대한교통학회지 (Journal of Korean Society of Transportation)

  • 제35권6호
  • /
  • Pages.499-510
  • /
  • 2017
  • /
  • 1229-1366(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-4217(eISSN)
대한교통학회 (Korean Society of Transportation)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

고령/비고령 보행자와 차량간의 상충위험도 측정연구

A Study on the Risk of Conflict between Elderly or Non-elderly Pedestrians and Vehicles

  • 장정아 (아주대학교 TOD기반 도시교통연구센터) ;
  • 이현미 (아주대학교 TOD기반 도시교통연구센터) ;
  • 최기주 (아주대학교 교통시스템공학과)
  • JANG, Jeong Ah (TOD-based Sustainable City Transportation Research Center, Ajou University) ;
  • LEE, Hyunmi (TOD-based Sustainable City Transportation Research Center, Ajou University) ;
  • CHOI, Keechoo (Department of Transportation Systems Engineering, Ajou University)
  • 투고 : 2017.10.07
  • 심사 : 2017.12.23
  • 발행 : 2017.12.31
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

2016년 우리나라 교통사고 사망자 수 4,292명 중, 노인사고 사망자 수는 1,732명에 달한다. 그럼에도, 고령 보행자의 도로횡단 특성에 대한 연구는 많지 않다. 본 연구는 보행자와 차량 간의 횡단특성을 고령 보행자 측면에서 조사 및 분석한 연구이다. 연구에서는 2개 지역, 6개 지점에 대한 횡단 조사를 실시하였으며 주요 결과를 간략히 살펴보면 다음과 같다. 첫째, 도로 횡단 시 고령자는 626건의 상충상황 중에서 528건(84.3%), 비고령자는 478건의 상충상황 중에서 303건(63.3%)이 위험상황으로 나타나, 고령자가 비고령자에 비하여 3.11배의 높은 통계적으로 유의한 위험상황에 직면하는 경향을 보였다. 둘째, 고령자의 경우 전체 626건의 상충상황 중에서 519건(82.9%)의 무단횡단이 나타났고, 비고령자의 경우 478건의 상충 상황 중에서 375건(78.5%)를 보여, 고령자가 비고령자에 비하여 1.34배의 높은 통계적으로 유의한 무단횡단 경향을 보였다. 셋째, 보행자안전간격(Pedestrian Safety Margin, PSM)을 분석결과 고령자의 PSM은 3.33초, 비고령자의 PSM은 4.04초로 고령자의 PSM은 비고령자보다 약 17.5%가 작은 경향을 보였다. 넷째, 접근하는 차량의 속도를 30km/h 이하 차량, 30-50km/h 차량, 50km/h 이상인 차량으로 나누어 보행자 안전간격의 차이를 검토해 본 결과 속도30km/h 미만 차량과 속도 30km/h 이상 50km/h 미만 차량의 PSM은 유의미한 차이를 보이지 않지만, 속도가 50km/h 이상인 차량과의 상충은 30km/h 미만과 30km/h 이상 50km/h 미만보다 PSM 이 유의미하게 작아진다. 다섯째, 위험상황의 임계치를 PSM 2.5초 이하로 설정한 경우, 고령자가 비고령자 보다 1.59-2.53배 위험하게 횡단하는 경향을 보였다. 이러한 연구 결과는 향후 고령 보행자와 비고령보행자의 횡단 행태 차이를 토대로 고령 보행자안전대책, 자율주행차량의 안전 등의 기반 연구로 활용할 수 있다.

