exploring how mobile technologies impact pedestrian safety
TRANSCRIPT
Exploring How Mobile TechnologiesImpact Pedestrian Safety
Research team:Nikki ZeichnerPhoenix PerryMiranda Sita
Laura BarberaTim Nering
by the Integrated Digital Media program at the Polytechnic School of Engineeringof New York University
April 2014NYC Media Lab Research Brief
Prepared for AT&T
This paper was prepared for AT&T as part of a NYC Media Lab Open Seed Project with NYU
Polytechnic School of Engineering’s Integrated Digital Media Program.
Launched by a consortium including the New York City Economic Development Corporation, NYU
and Columbia University, NYC Media Lab is a public-private partnership that connects companies
with university R&D, faculty and students. AT&T is a charter corporate member of NYC Media Lab.
For more information, visit http://nycmedialab.org.
Cover photo by Jeremy Cox of Flickr (jeremywcox).
For more information, visit http://nycmedialab.org.
Table of contents
Summary
The Intersection of Mobile Device Use and Pedestrian Safety
What Sets New York City Apart
New York City’s Response
Research on Mobile Device Use by Distracted Pedestrians
Opportunities to Improve Traffic Safety with Mobile Technologies
Conclusion
References
1
2
4
5
8
9
14
15
This paper provides software
and mobile device developers
with an overview of recent
applications of mobile
technologies addressing
traffic safety.
This paper provides software and mobile device
developers with an overview of recent applications of
mobile technologies addressing traffic safety. It also
spotlights potential solutions mobile technologies can
contribute to improving safety conditions on New York
City streets.
Summary
Consumer adoption of mobile devices has
skyrocketed, changing the way people behave in many
environments, including on city streets. Much of the
emphasis of governments, advocacy organizations,
researchers and technologists concerned with the
safety implications of mobile device use in traffic has
rightly focused on the behavior of drivers, and, in
particular, the dangers of texting while driving.
Research examining texting while driving is bountiful
and the findings unequivocally demonstrate hazards.
More recently, there is also a growing body of research
and evidence that supports the claim that pedestrians
may be increasing traffic safety risks by walking in
traffic while focused on their smart phone.
The research team approached smart phone use and
traffic safety from a technological perspective: How might
mobile technologies make pedestrians in urban areas
safer, especially to mitigate smart phone distraction and
to increase pedestrians’ environmental connectedness
and what opportunities exist for technological solutions
to complement the efforts of governments, advocacy
organizations and businesses to reduce injuries and
deaths.
This paper outlines the impact of vehicle-pedestrian
crashes, provides a synopsis of the city’s approach to
traffic safety, examines research on hazards of mobile
device use by distracted pedestrians, and reviews
technologies leveraging smart phones and wireless
networks that aim to empower pedestrians and reduce
driver distraction.
1
The Intersection of Mobile Device Use and Pedestrian Safety
The number of mobile phones in the U.S. has
increased from 340,000 in 1985 to 302.9 million in
2010.1 Rapidly increasing mobile phone use has
been linked with dangerous, distracted driving.
According to the U.S. Center for Disease Control and
Prevention, nine people are killed and more than 1,060
are injured every day in the U.S. due to distracted
driving.2 The CDC defines three types of distraction
– visual, manual, and cognitive. It recognizes
that texting while driving is “especially dangerous
because it combines all three types of distraction.”3
While fatalities attributed to texting while driving
is imprecise, the category “driver inattention” was
“Driver inattention” was cited
by NYPD as the cause of
about a third of all crashes,
beating the next category by
more than 2 to 1.
< 16
16 - 20
21 - 25
26 - 30
31 - 35
36 - 40
41 - 45
46 - 50
51 - 55
56 - 60
61 - 65
> 65PedestriansDrivers
160511
1429985
12541003
556305
453314
359342
310562
404452
358137
31091
15287
271493
National Estimates of Cases
Age
Gro
up
Figure 1: CPSC National Estimates (total from 2004-2010) of injuries related to cellphone use by pedestrians (n=5482) and drivers (n=5879).5
cited by the New York City Police Department as the
cause of about a third of all crashes, beating the next
category by more than 2 to 1.4
2
Pedestrian casualties from car crashes in NYC
Table 1: Car/Pedestrian Crashes, 2006-20138
YEAR CRASHES INJURIES DEATHS
2006 10,958 10,744 156
2007 11,035 10,859 135
2008 10,973 10,722 151
2009 10,715 10,433 158
2010 11,266 11,084 149
2011 10,794 10,660 143
2012 10,925 10,809 135
2013 14,8457 Not released
In 2011, Transportation Alternatives and the Drum
Major Institute for Public Policy co-authored a report,
“Walking in Traffic Violence: Pervasiveness of Motor
Vehicle Crashes with Pedestrians in New York City,”
to draw attention to the overall dangers faced by
pedestrians.6 The report argued that, in New York
City, pedestrian injuries and fatalities due to crashes
with cars remain high compared to rates in similar,
densely populated cities. “New Yorkers are twice as
likely to be killed in a car crash as in Berlin, Tokyo,
or Paris.”7 The New York State Department of Motor
Vehicles reports little change in recent years in the
rates of pedestrian injuries and deaths in New York
City resulting from crashes with cars, with a significant
increase in the number of crashes in 2013 (Table 1).
