The effects of personal music devices on pedestrian behaviour

Safety Science

Volumn 50, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 123-128

  Walker, Esther J ^a   Lanthier, Sophie N ^b   Risko, Evan F ^c   Kingstone, Alan ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^c ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY WEST   (United States)

Author keywords

Distraction; Pedestrian behaviour; Personal music devices

Indexed keywords

CELL PHONE; DISTRACTION; PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS; PEDESTRIAN BEHAVIOUR; PERSONAL MUSIC DEVICES; STREET CROSSING;

ACCIDENTS; MOBILE PHONES; TELECOMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT; TELEPHONE SETS;

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH;

ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; DISTRACTIBILITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MOBILE PHONE; PEDESTRIAN; PERSONAL MUSIC DEVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SEX DIFFERENCE; TELECOMMUNICATION; TRAFFIC SAFETY;

EID: 80053209112     PISSN: 09257535     EISSN: 18791042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.07.011     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Bungum T.J., Day C., Henry L.J. The association of distraction and caution displayed by pedestrians at a lighted crosswalk. J. Commun. Health 2005, 30:269-279.
2. California Vehicle Code, 2009. State of California, Department of Motor Vehicles, § 23124 (2007).
3. Coffin A., Morrall J. Walking speeds of elderly pedestrians at crosswalks. Transport. Res. Rec. 1995, 1487:63-67.
4. Fligor B. Hearing loss and iPods: what happens when you turn them to 11?. Hear. J. 2007, 60:10-16.
5. Hancock P.A., Lesch M., Simmons L. The distraction effects of phone use during a crucial driving maneuver. Accid. Anal. Prevent. 2003, 35:501-514.
6. Harris C.R., Jenkins M., Glaser D. Gender differences in risk assessment: why do women take fewer risks than men?. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2006, 1:48-63.
7. Hatfield J.L., Murphy S. The effects of mobile phone use on pedestrian crossing behaviour at signalized and unsignalized intersections. Accid. Anal. Prevent. 2007, 39:197-205.
8. Horrey, W.J., Wickens, C.D., 2006. Examining the impact of cell phone conversations on driving using meta-analytic techniques. J. Hum. Factors, 48, 196-205. Ipsos Insight., 2006. Portable MP3 ownership reaches new high. <> (retrieved 15.15.09). http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=3124.
9. Hyman I.E., Boss S.M., Wise B.M., McKenzie K.E., Caggiano J.M. Did you see the unicycling clown? Inattentional blindness while walking and talking on a cell phone. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2009, 24:597-607.
10. Kingstone A., Smilek D., Eastwood J.D. Cognitive ethology: a new approach for studying human cognition. Br. J. Psychol. 2008, 99:317-340.
11. Loomis J.M., Blascovich J.J., Beall A.C. Immersive virtual environment technology as a basic research tool in psychology. Behav. Res. Methods, Instrum. Comput. 1999, 31:557-564.
12. Nasar J., Hecht P., Wener R. Mobile telephones, distracted attention, and pedestrian safety. Accid. Anal. Prevent. 2008, 40:69-75.
13. Neider M.B., McCarley J.S., Crowell J.A., Kaczmarski H., Kramer A.F. Pedestrians, vehicles, and cell phones. Accid. Anal. Prevent. 2010, 42:589-594.
14. Stavrinos D., Byington K.W., Schwebel D.C. Effect of cell phone distraction on pediatric pedestrian injury risk. Pediatrics 2009, 123:179-185.
15. Strayer D.L., Drews F.A., Johnston W.A. Cell phone-induced failures of visual attention during simulated driving. J. Exp. Psychol. 2003, 9:23-32.
16. Strayer D.L., Johnston W.A. Driven to distraction: dual-task studies of simulated driving and conversing on a cellular telephone. Psychol. Sci. 2001, 12:462-466.
17. Wilde G.J.S. The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Risk Anal. 1982, 2:209-225.
18. Zeedyk, Wallace, Spry Stop, look, listen, and think? What young children really do when crossing the road. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2002, 34:43-50.
19. Zeller Jr., T., 2007. Can Common Sense be Legislated? The New York Times, February 12, p. C3.