Journal of Transport & Health 21 (2021) 101058

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Transport & Health

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jth

Unsafe behaviours in Iranian adult pedestrians

Fateme Zareharofteh a, Alireza Hidarnia a, *, Mohammad Ali Morowatisharifabad b,
Mohammad Eslami c
a
Department of Health Education & Health Promotion, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, P.O.Box: 14115-111, Iran
b
Department of Health Education and Promotion, School of Public Health, Social Deterinants of Health Research Center, Shahid Sadoughi University
of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
c
Health Network Administration Center, Ministry of Health and Medical Education, IR, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O
Introduction: Pedestrians are the most vulnerable street users and unsafe traffic behaviour may
Keywords: endanger their lives. This study was conducted to determine the prevalence of unsafe behaviours
Prevalence and their predictors among pedestrians in a city according to gender, time of day, and location.
Unsafe behaviours Methods: In this cross-sectional study, unsafe behaviours of 391 pedestrians in 17 locations were
Pedestrians observed directly using recorded videos. The samples and locations were randomly selected. Two
Observation trained observers recorded behaviours using a 15-item checklist. Chi-square test, independent t-
Looking test, and ANOVA were used to examine the differences among independent variables. In addition;
Location
binary logistic regression was utilized to investigate the relationship between high-risk behav­
iours and independent variables.
Results: Each pedestrian exhibited an average of 4.8 (±2.2) high-risk behaviours. The most
frequent unsafe behaviours included not looking left, right, and left [NLLRL] (84.7%), not using
pedestrian bridges (63.5%), as well as crosswalks (60.9%). Pedestrians displayed more risky
behaviours at roundabouts (P < 0.001). The category “unsafe crossing behaviour” put pedestrians
at greater risk at roundabouts. The likelihood of not crossing at crosswalks, diagonal crossing,
crossing between cars, and running was 5.14, 3.1, 3.6, and 2.23 times higher at roundabouts
compared to intersections. The probability of pedestrians crossing the street along with others
was 2.2 times higher in the evening than in the morning.
Conclusion: Pedestrians in cities may be engaged in risky behaviours which endanger their lives.
These behaviours should be explored for designing and implementing targeted interventional
programs to reduce injuries and deaths among pedestrians.

1. Introduction

About 1.35 million people die on the world’s roads each year – i.e. more than 3600 people every day - and tens of millions are
injured (World Health Organization, 2020). In addition, based on the WHO report, traffic collisions are considered as the second cause
of death across the world allocating 23% of the victims (World Health Organization, 2018).
According to the United States Traffic Safety Facts, 17% of road deaths and 3% of traffic injuries occur for pedestrians by which one
pedestrian is killed every 84 min in the US (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration USA, 2020). In Iran, based on the recent
studies, 30% of traffic collisions involve pedestrians and, overall, 23% of traffic victims are pedestrians (World Health Organization,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Hidarnia@modares.ac.ir (A. Hidarnia).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2021.101058
Received 27 August 2020; Received in revised form 9 March 2021; Accepted 12 March 2021
Available online 26 March 2021
2214-1405/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Zareharofteh et al. Journal of Transport & Health 21 (2021) 101058

