Аннотация:fornia from 1995 through 1999.The authors concluded that "crosswalk markings alone may do little to protect older pedestrians [from] being struck by a motor vehicle as they cross the street at an urban intersection."Koepsell et al also reported that the benefit of crosswalk markings on the risk of injuries to older pedestrians was limited to those intersections that lacked a vehicle stop sign (15% for case and 18% for control sites).Koepsell et al ruled out the possibility that their results could be explained by later painting of the crosswalks after the collisions had occurred.It is unclear, however, whether the collision sites had been marked before the study period because they were already known to have a higher risk of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians.Indeed, a recent study 2 provides evidence of clusters of pedestrian-motor vehicle collisions at intersections of major arteries and corridors.It is possible that the reported association between crosswalk markings may reflect the higher traffic density and past experience of injury risk leading to the need of the crosswalk markings in the first place.Koepsell et al also found little effect of devices such as warning signs or speed humps.A more effective approach to the prevention of injuries might be to lower vehicle speed and to divert the traffic flow away from intersections frequented by pedestrians.