Traffic accident fatalities in Korea in 2016 was 4,292 and 1,732 cases were deaths of elderly people. In spite of this, the researches on behaviors of the elderly when crossing roads, are rather limited. The purpose of this study is to investigate and analyze road crossing behavior characteristics of the elderly, when crossing roads, especially focusing on the characteristics of pedestrians and vehicles. Cross-sectional data was collected from six different sites in two regions and the following results was identified. First, at road crossings, 528 cases(84.3%) out of 626 conflict situations of the elderly and 303 cases(63.3%) out of 478 conflict situations of the non-elderly pedestrians were found to be dangerous, respectively. The elderly tend to face a statistically significant risk of 3.11 times higher than that of non-elderly people. Second, 519 cases(82.9%) of jaywalking occurred in 626 conflict cases of the elderly and 375 cases(78.5%) of jaywalking in 478 conflict events of non-elderly persons, which indicates the elderly's 1.34 times higher trend compared with the non-elderly's. Third, the pedestrian safety margin (PSM) analysis showed that the PSM of the elderly and the non-elderly were 3.33 seconds and 4.04 seconds respectively, which is 17.5% high. Fourth, the difference in pedestrian safety interval was examined by dividing the speed of approaching vehicle into less than 30km/h, above 30km/h and less than 50km/h, and over 50km/h. There was no significant difference between the PSM of coming vehicles with the speed less than 30km/h and the PSM of approaching with the speed 30km/h~50km/h, but the conflicts with vehicle of the speed above 50km/h show significantly lower PSM than with vehicle speed of 30km/h~50km/h. Finally, when the risk threshold is set to less than 2.5 seconds, the analysis shows that older pedestrians tend to cross roads dangerously 1.59~2.53 times than younger pedestrians. The results set forth here can be used as a basis for constructing the elderly safety measures at present and a potential basis for autonomous vehicle safety application in the future for solving the issue of the difference in crossing behavior between elderly and non-elderly pedestrians.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Brosseau M., Zangenehpour S., Saunier N., Miranda-Moreno L. (2013), The Impact of Waiting Time and Other Factors on Dangerous Pedestrian Crossings and Violations at Signalized Intersections: A Case Study in Montreal, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 21, 159-172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.09.010
  2. Chu X., Baltes M. R. (2001), Pedestrian Mid-Block Crossing Difficulty, National Center for Transit Research, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, 1-79
  3. DiPietro C. M., King L. E. (1970), Pedestrian Gap-Acceptance. Highway Research Record, 308, 80-91.
  4. Dommes A., Cavallo V., Vienne F., Aillerie I. (2012), Age-Related Differences in Street-Crossing Safety Before and After Training of Older Pedestrians, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 44(1), 42-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.12.012
  5. El-Basyouny K., Sayed T. (2013), Safety Performance Functions Using Traffic Conflicts, Safety Science, 51(1), 160-164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.04.015
  6. Hamed M. M. (2001), Analysis of Pedestrians' Behavior at Pedestrian Crossings, Safety Science, 38(1), 63-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00058-8
  7. Harrell W. A., Bereska T. (1992), Gap Acceptance by Pedestrians, Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75(2), 432-434. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1992.75.2.432
  8. Hyden C., Linderholm L. (1984), The Swedish Traffic-Conflicts Technique, In International Calibration Study of Traffic Conflict Techniques, Springer(Berlin, Heidelberg), 133-139.
  9. Jang J. A., Cho W. (2017), Road Safety Message Providing Methodology for Considering the Elderly Walking Behavior, Korea Institute of Electronic Communication Science, 12(1), 9-16.
  10. Jang J. A., Kim J. H., Choi K. C. (2016), An Investigation of Road Crossing Behaviour of Older Pedestrians at Unsignalized Crosswalk, J. Korean Soc. Transp., 34(3), Korean Society of Transportation, 207-221. https://doi.org/10.7470/jkst.2016.34.3.207
  11. Lee S. B., Chang D. J., Justin S. (2015), Relationships Between Urban Infrastructure and Travel by the Elderly: Based on the Public Transit Trip Attraction Model for Dong, J. Korean Soc. Transp., 33(3), Korean Society of Transportation, 268-275. https://doi.org/10.7470/jkst.2015.33.3.268
  12. Lobjois R., Benguigui N., Cavallo V. (2013), The Effects of Age and Traffic Density on Street-crossing Behavior, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 53, 166-175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.12.028
  13. Lobjois R., Cavallo V. (2007), Age-Related Differences in Street-Crossing Decisions: The Effects of Vehicle Speed and Time Constraints on Gap Selection in an Estimation Task, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(5), 934-943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.12.013
  14. Oudejans R. R., Michaels C. F., van Dort B., Frissen E. J. P. (1996), To Cross or Not To Cross: The Effect of Locomotion on Street-Crossing Behavior, Ecological Psychology, 8(3), 259-267. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326969eco0803_4
  15. Palamarthy S., Mahmassani H. S., Machemehl R. B. (1994), Models of Pedestrian Crossing Behavior at Signalized intersections, Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas at Austin.
  16. Papadimitriou E., Yannis G., Golias J. (2009), A Critical Assessment of Pedestrian Behaviour Models, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(3), 242-255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2008.12.004
  17. Park B. H., Yang J. M., Yin B. C. (2009), Relationship Between Traffic Accidents of Elderly Pedestrians and Barrier-Free Facilities in the Case of Cheongju, J. Korean Soc. Transp., 27(2), Korean Society of Transportation, 189-197.
  18. Park J. T., Choi B. B., Lee S. B. (2010), A Study on the Characteristics of Traffic Accidents for the Elderly Pedestrians on Rural Highways, J. Korean Soc. Transp., 28(5), Korean Society of Transportation, 155-162.
  19. Pulugurtha S. S., Krishnakumar V. K., Nambisan S. S. (2007), New Methods to Identify and Rank High Pedestrian Crash Zones: An Illustration, Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(4), 800-811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.12.001
  20. Roh C. G., Park B. J., Moon B. S. (2015), Development of Elderly Walking Independence Index Model, J. Korean Soc. Transp., 32(4), Korean Society of Transportation, 348-356.
  21. Sacchi E., Sayed T. (2013), A Comparison of Collision-Based and Conflict-Based Safety Evaluations: The Case of Right-Turn Smart Channels. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, 260-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.06.002
  22. Sarkar S., Tay R., Hunt J. (2011), Logistic Regression Model of Risk of Fatality in Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes on National Highways in Bangladesh, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2264, 128-137. https://doi.org/10.3141/2264-15
  23. Shirazi M. S., Morris B. (2015), Observing Behaviors at Intersections: A Review of Recent Studies & Developments, IEEE In Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 1258-1263.
  24. Statistics Korea, Korean Statistical Information Service, Population Census, http://kostat.go.kr, 2017.9.30.
  25. Strandroth J., Rizzi M., Sternlund S., Lie A., Tingvall C. (2011), The Correlation Between Pedestrian Injury Severity in Real-Life Crashes and Euro NCAP Pedestrian Test Results, Traffic Injury Prevention, 12(6), 604-613. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2011.607198
  26. Zhao H., Yang G., Zhu F., Jin X., Begeman P., Yin Z. et al. (2013), An Investigation on the Head Injuries of Adult Pedestrians by Passenger Cars in China, Traffic Injury Prevention, 14(7), 712-717. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2012.752574
  27. Zito G. A., Cazzoli D., Scheffler L., Jager M., Muri R. M., Mosimann U. P. et al. (2015), Street Crossing Behavior in Younger and Older Pedestrians: An Eye-and Head-Tracking Study, BMC Geriatrics, 15(1), 176. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0175-0