2018; Saffarzadeh et al., 2011). Several risk factors are identified for pedestrians’ vulnerability. The high-risk behaviour of pedestrians
is one of the most important factors that puts them at risk. Zhuang and Wu (2011) reported that 65.7% of the pedestrians entered the
street without checking for vehicles. Another study showed that 64.6% of the pedestrians crossed at marked crosswalks displayed
high-risk behaviours. The prevalence of behaviours like talking, using mobile phone, and using earpieces/headphones was 33.4, 16.2,
and 9.8% in the subjects, respectively (Ojo et al., 2019). Rosenbloom et al. (2004) found that crossing during the red light (16.4%) and
at inappropriate places (6.3%) are considered as the most common behaviours. Furthermore, some studies have shown that pedes­
trians tend to follow others and cross in groups (Şimşekoğlu, 2015; Wang et al., 2018). According to Wang et al., when one pedestrian
jaywalks, others may follow resulting in many pedestrians jaywalking (2015). A large number of studies have found that conformity is
one of the reasons for pedestrian violations (Şimşekoğlu, 2015; Wang et al., 2018; Zhou et al., 2014). In addition, when pedestrians
cross the street accompanied by other people, they do not pay attention to traffic flow accurately since they think someone else has
already done so.
Another factor is non-use of pedestrian infrastructure such as pedestrian designated crosswalks, lights, and bridges. According to
Iran’s traffic police statistics in 2006, 38% of the collisions in Tehran were related to the pedestrians’ behaviour such as not using the
pedestrian overpass (Nikoumaram et al., 2009).
Some studies have shown that gender affects pedestrian behaviours and traffic collisions, and men violate traffic rules more and are
more likely to run at red light (Rosenbloom, 2009). On the other hand, some indicated that men displayed less risky behaviours
compared to women (Hamed, 2001; Yannis et al., 2013). However, the difference in risky behaviours between men and women can be
studied in future work.
Time of the day is another factor affecting pedestrians’ behaviour. Bukova-Zideluna et al. (2018) found that 69.9% of the pe­
destrians were involved in collisions during the twilight period or in dark hours. It seems that pedestrians exhibited more risky be­
haviours in the evening and at the beginning of the night, compare to the morning.
Location is a major contributor to collisions in addition to gender, time of day, and unsafe behaviour of pedestrians. Some studies
indicated that 79.8% of collisions in Tehran (Moradi et al., 2017) and 60% of the road accidents in Poland occurred on highways and
direct roads, respectively (Pawłowski et al., 2019). In Beijing, 48, 48, and 4% of the collisions in 2015 occurred at mid-blocks, in­
tersections, and roundabouts, respectively (Chen et al., 2019). Based on the literature review, roundabouts are safe locations for
drivers (Candappa et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2013). There is no sufficient information about other vulnerable road users, especially
pedestrians.
Regarding pedestrians’ safety, crosswalks have been considered in roads where traffic must stop to allow pedestrians to walk
across. Some crosswalks are equipped with signalized lights. Other safety measures included reducing the exposure of pedestrians to
drivers, as well as building protective barriers, overpasses, underpasses, and middle islands. Regarding traffic calming, speed limits
were set at 60, 50, 30 and 30 km/h on the arterial streets, sub-arterial roads, local streets, and roundabouts. Furthermore, safe crossing
is taught to children and adolescents (Aghdam et al., 2020), and information/educational campaigns have been conducted for pe­
destrians. Despite all these measures, the rate of collisions is still high for pedestrians.
Previous studies provided a great deal of information about pedestrian collisions and their behaviours around the world, which
gives researchers a good insight into factors affecting pedestrian vulnerability. However, there is no comprehensive study on pe­
destrians and their behaviours, especially in the city under study. In addition, a few surveys have investigated risky behaviours among
pedestrians comprehensively by providing information about the prevalence of risky behaviours. Therefore, the present study aimed to
create a snapshot of risky behaviours among pedestrians by evaluating the number of high-risk behaviours among pedestrians while
crossing the street on average, the prevalence of their high-risk traffic behaviours, and the difference in the prevalence of high-risk
behaviours based on independent variables such as gender, time of day, and location. Finally, the predictors of unsafe behaviours
among pedestrians are considered.

2. Materials and method

In this cross-sectional study, the pedestrians who appeared to be 18 and over were considered. The exclusion criteria included
having a bicycle and inability to see pedestrians clearly due to the presence of obstacles such as trees, buses, and advertisements on
pedestrian bridges.

2.1. Sample size

The maximum sample size for the purpose of this study was 384 subjects considering p = 0.5, d = 0.05, α = 0.5 according to the
following formula:

Z2 p q
n=
d2
The research team considered a ratio of 0.5 for the risky behaviour (p) to obtain the maximum sample size. Video recordings using
traffic cameras were used to observe peoples’ behaviour accurately. Among 66 cameras set up in 17 urban areas, one camera was
randomly selected from each neighbourhood to observe the pedestrians’ behaviour. Finally, 7, 7, and 3 cameras were used at in­
tersections, roundabouts, and boulevards and streets, respectively. Based on the correction of samples, 23 samples were considered for
each location. Finally, 391 samples were observed.

2
F. Zareharofteh et al. Journal of Transport & Health 21 (2021) 101058

2.2. Sampling

For sampling in each location, the number of pedestrians in each film was counted in the first step. For example, if there were 92
pedestrians in the film, it was divided by the required sample size (23 people). The obtained value (4) was considered as the interval
between the samples. The first person was selected randomly, for example, pedestrian number 5. The next pedestrians were selected
based on the obtained value, i.e., pedestrians number 9, 13, 17, 21, etc. to complete the required sample size (23 people). Then, the
behaviours of the selected samples were observed and recorded (classified random sampling).

2.3. Instruments

A checklist of risky behaviours was developed based on a literature review. Crossing the street on a red light (Zhang et al., 2016),
talking on the cell phone or using the Internet (Byington and Schwebel, 2013), not using pedestrian bridges and underpasses (Razzaghi
et al., 2014), crossing street diagonally (Hashemiparast et al., 2016), and crossing outside the boundaries of a crosswalk (Hashemi­
parast et al., 2016) were among high-risk behaviours of pedestrians. Therefore, a list of pedestrians’ behaviours was prepared, and the
behaviours were classified based on the behaviours related to a topic. For example, using a crosswalk and crossing the street on a green
pedestrian light that were related fell into a category. Fifteen behaviours were classified into five main groups as below.