To reduce injuries from distracted driving, states
and the federal government have passed legislation
banning phone use while driving.10 In 2010, the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration banned commercial
vehicle drivers from texting while driving.11 And, in
2009 AT&T launched the “It Can Wait” campaign to
spread awareness about the dangers of mobile device
use while driving and to encourage teen drivers to
sign the “It Can Wait” pledge. Sprint, T-Mobile and
Verizon joined AT&T’s effort, which has yielded over 4
million pledges and a widespread education campaign
throughout high schools across the United States.
Working together, these companies have deployed
social media, multimedia content production and mobile
apps to maximize the campaign’s reach.12
3
What Sets New York City Apart
New York City is the only U.S. city where over half of
all households do not own a car.13 With the exception
of Portland, Oregon, pedestrians in New York City are
safer here than in any other major city in the United
States.14 Despite the city’s prominent pedestrian
culture and history of strategic transportation planning
designed to empower pedestrians and ensure their
safety, pedestrian safety remains a critical issue. In
2012, New York City experienced 10,925 crashes
between pedestrians and cars.15
Although the New York City Department of
Transportation reported a reduction in traffic fatalities
of 35% from 2001 to 2012, a recent study of vehicle-
pedestrian crashes between 2007 and 2010 by
researchers at Hunter College suggests that injuries
of this kind in New York City are, in fact, grossly
underreported, and that pedestrians face more danger
than the numbers may indicate.16
Researchers have begun to investigate the direct
relationship between mobile device use and pedestrian
injuries in New York City. In one study, researchers found
that of the 1,400 pedestrian and cyclist injuries treated at
New York’s Bellevue Hospital Center between 2008 and
2011, “[a]bout 8 percent of both pedestrians and cyclists
said they were injured while using an electronic device,
including a cellphone or music player.
For victims ages 7 to 17, the numbers climbed to more
than 10 percent of pedestrians and nearly 30 percent of
cyclists.”17 According to American College of Surgeons,
“nearly one in five patients ages 13 to 17 were sending
text messages, listening to music, or otherwise distracted
by a mobile device at the time of their accident.”18
4
New York City’s Response
The relatively consistent number of pedestrian injuries
and fatalities in New York City between 2006 and
2012 comes despite the Bloomberg administration’s
numerous pedestrian-friendly projects, programs, and
research around traffic and pedestrian safety in the
City during this time. 19
In August 2010, Mayor Bloomberg, along with then
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and then
DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, issued a
comprehensive study of street safety in New York,
based on data gathered pursuant to the amendment
of Local Law 11 in April 2008.20 This report examined
7,000 vehicle-pedestrian crash records and concluded
that “…speeding, running red lights and failure to
yield” were main causes of serious pedestrian crashes
with vehicles in New York City.21
Based on these findings, the DOT undertook
numerous steps to calm traffic in neighborhoods
in midtown Manhattan. Left-turn visibility was
improved, countdown signals were installed at
pedestrian crossings, and streets and intersections
were comprehensively re-engineered with the goal of
improving pedestrian safety. The city at this time also
launched an anti-speeding campaign to raise safety
awareness among motorists and restricted traffic in
some residential neighborhoods to a 20 mile-per-hour
speed limit.
Again, in September 2012, in response to growing
awareness of pedestrian distraction, the New York City
Department of Transportation launched the LOOK!
Safety Campaign. Through outdoor advertising and
messages on crosswalks, this campaign aimed to
influence pedestrian behavior by providing visual cues
at intersections.
