7 0.839 0.9 0.643 1.5 0.872 0.9 0.662 1.5 0.909 1.2
Insecure 0.273 0.5 0.091 5.6 0.292 2.2 0.750 1.2 0.331 0.5 0.501 0.6 0.725 0.8 0.997 1.0 0.240 0.2
Offender (not considered) – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Critics 0.823 0.9 0.334 2.8 0.760 1.2 0.099 2.9 0.107 0.4 0.194 2.4 0.328 2.1 0.729 0.7 0.197 0.1
Perfect Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Unconscious 0.860 0.9 0.238 3.7 0.671 0.7 0.389 1.8 0.008 0.2 0.764 1.2 0.075 3.8 0.849 0.9 0.073 0.0
Delegator 0.580 0.7 0.103 5.7 0.308 2.1 0.520 1.5 0.203 0.4 0.476 1.6 0.066 4.2 0.655 0.7 0.129 0.1

S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296

Mobility characteristics
Walking frequency <20 min per day Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Walking frequency 20–30 min per day 0.943 1.0 0.951 0.9 0.435 0.6 0.286 2.0 0.358 1.9 0.876 0.9 0.030 4.5 0.426 0.6 0.107 0.1
Walking frequency >30 min per day 0.877 1.1 0.689 1.4 0.760 1.2 0.362 0.6 0.336 1.8 0.266 0.5 0.006 6.3 0.041 0.2 0.156 0.1
No change in daily outings Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Increase in daily outings 0.642 1.3 0.666 0.7 0.566 1.4 0.636 1.3 0.990 1.0 0.689 0.8 0.750 1.2 0.953 1.0 0.812 1.4
Decrease in daily outings 0.063 2.4 0.248 0.4 0.214 0.5 0.931 1.0 0.020 0.3 0.254 1.6 0.734 0.8 0.907 1.1 0.929 0.9
No drivring license Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Driving license 0.940 1.0 0.723 0.8 0.362 0.7 0.528 1.3 0.253 1.6 0.318 1.5 0.029 0.3 0.004 5.7 0.447 0.4
Independant walking capacity Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Walking-aid dependency 0.389 0.6 0.113 6.1 0.560 0.7 0.469 1.6 0.814 0.9 0.567 0.7 0.965 1.0 0.477 1.8 0.998 0.0
Personal characteristics
Male Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Female 0.281 1.6 0.492 1.7 0.559 0.8 0.555 1.3 0.211 1.7 0.091 0.5 0.874 0.9 0.691 0.8 0.780 0.7
Aged <65 years Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Aged 75–84 years 0.117 0.5 0.833 1.2 0.287 1.7 0.515 0.7 0.500 0.7 0.873 0.9 0.608 0.8 0.708 0.8 0.102 6.1
Aged >85 years 0.298 2.4 0.500 0.4 0.417 0.4 0.248 3.1 0.352 2.2 0.511 0.6 0.236 2.9 0.893 1.1 0.998 0.0
Age not available (not considered) – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Characteristics of autonomy and health
No walking difficulty Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Difficulty in walking 0.642 1.3 0.483 1.8 0.033 3.1 0.698 0.8 0.036 2.9 0.116 2.1 0.933 1.0 0.561 1.4 0.202 0.1
No balance problem in walking Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Balance problem in walking 0.825 1.1 0.801 0.9 0.516 0.7 0.575 1.2 0.824 1.1 0.327 1.5 0.251 0.6 0.129 2.3 0.612 0.6
Never accident victim Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Accident victim in past 0.944 1.0 0.998 0.0 0.856 0.9 0.972 1.0 0.950 1.0 0.855 0.9 0.895 1.1 0.736 1.3 0.320 4.4
No need for domestic help Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Needing domestic help 0.777 1.3 0.301 0.2 0.684 1.4 0.404 0.5 0.041 5.8 0.320 0.4 0.180 6.8 0.999 0.0 0.165 12.2
Characteristic of the crossing environment
Two-way street Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
One-way street 0.606 0.8 0.031 0.1 0.799 1.1 0.697 0.8 0.564 1.3 0.010 0.3 0.161 0.5 0.221 1.9 0.712 1.5
Table A1 (continued)

Waiting in Waiting in Looking at the Looking at the Looking at the Looking at the Crossing in Crossing Transgressing
non- authorized ground before traffic before ground during traffic during straight line straight and the safety code
authorized area crossing crossing the crossing crossing branch
area diagonally
Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp(B)
No vehicles Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Vehicles parked 0.583 0.8 0.396 1.9 0.362 0.6 0.661 0.8 0.946 1.0 0.513 1.4 0.046 3.5 0.169 0.4 0.292 0.3
Accompanied Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Pedestrian only 0.966 1.0 0.305 0.5 0.536 1.3 0.726 0.9 0.668 1.2 0.935 1.0 0.649 0.8 0.546 1.4 0.180 0.1
Single trafic light Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Pedestrian trafic light 0.032 2.7 0.831 1.2 0.240 1.9 0.000 0.1 0.382 1.5 0.000 0.2 0.000 8.0 0.108 0.4 0.011 0.0

Not significant models.