(1) Crossing the street using pedestrian bridges including two behaviours as follows.
a. Using pedestrian bridges: Is there a footbridge in this location (at 50 m max)? If yes, do the pedestrians use the bridge for
crossing the street?
b. Jumping over barriers in the street: Pedestrians do not use bridges and jump over barriers (concrete, fencing …) under
bridges in the middle of street.
(2) Looking when entering the street including three behaviours as follows.
c. Looking at left, right, and left: Head movements to left, right and left again were observed considering the movement of the
chin before entering the street (Bungum et al., 2005).
d. Looking at left: Head turn towards the traffic flow regardless of whether a vehicle is approaching or not for at least 2 s
(MacGregor et al., 1999).
e. Crossing the street in front of the bus: Crossing the road in front of the bus less than 3 m from it, without eye contact with the
bus driver, and understand whether or not he intends to stop, standing in front of the bus because of being exposed to
oncoming traffic.
(3) Using a cell phone and/or a headphone including three behaviours as follows.
f. Talking on the cell phone: Keeping the mobile phone close to ears while crossing the street
g. Reading/sending text messages: Looking at the cell phone screen for at least 2 s
h. Using a headphone when crossing the street: Using a headphone during crossing
(4) Using a crosswalk for crossing including two behaviours as follows.
i. Crossing at the crosswalk: Crossing at designated locations to move from one side of the street to the other (crosswalk
available at a maximum distance of 50 m)
j. Red-light crossing: Crossing the street without paying attention to the red light
(5) Unsafe crossing patterns including five behaviours as follows.
k. Diagonal crossing: Crossing directly from one side of the street to the target on the other side in the shortest way (Zhuang
and Wu, 2011)
l. Crossing between cars: Crossing the street in illegal and unsafe conditions or moving between vehicles
m. Running across the street: Increasing the crossing speed and running in the street for any reason
n. Walking along the street: Walking along the roadway for 10 m in the direction of oncoming traffic
o. Crossing the street along with others: Crossing the street with a group of people or following them without paying attention
to approaching vehicles or the pedestrian red light.
(6) Other variables
Observers simultaneously coded the above behaviours and independent variables such as gender, time of the day, presence
of pedestrian facilities on site (e.g. crosswalk, pedestrian light, bridge, and barrier under bridge), and crossing location (e.g.
intersection, roundabout, street, and boulevard). In this study, intersection was defined as a signalized four-way junction.

2.4. Validity and reliability

Face and content validity were evaluated qualitatively in a 6-member panel of experts. Regarding face validity, the level of dif­
ficulty, degree of inconsistency, ambiguity of expressions, and presence of inadequacies in the meanings of words were examined. As
for content validity, grammar observance, use of appropriate words and scaling were checked and comments were provided. The
reliability of the items was assessed by considering 50 samples. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.77 was calculated.

2.5. Data collection time

Traffic control cameras focused on facilities in some locations such as crosswalks, traffic lights, and pedestrian bridges. Street

3
F. Zareharofteh et al. Journal of Transport & Health 21 (2021) 101058

crossing behaviours were recorded at each location four times a day (08:00–09:00, 11:00–12:00, 13:00–14:00, and 16:00–17:00) in
May and October 2017. In each location, 11 people in the morning and 12 people in the evening (or vice versa) were randomly
included in the study.

2.6. Data collection methods and coding

The videos recorded by traffic cameras at intersections, roundabouts, and streets were observed for data collection. To increase the
validity of the study, a protocol was prepared for coding. The pedestrians’ behaviour was examined with “Yes”, “No”, and “Not
applicable” as options. The option “Not applicable” was selected for the behaviours which were not possible, as well as those having no
facility like bridges or crosswalks, and the related items. Two trained observers with a high agreement (91%) were used to ensure the
accuracy of observations. Regarding the remaining 9% of the cases upon which there were disagreements, decisions were made based
on consultation of the coders with the first author.
After data collection, the items related to using pedestrian bridges (looking at left, right, and left; looking at left; using crosswalks
for crossing) were recoded to analyse the high-risk behaviours of pedestrians.

2.7. Data analysis

The frequency of high-risk behaviours was calculated for each pedestrian. Then, the mean frequency was divided into low (0–3),
medium (4–7), and high (>7). The prevalence of each high-risk behaviour of the pedestrians was calculated using the following
formula: “number of risky behaviours or yes answers/(total number of replies - number of “Not applicable”).
The independent sample t-test, chi-square test, and one-way ANOVA were used to evaluate the prevalence and mean frequency of
risky traffic behaviours based on gender, time of the day, and location. Next, binary logistic regression was applied to examine the
relationship between unsafe behavior and independent variables. Three variables including gender (female), time of the day
(morning), and location (intersection) were kept constant. Model fit via Omnibus tests of model coefficients with p value < 0.05,
Hosmer and Lemeshow test with p-value>0.05, model explanation power via Cox & Snell R Square and Nagelkerker’s pseudo r-
squared ranging from 0 to 1, and odds ratio (OR) and possibility of unsafe behaviour due to exposure to an independent variable or
predictor factor ranging between 0 and infinity were used for interpreting the results.