The campaign was modeled after a similar campaign
in London that was designed to alert tourists to traffic
hazards.23 The London campaign, like New York City’s,
deployed simple, clear messaging to mitigate risk-taking
behavior on the part of pedestrians when in proximity
to vehicular traffic. Contextual research around the
London campaign focused on a series of key findings
around “risk-taking” behavior. In its research, Transport
for London, distinguished between behaviors based on
intent and perception of risk. They found that “intentional
risk-taking as a pedestrian is… more likely if people
LOOK! Campaign Message, 2012.22
5
Crossingbetweenstationary
traffic
Takinga photo
Ignoring barriers Crossing
on red
Crossingbetweenmoving traffic
Crossinghalfway
First stepfree
Talkingwith friends
Avoidingobstructions
Herding
Figure 2: Intentionality and Perception of Risk. Transport for London Report.25
do not believe that there is a high likelihood of any
undesirable consequences happening. The end result is
that they perceive their behavior as being relatively low
risk.”24
These intentional, high-risk actions are highly influenced
by social cues, e.g. tourist areas where jaywalking
behavior is highly present, or safety barriers are routinely
ignored.
6
Low perceived risk High perceived risk
Intentional
Unintentional
Mayor Bill de Blasio took
office and reaffirmed
his intention to make
pedestrian safety
a “central focus” of
his newly-elected
administration and quickly
produced a “Vision Zero”
Action Plan that outlined a
series of policy initiatives
directly aimed at improving
pedestrian safety on New
York City streets.
LOOK! complements other DOT campaigns on road
safety that have been launched since 2006 (“Heads
Up”, “That’s Why It’s 30”, “You The Man”).26 These
campaigns are intended to work in tandem with
engineering-oriented approaches recommended by the
2010 DOT action plan, including approaches such as:
As a candidate for office in 2013, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed
onto the “Vision Zero” traffic safety project to reduce traffic
fatalities by 100%.28 Weeks after he took office, and prompted
by widely publicized pedestrian fatalities in early 2014, the
Mayor reaffirmed his intention to make pedestrian safety
a “central focus” of his newly-elected administration29 and
quickly produced a “Vision Zero” Action Plan that outlined
a series of policy initiatives directly aimed at improving
pedestrian safety on New York City streets.30
The “Vision Zero” proposals supplement the 2010 New York
City DOT plan with additional law enforcement initiatives,
legislative measures, engineering proposals, and city
government response protocols, as well as a new series of
outreach, education, and engagement initiatives to improve
pedestrian safety. The proposal calls for a permanent task
force in the Mayor’s Office of Operations to synchronize and
promote these initiatives. The “Vision Zero” plan promotes
a multi-agency, synergistic effort to combat pedestrian
injury and fatality through a wide variety of comprehensive
mitigation strategies.
• Crossing countdown signals;
• Barriers at high-risk intersections;
• Road engineering for maximum bilateral visibility;
• Multi-modal solutions (e.g., auditory feedback as a
crossing indicator).27
7
As vehicle-pedestrian crashes are overwhelmingly
attributed to driver-caused hazards such as speeding,
intoxication and distraction,31 policymakers, traffic
safety advocates, and mobile carriers have rightly
focused on mobile phone use and texting as a lethal
source of distraction for drivers. Yet, pedestrian smart
phone distraction has recently attracted attention and
led researchers to explore the relationship between
pedestrian mobile device use and injury. Some recent
research includes:
Research on Mobile Device Use by Distracted Pedestrians
proposed New York law that would have made it a crime to
“enter and cross a crosswalk while engaging in the use of an
electronic device.”
• A 2009 study in the Journal of the American Academy
of Pediatrics examined the influence of talking on a cell
phone for pedestrian injury risk in youths, and found that
participants aged 10-11 were less attentive to traffic, did not
leave a safe amount of time to cross, and experienced more
collisions and close calls when using a cell phone than test
subjects who did not.33
• A 2011 study by researchers in the Department of
Psychology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham
considered how talking on the phone, texting and listening
to music impact crossing the street, using college students
as test subjects.34 This study found in particular that “texting,
which involves not only communication interchanges but
also reading and typing, may be more cognitively distracting
and demanding than talking.” It also found that all of these
behaviors distract from the crossing environment and lead
to higher risk of injury.
• A 2007 study from researchers including Jack
Nasar, then of Brooklyn Polytechnic, looked at
mobile phones, distracted attention and pedestrian
safety. They found that “mobile phone users crossed
unsafely into oncoming traffic significantly more”
than other observed groups. The study found that
“For pedestrians as with drivers, cognitive distraction
from mobile phone use reduces situation awareness,
increases unsafe behavior, putting pedestrians
at greater risk for accidents.”32 This study cites a
8
• A similar 2012 study examined the ways in which
gait velocity and trajectory changed for walkers when
interacting with the screen on a mobile device.35 This
small-scale experiment measured the movement of
33 university students as students texted on smart
devices while moving through an obstacle course.
