THE EFFECTS OF MOBILE ELECTRONIC DEVICE USE

IN INFLUENCING PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

BEHAVIOUR

Mohd Syazwan Solah

Introduction
Pedestrian safety is a crucial issue in modern
countries i.e Europe, US & Japan, but rarely
highlighted in Malaysia.
Even though the percentage is smaller
compared to motorcycle-related accidents,
amount of road accidents involving pedestrians
in Malaysia is a serious concern.
Create attention
3 Introduction: contd.
Pedestrian fatalities in Southeast Asia, 2015
Deaths by
Registered Reported Road
Southeast Asia Population for Pedestrian
Vehicles Traffic Fatalities
Country 2015 (Count) Category
(Count) (Count)
(Proportion)1
Laos DPR 1,439.481 6,769,727 910 10%
Malaysia 23,819,256 29,716,965 6,915 7%
Myanmar 4,310,112 53,259,018 3612 26%
Philippines 7,690,038 98,393,574 1,513 19%
Singapore 974,170 5,411,737 159 27 %
Thailand 32,476,977 67,010,502 14,059 8%
Vietnam 40,790,841 91,679,733 9,156 -
Cambodia 2,457,569 15,135,169 1950 13%
Brunei 304,432 390,056 54 9.2 %
Indonesia 104,211,132 249,865,610 26,460 21 %
Timor-Leste2 63,553 1,132,979 74 -
Malaysia situation -Fatality rate by road
user (2010-2014)
 Aqbal H. et al (2010) revealed that the significant factors
that led to a noticeably higher risk of pedestrian
mortality and severe injury (KSI) were:
Being male,
Aged 65 years old and above,
Injury severity- Leg/hip follow by head,
A collision with a HGV or a bus,
Occurred at 1) straight road 2)Crossing the
road/junction,
During dawn/dusk or dark-unlit condition, and
During weekends.
Factors related to pedestrians-vehicle
accident
Video
 How pedestrian distracted ?

Visual eyes off road

Auditory more
relevant to pedestrian
crossing road that for
driving surrounding
sound effect
Physical holding
gadget, bags;
eating/drinking
Cognitive mind off
crossing focus on
other activity
 Distraction among pedestrian lead to..

Delay the response time

noncompliance of traffic rules
Tripping
Unsafe behaviour
Risk of accident
Objectives

determine the magnitude of the mobile

phone distraction among the pedestrians
in Malaysia.
To investigate behaviour among
distracted mobile phone user.
1) Field Observation
Sample and site selection
Focus at Kelang Valley (signalized and non-signalized intersection) \
Site selection based on accident prone intersection and high volume
of pedestrian crossing
This study, based on observation survey conducted to determine the
characteristics of pedestrian while crossing
Observation time : These observations were conducted :
morning -8:00am to 10:00am, evening-12pm-2pm (weekdays
The behavioural observations were achieved using a video observations
Video observations -The study utilised digital video recorders
mounted at selected sites.
Limitation : However, at sites with very high pedestrian volumes, might
be a few variable can be miss-out.
 Result - Pedestrians Characteristics
Characteristics n %
Gender

Male 226 60.3

Female 149 39.7

Type of distractions
Drinking/eating 17 4.5
Mobile phone usage 318 84.8
Reading 18 4.8
Others e.g. smoking, talking 22 5.9

Crossing at designated crossing (zebra crossing)

Yes 256 68.3
No 119 31.7
 Result - Usage of mobile phone modes
by gender
Gender Female Male

Mode of usage Yes No Yes No

Hands-free (conversing or listening to music) 65 63 66 124

Handheld (Conversing) 25 103 62 128

Application usage (texting, gaming etc.) 38 90 62 128

 Result - Unsafe pedestrian behaviour by type of
distractions
Unsafe pedestrians behaviour

OR 95% CI p-value

Not crossing at designated area:

Hands-free (conversing or listening to music) 0.876 0.540 to 1.420 0.590

Handheld (conversing) 0.839 0.489 to 1.439 0.523

Application usage (texting, gaming etc.) 0.906 0.542 to 1.514 0.707

Not observe right and left prior to crossing:

Hands-free (conversing or listening to music) 0.587 0.351 to 0.981 0.041

Handheld (conversing) 1.500 0.882 to 2.551 0.1331

Application usage (texting, gaming etc.) 1.708 1.025 to 2.848 0.038

Not look left or right during crossing:

Hands-free (conversing or listening to music) 1.078 0.689 to 1.687 0.742

Handheld (conversing) 1.539 0.938 to 2.526 0.870

Application usage (texting, gaming etc.) 1.674 1.039 to 2.697 0.034

 Result cont

Unsafe pedestrians behaviour

OR 95% CI p-value

Crossing before car completely stop:

Hands-free (conversing or listening to music) 0.489 0.311 to 0.770 0.002

Handheld (conversing) 0.764 0.446 to 1.253 0.286

Application usage (texting, gaming etc.) 0.785 0.488 to1.261 0.319

Not walk straight during crossing :

Hands-free (conversing or listening to music) 0.228 0.141 to 0.369 0.000

Handheld (conversing) 1.871 1.132 to 3.092 0.014

Application usage (texting, gaming etc.) 1.951 1.204 to3.161 0.006

 Result - Average crossing time for
different type of distractions
Average time to cross
Average time
Mode of usage (second)
to cross (second)
Male Female

Hands-free (conversing/listening to 14.06 13.66 14.54

music)

Handheld (Conversing) 14.49 14.74 13.88

Application usage (texting, gaming etc.) 15.96 16.46 15.13

 Conclusion
Use of mobile phones while crossing the road can be
broadly considered as one of the distractions among
the pedestrians.
Result shows that mobile phone application usage
mode has a significant effect in term of crossing
speed.
Also, it revealed that the mobile phone distractions
had caused them to not walk in a relatively straight
path and it will pose more risks while crossing.
Distracted pedestrian influence walking speed-slow
reaction time & gait.
 Recommendations
As supporting information (or evidence) for Malaysian
Government in addressing regulation related to
pedestrian safety for Malaysian traffic condition
As awareness among Malaysian road users on
pedestrian-related accident issues (or pedestrian
safety).