3. Results

Most of the pedestrians (66%) were male. Facilities such as crosswalks, pedestrian lights, and pedestrian bridges were available for
68.5, 36.8, and 36.1% among the pedestrians in the study locations, respectively. Further, 57 and 43% of the observations were
conducted in the morning and evening, respectively.

3.1. Mean frequency of unsafe behaviour and its comparison based on independent variables

Based on the results, all pedestrians were engaged in an average of 11.5 (±3.2) high-risk behaviours and each pedestrian displayed
an average of 4.8 (±2.2) high-risk behaviours among 15 high-risk traffic behaviours. The mean (±SD) high-risk behaviour was
calculated according to independent variables (Table 1).

3.2. Prevalence of unsafe behaviour

The most commonly observed high-risk behaviour was not looking at left, right, and left (NLLRL) when entering the street (84.7%)
followed by not using facilities such as pedestrian bridges and crosswalks (63.5 and 60.9%, respectively). Using headphones (0.3%) is
considered as the least frequent unsafe street crossing behaviour (Table 2).

Table 1
Mean frequency of unsafe behaviours (±SD) based on independent variables (n = 391).
Variables Mean (±SD) Test type/P.V

Gender
Male 4.47 (±2.1) Independent Samples T Test
Female 4.34 (±2) 0.58
Time of day
Morning 4.6 (±2) Independent Samples T Test
Evening 4.18 (±2.18) 0.047
Location
Roundabout 4.52 (±2) One-way ONOVA
Intersection 4.54 (±2.15) 0.09
Street& Boulevard 3.92 (±2.14)

4
F. Zareharofteh et al. Journal of Transport & Health 21 (2021) 101058

Table 2
The prevalence of unsafe behaviours in pedestrian (n = 391).
Category Unsafe behaviour Frequency Percentage

Crossing using bridges Not using pedestrian bridges 80 63.5

Jumping over or moving barriers in the street. 6 0.09
Looking when entering the street No looking at left, right, left 293 84.7
Not looking at left 21 6.1
Crossing in front of bus 12 4.6
Using a cell phones and/or a headphone Talking on the cell phone 17 4.9
Reading/sending text messages 3 0.9
Using a headphone when crossing the street 1 0.3
Using crosswalks for crossing Not crossing at crosswalks 170 60.9
Red-light crossing 72 45.6
Unsafe crossing pattern Diagonal crossing 207 59.8
Crossing between cars 205 59.2
Running across the street. 123 35.5
Walking along the street 176 50.9
Crossing the street along with others without paying attention to traffic flow and signals 86 28.7

3.3. Prevalence of unsafe behaviour based on gender

In this study, there was no statistically significant difference in high-risk behaviours between men and women (P > 0.05).

3.4. Prevalence of unsafe behaviour based on time of the day

The prevalence of NLLRL (86.2%) and crossing the street without using pedestrian bridges (83%) was higher in the evening than in
the morning. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the use of pedestrian bridges (P < 0.001). Table 3 presents
the frequency of some pedestrian behaviour with respect to time of observation.

3.5. Prevalence of unsafe behaviours based on location

As shown in Table 4, a significant difference was observed in the prevalence of some behaviours based on the location of crossing. In
this study, the prevalence rate was evaluated based on location. The results of post hoc analysis showed that the mean number of high-
risk behaviours was significantly higher in roundabouts compared to intersections, boulevards, and streets.

3.6. Odds of unsafe behaviours based on independent variables

After binary logistic regression, it was found that six behaviours had a good model fit. The results showed that men used mobile
phones less than women (OR = 0.21). The odds of crossing the street along with others without pay attention to traffic flow and signals
was 2.21 times higher in the evening than in the morning. However, the likelihood of crossing without using a designated crosswalk
was higher in the morning than in the evening. The odds of diagonal crossing, crossing between cars, and crossing without using
designated crosswalks was 2.4, 3.6, and 4.75 times higher in streets and boulevards compared to intersections, respectively. The
likelihood of crossing diagonally, crossing between the cars, and running was 3.1, 3.36, 2.23 times higher in the roundabouts
compared to intersections, respectively (Table 5).

4. Discussion

The frequency of high-risk behaviours for each pedestrian, prevalence of unsafe behaviours of pedestrians, and predictors of high-
risk behaviour were investigated in this study. In this section, the prevalence of predictors of high-risk behaviour is considered
together.