Looking at the ground and traffic during crossing.

S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296

Having conflict with a vehicle.

293
 294
Table A2
Exploratory binomial logistic regression models for observed behaviors (intersections with trafic lights only).

Waiting in Looking at Looking at Looking at Looking at Looking at Starting Starting crossing at an Ending Ending Crossing in straight Crossing Transgressing the
non- the ground the traffic the ground the traffic the ground crossing at authorized light crossing at crossing at line straight safety code
authorized before before during the during and traffic a non- a non- an and branch
area crossing crossing crossing crossing during authorized authorized authorized diagonally
crossing light light light
Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp 0.71377 0.62941 Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp Sig. Exp(B)
(B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B)
Pedestrian profiles
Fearful 0.216 9.0 0.751 0.7 0.770 1.3 0.711 1.4 0.929 0.9 0.863 1.3 0.281 4.7 0.218 0.2 0.105 0.1 0.167 0.2 0.206 4.8 0.264 0.2 0.708 0.4
Insecure 0.586 2.1 0.532 0.5 0.416 1.9 0.163 0.3 0.402 2.1 0.405 0.2 0.090 10.5 0.999 4012371421.4 0.578 0.5 0.620 0.6 0.271 4.1 0.463 0.4 0.155 24.8
Offender (not considered) – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Critics 0.592 2.0 0.654 0.7 0.177 2.6 0.088 0.3 0.601 1.5 0.158 0.1 0.852 1.3 0.273 0.3 0.022 0.1 0.321 2.8 0.055 14.0 0.151 0.1 0.583 0.4
Perfect Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Unconscious 0.251 5.1 0.548 0.5 0.622 1.5 0.043 0.1 0.436 0.5 0.304 0.2 0.091 9.3 0.483 0.4 0.155 0.2 0.525 1.9 0.010 28.4 0.055 0.1 0.543 0.3
Delegator 0.059 17.5 0.867 1.2 0.787 1.2 0.115 0.3 0.568 0.6 0.919 0.9 0.176 7.4 0.069 0.1 0.232 0.2 0.603 0.6 0.061 12.6 0.212 0.2 0.523 0.3