The participants who texted while walking moved
33 percent slower and deviated from their intended
course 61 percent more often than those who did not
use their phones.36
They sampled injury reports from 100 national hospitals and
produced estimates of pedestrian mobile phone use-related
injuries reported at 3,800 hospitals throughout the U.S.38 They
found that the number of pedestrian injuries due to pedestrian
mobile phone use had increased from 506 injuries in 2004 to
1506 injuries in 2010. If injuries continue to increase at the
same rate, the researchers predicted over 3,000 injuries per
year by 2015.39 Researchers also noted that injuries are likely
greater than reported by the NEISS data. “Many people who
suffer an injury may not go to the emergency room; they may
go to their primary care doctor, not go to a doctor, may not
report the cell phone as the cause, or may die (newspapers
report incidents of pedestrian mobile phone users getting hit
and killed by cars, busses and trains).”40 Sixteen to twenty-
five year olds were most impacted by distracted walking.41
• A 2013 study by researchers at Ohio State
University examines the causal relationship between
pedestrian use of mobile devices and pedestrian
injuries.37 These authors use data from 2004 to 2010
from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System
(NEISS), a database of hospital data maintained by
the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission.
Opportunities to Improve Traffic Safety with Mobile Technologies
New smartphone-based approaches to improve traffic
safety using technological and design-based solutions
have the potential to reduce smart phone distraction
and increase pedestrian safety in urban areas. Some
solutions complement increased enforcement and
penalties for using mobile devices while driving by
integrating the mobile device into the city’s dynamic
street traffic ecosystem.
New smartphone-based approaches
to improving traffic safety [have]
the potential to reduce smart phone
distraction and increase pedestrian
safety in urban areas.
9
These technologies have the potential to increase
environmental awareness, yet each presents
opportunities and shortcomings:
• Apps that rely on camera technology to increase
ability to see ahead;
• Velocity-detectors that silence alerts from incoming
texts when a smart phone is in motion;
• Apps and wearable devices deploying Natural
User Interface principles;42
• Sensor-based technologies to warn pedestrians of
oncoming traffic;43
• Enabling communication between mobile devices
and vehicles;
By enabling the user to see more, camera-based and
motion-sensing Kinect-based technologies in their
current formats may actually increase distraction by
demanding more focus on the device. (Kinect is a
motion-controlled technology used in gaming consoles
and smart phones.) For example, Type N Walk44, and
Walk N Text for Android45, use a mobile device’s
camera to replace the full screen background image
on a smart phone with live video of the environment
ahead. The texting surface is displayed on top of the
live video. Scientists at the University of Manitoba
used Kinect to create CrashAlert, a tablet that warns
texters of obstacles that are within six feet.46 Critics of
these apps note that pedestrians still must look up to
see obstacles. 47
Kinect-based technologies in their
current formats may actually increase
distraction by demanding more focus
on the device.
10
Velocity-sensing technology can effectively reduce
distraction for drivers but cannot distinguish between
drivers and passengers in a vehicle, nor can it ascertain
smart phone users riding public transportation. AT&T’s
DriveMode48 app for Android and Blackberry uses a
smart phone’s velocimeter to detect motion greater
than 25 mile-per-hour. When exceeding this speed, the
app sends a customizable auto-reply away message
in response to incoming texts and email messages
and can be set to disable the phone’s touch screen
and audio alerts. This approach is positive since it
eliminates sensory cues that invite distraction but
users may avoid the inconvenience of disabling the
app to adjust to diverse traffic conditions encountered
in urban areas.
Velocity-sensing technology can
effectively reduce distraction for
drivers but cannot distinguish
between drivers and passengers
in a vehicle, nor can it ascertain
smart phone users riding public
transportation.
Another approach to ensure pedestrians are
connected with their surroundings is deploying
Natural User Interface (NUI) design principles
so the smart phone interface does not interfere
with walking and negotiating intersections.
To better understand users and the functionality that
users expect of the smart phone interface, developers
should consider four elements that influence design:
(1) the user; (2) the task; (3) the device; and (4) the
environment. 49 Instead of the device separating people from
11
NUI solutions can help
pedestrians stay alert and
use their smart phone by
incorporating wearable
devices that extend smart
phone functionality to
apparel and gesture based
technologies.
their surroundings, NUI challenges developers to
understand why people use their devices in certain
environments then create interfaces with fewer
distractions and potential impairments to safety.50
NUI solutions can help pedestrians stay alert and use
their smart phone without engaging with the mobile
device itself by incorporating wearable devices that
extend smart phone functionality to apparel and
gesture based technologies that require swipes and
not keystrokes.