Table 3
The prevalence of unsafe behaviours in the pedestrians with respect to time (n = 391).
Unsafe behaviour Morning Evening Total P.V

N % N % N %

Not using pedestrian bridges 36 49.3 44 83 80 63.5 0.0001

Talking on the cell phone 4 2.1 13 8.2 17 4.9 0.01
Crossing between cars 100 53.5 105 66 205 59.2 0.018
Crossing the street along with others without paying attention to traffic flow and signals 32 19.6 54 39.4 86 28.7 0.0001

5
F. Zareharofteh et al. Journal of Transport & Health 21 (2021) 101058

Table 4
The prevalence of unsafe behaviours in the pedestrians with respect to location (n = 391).
Unsafe behaviour Roundabout Intersection Street and Total P.V
boulevard

N % N % N % N %

Not using pedestrian bridges 55 79.7 17 65.4 8 26 80 63.5 0.0001

Not crossing at crosswalks 58 71.6 79 51.6 33 73.3 170 60.9 0.002
Diagonal crossing 104 70.7 73 47.7 30 65.2 207 59.8 0.0001
Crossing between cars 103 70.1 69 45.1 33 71.7 205 59.2 0.0001
Running across the street 65 44.2 47 30.7 11 23.9 123 35.5 0.011
Walking along the street 87 59.2 66 43.1 23 50 176 50.9 0.021
Crossing the street along with others without paying attention to traffic flow and signals 52 40.3 29 19.9 5 20 86 28.7 0.001

4.1. Prevalence of unsafe behaviours

Based on the results, the prevalence of high-risk behaviours was moderate, indicating the pedestrians’ vulnerability, as well as their
role in some collisions with drivers and motorists (Dıaz, 2002). Looking around and paying attention to approaching vehicles are the
most important behaviours before entering the street. The results of the present study showed that crossing the street without full
awareness of their surroundings such as NLLRL was the most common risky behaviour of pedestrians (84.7%). Zhuang and Wu (2011)
reported that two-thirds of pedestrians did not look around before crossing the street. It seems that pedestrians consider looking at the
traffic flow as the only main behaviour for crossing (Dommes et al., 2015) or they are accustomed to looking at left. Furthermore, the
results indicated that 6% of the pedestrians entered the street without looking at approaching vehicles. Additionally, 6.1% of the
pedestrians used mobile phones. This finding was in line with other studies that showed 16.1% (Zhuang and Wu, 2011), 6.1%
(Hamidun et al., 2016), and 26.8% (Rosenbloom et al., 2008) of the pedestrians did not look at vehicles. It is required to investigate the
reason why pedestrians do not look properly. In addition, various factors such as personal (Zhu et al., 2021), cultural (Schneider and
Sanders, 2015), social (Thompson et al., 2013), and environmental factors (Zhu et al., 2021), as well as the behaviours of other road
users (Zhu et al., 2021) should be considered. It seems that not only children but also adults need education due to increased ur­
banization, number of motor vehicles, inappropriate mixing of vehicles with pedestrians, and complex traffic conditions.
The high prevalence of not using bridges and crosswalks by pedestrians is considered as a major concern for traffic and safety
experts. In this study, about two-thirds of pedestrians did not use pedestrian bridges and crosswalks for crossing the street. Another
study found that 46% of the pedestrians did not use bridges and preferred to cross the street illegally (Demiroz et al., 2015). Using or
not using these facilities is not random, and is influenced by different factors during different periods of time and becomes a habit
(Räsänen et al., 2007). Some studies reported that convenience (Anciaes and Jones, 2018; Ren et al., 2011), proper function of the
facilities, and ease of access (Nikoumaram et al., 2009) encourage pedestrians to display safety behaviours. When the structure and
location of pedestrian facilities are inappropriate, people do not consider using these facilities gradually and they are disregarded. In
this case, they tend to use other places to cross the street (King et al., 2009). Providing equipment such as escalators instead of stairs for
bridges and building bridges in appropriate locations can reduce pedestrians’ high-risk behaviours.

4.2. Time of day

Based on the present study, some behaviours such as not using bridges, crossing between the cars, crossing with other(s), and
talking on the cell phone had a significantly higher prevalence in the evening than in the morning. The finding can help to understand
the results of several studies which showed that pedestrian collisions were more common in the evening and at dark (Bukova-Zideluna
et al., 2018). According to (Shaaban et al., 2018), the chance of pedestrians walking is twice as high in the evening as in the morning.
Moreover, the pedestrians have less energy, time, and patience to use the bridge in the evening (Chen et al., 2019), and display some
behaviours such as talking on the cell phone which reduce their awareness and concentration. In addition, they cross the street along
with other people and move between the cars. These behaviours have several benefits, as they not only reduce the risk of collisions but
also cross the street more easily and quickly with other people. As a result, displaying a high-risk behaviour provides the context and
conditions for other risky behaviours and contributes to the prevalence of various types of high-risk behaviours in pedestrians.