S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296

Mobility characteristics
Walking frequency <20 min Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
per day
Walking frequency 20–30 min 0.519 2.8 0.032 0.1 0.546 1.6 0.908 1.1 0.592 0.6 0.072 0.0 0.159 6.3 0.130 0.1 0.674 1.9 0.823 1.2 0.504 2.0 0.916 0.9 0.998 6682606.7
per day
Walking frequency >30 min 0.265 5.4 0.167 0.3 0.472 0.6 0.575 1.6 0.592 0.7 0.562 0.4 0.119 7.8 0.794 0.8 0.608 2.1 0.388 2.2 0.011 17.6 0.078 0.1 0.998 20926824.6
per day
No change in daily outings Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Increase in daily outings 0.875 0.9 0.204 2.6 0.673 1.3 0.536 1.5 0.534 1.5 0.292 0.2 0.747 1.3 0.594 1.5 0.975 1.0 0.569 0.6 0.735 1.4 0.304 0.4 0.684 0.6
Decrease in daily outings 0.099 0.1 0.184 0.4 0.335 0.6 0.005 0.1 0.943 1.0 0.037 0.1 0.411 0.5 0.716 0.8 0.655 0.7 0.950 1.0 0.393 0.5 0.917 1.1 0.108 0.0
No drivring license Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Driving license 0.218 0.3 0.619 0.7 0.430 1.4 0.936 1.0 0.045 3.1 0.234 0.3 0.743 1.3 0.438 2.3 0.192 0.3 0.229 2.2 0.004 0.1 0.004 18.8 0.502 0.4
Independant walking capacity Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Walking-aid dependency 0.427 4.3 0.108 0.2 0.566 1.5 0.255 0.3 0.127 0.2 0.074 0.0 0.550 0.5 0.012 5.8 0.944 1.1 0.268 3.3 0.983 1.0 0.416 2.4 0.649 0.3
Personal characteristics
Male Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Female 0.730 0.7 0.234 0.5 0.938 1.0 0.041 3.3 0.027 0.3 0.919 0.9 0.022 0.2 0.241 0.4 0.012 0.1 0.045 4.0 0.648 1.4 0.778 0.8 0.031 0.0
Aged <65 years Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Aged 75–84 years 0.628 1.6 0.877 0.9 0.846 0.9 0.279 0.5 0.578 1.4 0.838 1.2 0.180 3.1 0.561 3.1 0.555 1.8 0.152 2.7 0.500 0.6 0.920 1.1 0.039 123.4
Aged >85 years 0.999 0.0 0.882 1.3 0.721 1.5 0.069 16.4 0.951 0.9 0.860 1.6 0.999 0.0 0.018 0.1 0.999 0.0 0.212 35.1 0.999 582573449.7 0.999 0.0 0.999 0.0
Age not available (not – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
considered)
Characteristics of autonomy and health
No walking difficulty Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Difficulty in walking 0.923 1.1 0.012 6.4 0.855 0.9 0.027 5.0 0.006 6.6 0.050 8.9 0.500 1.7 0.850 1.1 0.729 0.7 0.268 2.3 0.390 0.5 0.600 1.6 0.567 2.9
No balance problem in walking Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Balance problem in walking 0.412 2.1 0.723 1.2 0.116 2.0 0.605 1.3 0.735 1.2 0.593 0.6 0.985 1.0 0.041 0.1 0.718 0.7 0.877 1.1 0.396 0.5 0.579 1.6 0.119 0.1
Never accident victim Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Accident victim in past 0.998 0.0 0.480 2.2 0.373 2.0 0.236 0.2 0.801 1.3 0.932 0.8 0.287 3.9 0.232 0.2 0.858 0.7 0.037 0.1 0.226 0.2 0.493 2.6 0.748 3.0
No need for domestic help Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Needing domestic help 0.441 0.2 0.088 6.2 0.265 0.3 0.014 17.2 0.349 0.4 0.006 67.2 0.839 0.7 0.905 0.9 0.312 5.1 0.066 0.0 0.684 2.0 0.999 0.0 0.251 16.3
Characteristic of the crossing environment
Two-way street Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
One-way street 0.053 0.0 0.214 0.4 0.990 1.0 0.337 0.5 0.141 0.4 0.572 0.6 0.519 1.6 0.319 0.4 0.093 4.9 0.004 7.4 0.003 0.1 0.022 7.8 0.034 32.1
No vehicles Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Vehicles parked 0.093 5.9 0.047 0.1 0.362 1.7 0.551 1.5 0.540 1.6 0.124 0.1 0.192 3.4 0.012 0.2 0.998 0.0 0.001 33.3 0.663 1.6 0.378 0.3 0.997 0.0
Accompanied Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Pedestrian only 0.350 0.5 0.505 1.5 0.855 1.1 0.518 1.4 0.945 1.0 0.162 3.3 0.055 3.6 0.035 10.6 0.015 7.4 0.141 0.4 0.741 0.8 0.407 1.8 0.034 35.2
Table A2 (continued)
Waiting in Looking at Looking at Looking at Looking at Looking at Starting Starting crossing at an Ending Ending Crossing in straight Crossing Transgressing the
non- the ground the traffic the ground the traffic the ground crossing at authorized light crossing at crossing at line straight safety code
authorized before before during the during and traffic a non- a non- an and branch
area crossing crossing crossing crossing during authorized authorized authorized diagonally
crossing light light light
Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp 0.71377 0.62941 Sig. Exp Sig. Exp Sig. Exp(B) Sig. Exp Sig. Exp(B)
(B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B) (B)
Single trafic light Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Pedestrian trafic light 0.895 0.9 0.340 0.5 0.089 0.4 0.853 1.1 0.170 0.4 0.113 0.1 0.157 0.2 1.000 100040988.8 0.075 0.0 0.001 19.6 0.977 1.0 0.998 1.0 0.995 0.0
No road markings Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref. Ref.
Road markings 0.401 0.4 0.007 6.1 0.659 0.8 0.055 3.0 0.389 0.6 0.009 12.1 0.193 0.3 0.022 84.6 0.326 2.1 0.308 0.5 0.041 7.7 0.084 0.2 0.641 1.8

Not significant models.

