Why Are Older Adults More at Risk as Pedestrians? A Systematic Review

65Citations
Citations of this article
116Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: To explore factors that could explain why older adults are more at risk at the roadside. Background: The physical and psychological health benefits of walking have been well-established, leading to the widespread promotion of walking amongst older adults. However, walking can result in an increased risk of injury as a pedestrian at the roadside, which is a greater risk for older adults who are overrepresented in pedestrian casualty figures. Method: Relevant databases were searched up to January 2020. All peer-reviewed journals that presented data on healthy older adults and some aspect of road crossing or roadside behavior were included. A total of 142 papers were assessed and 60 met the inclusion criteria. Results: Identified papers could be grouped into three areas: crossing at a designated crossing place; crossing with no designated crossing place; perceptions or behaviors. Conclusion: Multiple individual (attitudes, perceived behavioral control, walking time, time-to-arrival judgments, waiting endurance, cognitive ability), task (vehicle size, vehicle speed, traffic volume), and environmental (road layout, time of day, weather) constraints influence road crossing in older adulthood. Application: Accessibility of designated crossing areas needs to be addressed by ensuring sufficient time to cross and nonrestrictive waiting times. Signalized crossings need to be simplified and visibility increased. Where there is no designated crossing place, a reduction in speed limit alongside the provision of pedestrian islands to provide “pause” places are needed. Educational-based programs may also help ensure safety of older adults where there is no designated crossing place.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wilmut, K., & Purcell, C. (2022). Why Are Older Adults More at Risk as Pedestrians? A Systematic Review. Human Factors, 64(8), 1269–1291. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720821989511

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free