4.3. Location

The results indicated that the prevalence of some high-risk behaviours of pedestrians was significantly different according to the
location. The pedestrians used bridges and designed crosswalks less, crossed the street diagonally, ran, and walked along the road more
in the roundabouts. The finding was consistent with the several studies which indicated that pedestrians ran outside the boundaries of
crosswalks (Zhuang and Wu, 2011) and in roundabout while crossing (especially in exit legs) (Harkey and Carter, 2006). In another
study, Failure to look properly”, “Pedestrian being careless, reckless, or in a hurry” and “Failure to judge the road or vehicle speed”
were considered as the three most common behaviours of pedestrians involved in traffic collisions for all types of junctions (Downey
et al., 2019).
In short, pedestrians displayed more risky behaviours at roundabouts. It seems that the characteristics and environmental and

6
 F. Zareharofteh et al.
Table 5
Predicting the likelihood of unsafe behaviours based gender, time of day, and location.
Unsafe behaviour Om Ho Cox Nag Predictive Factors

Gender Time of day St & In R & In

Wald OR Wald OR Wald OR Wald OR

Talking on the cell phone 0.03 0.933 0.045 0.14 4.03 0.213 * 2.11 2.79 0.0001 0.735 1.78 2.85
Not crossing at crosswalks 0/001 0/1 0/067 0/091 1.41 0.723 4.86 0.399 * 2.5 4.75 ** 12.64 5.14 **
Diagonal crossing 0.001 0.977 0.052 0.07 0.348 0.868 0.659 0.784 0.061 2.4 * 13.26 3.1 * *
Crossing between cars 0.0001 0.689 0.067 0.09 0.311 0.873 0.589 0.793 0.1 3.61 ** 14.73 3.36 **
7

Running across the street 0.019 0.465 0.033 0.046 1.42 0.744 1.04 0.74 4.06 0.875 6.74 2.23 **
crossing the street along with others without paying attention to traffic flow and signals 0.001 0.919 0.064 0.092 0.212 1.1 4.67 2.214 * 9.88 0.529 1.45 1.57

Binary logistic regression analysis * P-value>0.05, ** P-value>0.01

Om: Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients
Ho: Hosmer and Lemeshow Test
Cox: Cox & Snell R Square
Nag: Nagelkerke R Square
OR: Odds Ratio
St & In: Street and boulevard relative to the Intersection
R & In: Roundabout relative to the Intersection

Journal of Transport & Health 21 (2021) 101058

F. Zareharofteh et al. Journal of Transport & Health 21 (2021) 101058

traffic conditions of the roundabouts are effective in high-risk behaviours of pedestrians including low speed of cars (Gross et al.,
2013), large size of roundabouts (Granà, 2013), attractiveness of central islands, long distance of facilities for pedestrians, and number
of multiple entrances and exits. The low speed of the cars not only reduces the possibility of collisions in the roundabouts, but also
makes pedestrians feel safe to enter the roundabouts. The large size of the roundabouts and the long distance of the facilities from the
pedestrians encourage them to run diagonally or between the cars to shorten the distance to the destination through using the central
islands of the roundabouts. In this way, they save energy, time, and distance. Some studies reported that long distances increase the
likelihood of direct crossings for pedestrians (Cantillo et al., 2015). Another feature of the roundabouts is numerous entrances and exits
and the canalization of traffic flow that increase blind spots for pedestrians. Identifying these points is time consuming for pedestrians.
Therefore, pedestrians ignore the identification of these points and enter the street without full awareness of their surroundings. The
attractiveness of the central island of the roundabouts is another factor which affects the behaviour of pedestrians and encourages
them to cross diagonally and run between cars.
The present study had some limitations such as the need for obtaining permission and the formal process to gain access to traffic
camera data, lack of cameras in many locations, and presence of environmental advertisements and trees.
Based on the results, some strategies are suggested to improve the safety of pedestrians such as considering fines for high-risk
behaviour, improving roundabout structure, building pedestrian overpasses and pedestrian malls, and initiating safe crossing cam­
paigns. These results not only help policy-makers and authorities to identify the most common high-risk behaviours of pedestrian in the
shortest time, but also enable them to design interventions accurately and confidently.

5. Conclusion

Not looking around carefully and using pedestrian bridges and crosswalks were the most common high-risk behaviours. The
likelihood of crossing the street along with others was higher in the evening. In addition, the probability of unsafe crossing was higher
in roundabouts versus streets and intersections. The results help policy-makers and authorities to design evidence-based interventions
to improve pedestrian safety through developing facilities, infrastructure, and educational programs.

Funding

This research was suported by grant No. 71531 from Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran,Iran.

Declaration of competing interest

None declared.