Waiting in authorized area.
Transgressing the safety code.
Anticipating the crossing.
Lacking time to cross.

S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296

Having conflict with a vehicle.

295
296 S. Lord et al. / Transportation Research Part F 55 (2018) 282–296

References

Abou-Raya, S., & Elmeguid, L. A. (2009). Road traffic accidents and the elderly. Geriatrics and Gerontology International, 9(3), 290–297.
Avineri, E., Shinar, D., & Susilo, Y. O. (2012). Pedestrians’ behaviour in cross walks: The effects of fear of falling and age. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 44
(1), 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.11.028.
Centre d’expertise en santé de Sherbrooke (2010). Guide d’utilisation du questionnaire PRISMA-7.
Clémént, S., Mantovani, J., & Membrado, M. (1996). Vivre la ville à la vieillesse: se ménager et se risquer. Les annales de la Rechercher Urbaine, Ville et santé
Publique(73).
Cloutier, M. S. U., Lachapelle, A.-A., D’Amours-Ouellet, J., Bergeron, S., & Lord, J. Torres (2017). "Outta my way!" Individual and environmental correlates for
interactions between pedestrians and vehicles during street crossings. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 104, 36–45.
Dommes, A., Cavallo, V., Dubuisson, J. B., Tournier, I., & Vienne, F. (2014). Crossing a two-way street: Comparison of young and old pedestrians. Journal of
Safety Research, 50, 27–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2014.03.008.
Dommes, A., Granié, M. A., Cloutier, M. S., Coquelet, C., & Huguenin-Richard, F. (2015). Red light violations by adult pedestrians and other safety-related
behaviors at signalized crosswalks. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 80, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.04.002.
Dunbar, G., Holland, C. A., & Maylor, E. A. (2004). Older Pedestrians: A Critical Review. Retrieved from Road Safety Research Report.
Evans, J., & Jones, P. (2011). The walking interview: Methodology, mobility and place. Applied Geography, 31(2), 849–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apgeog.2010.09.005.
Forum International des Transports (2012). Piétons: Sécurité, espace urbain et santé. Éditions OCDE. Retrieved from <https://doi.org/10.1787/
9789282103678-fr>.
Gates, T. J., Noyce, D. A., Bill, A. R., & Van Ee, N. (2006) Recommended walking speeds for timing of pedestrian clearance intervals based on characteristics of
the pedestrian population. Transportation Research Record (pp. 38–47).
Gitelman, V., Doveh, E., & Hakkert, S. (2010). Designing a composite indicator for road safety. Safety Science, 48(9), 1212–1224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssci.2010.01.011.
Granié, M. A., Brenac, T., Montel, M. C., Millot, M., & Coquelet, C. (2014). Influence of built environment on pedestrian’s crossing decision. Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 75–85.
Holland, C., & Hill, R. (2010). Gender differences in factors predicting unsafe crossing decisions in adult pedestrians across the lifespan: A simulation study.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42(4), 1097–1106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.023.
Huguenin-Richard, F., Granié, M. A., Coquelet, C., Dommes, A., & Cloutier, M. S. (2014). La marche à pied pour les seniors: un mode de déplacement durable?
Retrieved from MAPISE project, Final report.
Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques (2012). Résultat du recensement de la population 2012. Retrieved from <http://www.insee.fr/
fr/bases-de-donnees/default.asp?page=recensement/resultats/2012/rp2012.htm>.
Kohl, H. W., 3rd, Craig, C. L., Lambert, E. V., Inoue, S., Alkandari, J. R., Leetongin, G., & Kahlmeier, S. (2012). The pandemic of physical inactivity: global action
for public health. The Lancet, 380(9838), 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60898-8.
Kolenikov, S., & Angeles, G. (2004). The use of discrete data in principal component analysis: Theory, simulations, and applications to socioeco-nomic indices.
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the American Statistical Association.
Lachapelle, U., & Cloutier, M.-S. (2016). Street crossing behavior of elderly pedestrians: short on time? Paper no. 16–1305. Paper presented at the 95th Annual
Transportation Research Board Meeting.
Lassarre, S., Papadimitriou, E., Yannis, G., & Golias, J. (2007). Measuring accident risk exposure for pedestrians in different micro-environments. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 39(6), 1226–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.03.009.
Leclercq, M., Deloche, G., & Rousseaux, M. (2002). Attentional complaints evoked by traumatic brain-injured and stroke patients: frequency and importance.
