Young and older pedestrians’ behaviors observed on marked crosswalks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older pedestrians are known to be over-involved in street-crossing fatalities. In France, about half of all pedestrians killed on the road (49%) are over 65 years of age, whereas this age group represents less than 17% of the population. International crash data show the same trends. This overrepresentation of older pedestrians in crash statistics is often explained by altered decision making processes (because of age-related functional deficits) in situations where no helping signals or markings are provided. If many studies show that older drivers are able to compensate for their reduced abilities to drive safely (e.g., in driving less, more slowly, etc.), such adaptive behaviors have been rarely examined in older pedestrians. Indeed, older pedestrians could also adapt their crossing strategies to adjust for sensory, cognitive and motor changes they are experiencing. The aim of the present study was to observe young and old pedestrians on marked crosswalks and examine if the older ones adopt more cautious behaviors to compensate for age-related difficulties. The behavior related to the compliance with the legal rules for road-crossing, as well as visual exploration of the road environment were particularly observed before and during the crossings. A total of 682 pedestrians (375 women) from two age groups (young and old adults) were observed in the city of Lille, France, on marked crosswalks (current section or intersection), with and without lights for pedestrians and/or vehicles. The results show that older pedestrians adopt more cautious behaviors, particularly in terms of compliance with traffic and pedestrian lights and waiting positions on the sidewalk. Moreover, looking behaviors before and during the crossings were significantly different between the two age groups, with older pedestrians more often focused on the ground and less on vehicles than the younger ones. These results illustrate compensation strategies of age-related sensorial, cognitive and motor difficulties among older pedestrians. Findings also promote the development of safer pedestrian infrastructures to improve safety and reduce the risk of crash.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".