Acknowledgments

This article was derived from the Ph.D. thesis of the first author. The authors are sincerely grateful to the Mayor of Yazd, and the
authorities of Yazd Municipality Traffic Control Center who helped collect the data without any grant. We also appreciate of Professor
David C. Schwebel from University of Alabama at Birmingham for his helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

References

Aghdam, F.B., Sadeghi-Bazargani, H., Azami-Aghdash, S., Esmaeili, A., Panahi, H., Khazaee-Pool, M., Golestani, M., 2020. Developing a national road traffic safety
education program in Iran. BMC Publ. Health 20, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09142-1.
Anciaes, P.R., Jones, P., 2018. Estimating preferences for different types of pedestrian crossing facilities. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 52, 222–237.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.11.025.
Bukova-Zideluna, A., Villerusa, A., Lama, A., 2018. An Overview on Pedestrians Involved in Traffic Accidents in Latvia: Years 2010-2014, SHS Web of Conferences.
EDP Sciences, 01004. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20184001004.
Bungum, T.J., Day, C., Henry, L.J., 2005. The association of distraction and caution displayed by pedestrians at a lighted crosswalk. J. Community Health 30,
269–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-005-3705-4.
Byington, K.W., Schwebel, D.C., 2013. Effects of mobile Internet use on college student pedestrian injury risk. Accid. Anal. Prev. 51, 78–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2012.11.001.
Candappa, N., Stephan, K., Fotheringham, N., Lenné, M.G., Corben, B., 2014. Raised crosswalks on entrance to the roundabout—a case study on effectiveness of
treatment on pedestrian safety and convenience. Traffic Inj. Prev. 15, 631–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2013.854885.
Cantillo, V., Arellana, J., Rolong, M., 2015. Modelling pedestrian crossing behaviour in urban roads: a latent variable approach. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol.
Behav. 32, 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2015.04.008.
Chen, Y., Ma, J., Chen, N., 2019. Analyzing pedestrian fatality risk in accidents at mid-blocks. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 9, 171–192. https://doi.org/
10.4236/jtts.2019.92011.
Chen, Y., Persaud, B., Sacchi, E., Bassani, M., 2013. Investigation of models for relating roundabout safety to predicted speed. Accid. Anal. Prev. 50, 196–203. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.04.011.
Demiroz, Y., Onelcin, P., Alver, Y., 2015. Illegal road crossing behavior of pedestrians at overpass locations: factors affecting gap acceptance, crossing times and
overpass use. Accid. Anal. Prev. 80, 220–228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.04.018.
Dıaz, E.M., 2002. Theory of planned behavior and pedestrians’ intentions to violate traffic regulations. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 5, 169–175. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478(02)00015-3.
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. Accid. Anal. Prev. 80, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.04.002.
Downey, L.T., Saleh, W., Muley, D., Kharbeche, M., 2019. Pedestrian crashes at priority-controlled junctions, roundabouts, and signalized junctions: the UK case
study. Traffic Inj. Prev. 20, 308–313. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2019.1574972.