In Applied Neuropsychology of Attention: Theory, Diagnosis and Rehabilitation (pp. 89–109). London: Psychology Press.
Lobjois, R., & Cavallo, V. (2007). Age-related differences in street-crossing decisions: The effects of vehicle speed and time constraints on gap selection in an
estimation task. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39(5), 934–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.12.013.
Lobjois, R., & Cavallo, V. (2009). The effects of aging on street-crossing behavior: From estimation to actual crossing. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41(2),
259–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2008.12.001.
Loo, B. P., & Tsui, K. L. (2009). Pedestrian injuries in an ageing society: insights from hospital trauma registry. Journal of Trauma, 66(4), 1196–1201.
Lord, S. (2012). Vieillir dans un milieu dédié à l’automobile. Évolution des rapports à soi et à l’autre dans l’expérience de la mobilité quotidienne. In J. P.
Viriot-Durandal, C. Pihet, & P. M. Chapon (Eds.), Les défis territoriaux face au vieillissement (pp. 31–46). Paris: La documentation française.
Lord, S., Després, C., & Ramadier, T. (2011). When mobility makes sense: A qualitative and longitudinal study of the daily mobility of the elderly. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 31(1), 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.02.007.
Martin, A. J., Hand, E. B., Trace, F., & O’Neill, D. (2010). Pedestrian fatalities and injuries involving Irish older people. Gerontology, 56(3), 266–271.
Miaux, S., Drouin, L., Morency, P., Paquin, S., Gauvin, L., & Jacquemin, C. (2010). Making the narrative walk-in-real-time methodology relevant for public
health intervention: Towards an integrative approach. Health & Place, 16(6), 1166–1173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2010.08.002.
Montufar, J., Arango, J., Porter, M., & Nakagawa, S. (2007). Pedestrians’ normal walking speed and speed when crossing a street. Transportation Research
Records: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2002, 90–97.
Negron-Poblete, P., Séguin, A.-M., & Apparicio, P. (2012). Accessibilité à pied pour les résidents âgés du Vieux-Longueuil: des problèmes à l’horizon. In P.
Negron-Poblete & A.-M. Séguin (Eds.), Vieillissement et enjeux d’aménagement Presses de l’Université du Québec.
Neugarten, B. L., Havighurst, R. J., & Tobin, S. S. (1961). The measurement of life satisfaction. Journal of Gerontology, 16, 134–143.
NHTSA (2012). Traffic Safety Facts 2012: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System.
Nicaj, L., Wilt, S., & Henning, K. (2006). Motor vehicle crash pedestrian deaths in New York City: The plight of the older pedestrian. Injury Prevention, 12(6),
414–416.
Observatoire National Interministériel de la Sécurité Routière. (2013). La sécurité routière en France: Bilan de l’accidentalité de l’année 2012. Retrieved from
Paris.
Oxley, J., Fildes, B., Ihsen, E., Charlton, J., & Day, R. (1997). Differences in traffic judgements between young and old adult pedestrians 1. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 29(6), 839–847.
Oxley, J., Ihsen, E., Fildes, B. N., Charlton, J. L., & Day, R. H. (2005). Crossing roads safely: An experimental study of age differences in gap selection by
pedestrians. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(5), 962–971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.04.017.
Papadimitriou, E., Theofilatos, A., & Yannis, G. (2013). Patterns of pedestrian attitudes, perceptions and behaviour in Europe. Safety Science, 53, 114–122.
Papadimitriou, E., & Yannis, G. (2014). Needs and priorities of road safety stakeholders for evidence-based policy making. Transport Policy, 35, 286–294.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.06.006.
Ponsford, J., & Kinsella, G. (1991). The use of a rating scale of attentional behavior. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 1, 241–257.
Ren, G., Zhou, Z., Wang, W., Zhang, Y., & Wang, W. (2011) Crossing behaviors of pedestrians at signalized intersections: Observational study and survey in
China. Transportation Research Record (pp. 65–73).
Thouez, J.-P., Bergeron, J., Rannou, A., Bourbeau, R., & Bussière, Y. (2007). Le contact visuel à la traversée d’une intersection par les piétons à Montréal et à
Toronto. Assurances et gestion des risques, 73(4), 525–544.
Tom, A., & Granié, M.-A. (2011). Gender differences in pedestrian rule compliance and visual search at signalized and unsignalized crossroads. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 43(5), 1794–1801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.04.012.
Turcotte, M. (2012). Profil des habitudes liées au transport chez les aînés.