8
F. Zareharofteh et al. Journal of Transport & Health 21 (2021) 101058

Granà, A., 2013. Safety effects on pedestrians at urban roundabouts: an overview. Intersect. Control Saf. 66, 107.
Gross, F., Lyon, C., Persaud, B., Srinivasan, R., 2013. Safety effectiveness of converting signalized intersections to roundabouts. Accid. Anal. Prev. 50, 234–241.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.04.012.
Hamed, M., 2001. Analysis of pedestrians’ behavior at pedestrian crossings. Saf. Sci. 38, 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00058-8.
Hamidun, R., Kordi, N.E., Endut, I.R., Ishak, S.Z., 2016. Behavioral observations of crossing pedestrians at urban signalized intersections. J. Teknol. 78 https://doi.
org/10.11113/JT.V78.8481.
Harkey, D.L., Carter, D.L., 2006. Observational analysis of pedestrian, bicyclist, and motorist behaviors at roundabouts in the United States. Transport. Res. Rec. 1982,
155–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106198200120.
Hashemiparast, M., Montazeri, A., Nedjat, S., Negarandeh, R., Sadeghi, R., Hosseini, M., Garmaroudi, G., 2016. Pedestrian road-crossing behaviours: a protocol for an
explanatory mixed methods study. Global J. Health Sci. 8, 27. https://doi.org/10.5539/gjhs.v8n5p27.
King, M.J., Soole, D., Ghafourian, A., 2009. Illegal pedestrian crossing at signalised intersections: incidence and relative risk. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41, 485–490. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.01.008.
MacGregor, C., Smiley, A., Dunk, W., 1999. Identifying gaps in child pedestrian safety: comparing what children do with what parents teach. Transport. Res. Rec.
1674, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.3141/1674-05.
Moradi, A., Soori, H., Kavousi, A., Eshghabadi, F., Nematollahi, S., Zeini, S., 2017. Effective environmental factors on geographical distribution of traffic accidents on
pedestrians, downtown Tehran city. Int. J. Crit. Illn. Inj. Sci. 7, 101. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5151.207750.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration USA, 2020. Traffic Safety Facts: 2018 Data-Pedestrians, NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis. https://
crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812850. (Accessed 27 August 2020).
Nikoumaram, H., Vazifehdoust, H., Khani, S., 2009. Assessment and analysis of the effectiveness of intra-city pedestrian passing bridges (case study: Tehran).
Hoviateshahr 2, 3–12. https://www.sid.ir/en/journal/viewpaper.aspx?id=172008.
Ojo, T., Adetona, C.O., Agyemang, W., Afukaar, F.K., 2019. Pedestrian risky behavior and safety at zebra crossings in a Ghanaian metropolitan area. Traffic Inj. Prev.
20, 216–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2018.1555372.
Pawłowski, W., Goniewicz, K., Schwebel, D.C., Shen, J., Goniewicz, M., 2019. Road traffic injuries in Poland: magnitude and risk factors. Eur. J. Trauma Emerg. Surg.
1–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-019-01093-6.
Räsänen, M., Lajunen, T., Alticafarbay, F., Aydin, C., 2007. Pedestrian self-reports of factors influencing the use of pedestrian bridges. Accid. Anal. Prev. 39, 969–973.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.01.004.
Razzaghi, A.R., Salehi, A.R., Heidari, K., Zolali, F., 2014. Exploring the barriers and facilitators in using of pedestrian bridges among pedestrians: a qualitative study.
Saf. Promot. Inj. Prev. (Tehran) 2, 173–179.
Ren, G., Zhou, Z., Wang, W., Zhang, Y., Wang, W., 2011. Crossing behaviors of pedestrians at signalized intersections: observational study and survey in China.
Transport. Res. Rec. 2264, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.3141/2264-08.
Rosenbloom, T., 2009. Crossing at a red light: behaviour of individuals and groups. Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 12, 389–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
trf.2009.05.002.
Rosenbloom, T., Ben-Eliyahu, A., Nemrodov, D., 2008. Children’s crossing behavior with an accompanying adult. Saf. Sci. 46, 1248–1254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssci.2007.07.004.
Rosenbloom, T., Nemrodov, D., Barkan, H., 2004. For heaven’s sake follow the rules: pedestrians’ behavior in an ultra-orthodox and a non-orthodox city. Transport.
Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 7, 395–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2004.10.004.
Saffarzadeh, M., Hasanpour, S., Abdi, A., 2011. Analysis of pedestrian accidents in Iran. Road J. 69, 233–248. https://www.magiran.com/paper/1035408?lang=en.
Schneider, R.J., Sanders, R.L., 2015. Pedestrian safety practitioners’ perspectives of driver yielding behavior across North America. Transport. Res. Rec. 2519, 39–50.
https://doi.org/10.3141/2519-05.
Shaaban, K., Muley, D., Elnashar, D., 2018. Evaluating the effect of seasonal variations on walking behaviour in a hot weather country using logistic regression.
International Journal of Urban Sciences 22 (3), 382–391. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2017.1403363.
Şimşekoğlu, Ö., 2015. How do attitudes, personality traits, and driver behaviors relate to pedestrian behaviors? Turkish Case. Traffic Injury Prevent. 16, 84–89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2014.880785.
Thompson, L.L., Rivara, F.P., Ayyagari, R.C., Ebel, B.E., 2013. Impact of social and technological distraction on pedestrian crossing behaviour: an observational study.
Inj. Prev. 19, 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2012-040601.
Wang, W., Chen, H., Chen, P., He, W., 2018. An Analysis on Conformity Violation Road-Crossing Behavior of Students Based on Bass Model, CICTP 2017:
Transportation Reform and Change—Equity, Inclusiveness, Sharing, and Innovation. American Society of Civil Engineers Reston, VA, pp. 4420–4427.
World Health Organization, 2018. Global status report on road safety 2018: Summary. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/
10665/277370/WHO-NMH-NVI-18.20-eng.pdf. (Accessed 27 August 2020) No. WHO/NMH/NVI/18.20.
World Health Organization, 2020. Key Facts Reports for Road Traffic Injuries. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/road-traffic-injuries.
Yannis, G., Papadimitriou, E., Theofilatos, A., 2013. Pedestrian gap acceptance for mid-block street crossing. Transport. Plann. Technol. 36, 450–462. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03081060.2013.818274.
Zhang, W., Wang, K., Wang, L., Feng, Z., Du, Y., 2016. Exploring factors affecting pedestrians’ red-light running behaviors at intersections in China. Accid. Anal. Prev.
96, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.07.038.
Zhou, Z., Hu, Q., Wang, W., 2014. Modeling pedestrian’s conformity violation behavior: a complex network based approach. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 1–7. https://
doi.org/10.1155/2014/865750. Article ID 865750.
Zhu, D., Sze, N., Bai, L., 2021. Roles of personal and environmental factors in the red light running propensity of pedestrian: case study at the urban crosswalks.
Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 76, 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2020.11.001.
Zhuang, X., Wu, C., 2011. Pedestrians’ crossing behaviors and safety at unmarked roadway in China. Accid. Anal. Prev. 43, 1927–1936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2011.05.005.