12
Perhaps the most promising traffic safety technology
under development deploys wireless communications
to directly connect drivers with pedestrians.
General Motors developed vehicle technology that
communicates with smart phones within 200 yards
using the WiFi Direct protocol. The system is integrated
with vehicle sensors, and when triggered, will alert the
driver to oncoming pedestrians.51 Honda is developing
similar vehicle and smart phone linking systems using
dedicated short-range communications (DSRC).52
These vehicle-to-pedestrian technologies originated
with the U.S. Department of Transportation Connected
Vehicle research and development initiative53 that
aims to tap existing wireless networks, network
connected vehicles and smart phones to give drivers
a “360-degree awareness of hazards and situations
they cannot even see.”54
Vehicle-to-pedestrian technologies [aim] to tap existing wireless networks, network connected vehicles and smart phones to give drivers a “360-degree awareness of hazards and situations they cannot even see.”
13
Conclusion
The rapid ascent of smart phones in every corner of
daily life has positively and adversely changed the
way people move through urban spaces. For drivers,
using a smart phone in a vehicle is irresponsible
and increasingly regarded by policy markers and
the public as criminal. Pedestrians, whose life can
depend on the behavior of drivers, are unquestionably
safer at New York City intersections when they heed
the New York City DOT’s advice and LOOK! Yet,
as researchers and most smart phone users know,
despite mounting evidence of the hazardous impact
of smart phone use in traffic, mobile devices can
prove irresistible, and for use by pedestrians on
streets, may demand natural user interfaces that
enable pedestrians to stay alert and focused on their
surroundings. Conversely, smart phone technology
itself may facilitate improved traffic safety when
integrated with the diverse ecosystem of New York
City streets since the smart phone is frequently a
Pedestrians, whose life can depend on the behavior of drivers, are unquestionably safer at New York City intersections when they heed the New York City DOT’s advice and LOOK!
common denominator among pedestrians, cyclists and
drivers alike. These technologies deserve further refinement,
demand new innovation and depend on public acceptance
and wide-scale adoption for the promise of technological
smart phone based solutions to meaningfully contribute to
reducing traffic injuries and fatalities.
14
References
15
1 The Wireless Association. Pedestrian Injuries Due to Mobile Phone Use in Public Spaces citing CTIA. n.p., 2011. Web. <http://facweb.knowlton.ohio-state.edu/jnasar/crpinfo/research/AAP3092Accidents_Final2013.pdf>
2 Center for Disease Control. “Distracted Driving.” CDC, n.d. Web. <http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/distracted_driving/>
3 Ibid.
4 New York City Mayor’s Office (New York). Mayor Bloomberg, Speaker Quinn and Transportation Commissioner Sadik-Khan Release City’s Most Comprehensive Pedestrian Safety Study to Date and Announce Installation of 1,500 Pedestrian Countdown Signals Across the City. PR-356-10, 2010. Web. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc_ped_safety_study_action_plan.pdf >
5 Consumer Products Safety Commission. National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) Dataset. CPSC, 2013. Web. <http://www.cpsc.gov/en/Research--Statistics/NEISS-Injury-Data/>
6 Transportation Alternatives. Walking in Traffic Violence: Pervasiveness of Motor Vehicle Crashes with Pedestrians in New York City. n.p., 2011. Web. <http://transalt.org/files/news/reports/2011/Community_Board_Traffic_Violence_Report.pdf>
7 Ibid.
8 Aaron, Brad. “Bratton’s Bad Data on Pedestrian Injuries Won’t Get Us to Vision Zero.” Streetsblog 16 Jan. 2014, Web. <http://www.streetsblog.org/2014/01/16/brattons-bad-data-on-pedestrian-injuries-wont-get-us-to-vision-zero/>
9 Transportation Alternatives. Walking in Traffic Violence.
10 New York. Use of mobile telephones. New York, §1225-c. Web. <http://www.safeny.ny.gov/phon-vt.htm>
11 National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration. “Regulations.” NHTSA, n.d. Web. <http://www.distraction.gov/content/dot-action/regulations.html>
12 AT&T. It Can Wait. n.p., n.d. Web. <http://www.itcanwait.com>
13 Office of Transportation Policy and Strategy, NYS Department of Transportation. “New York Household Travel Patterns: A Compara-tive Analysis.” US DOT, 2001. Web. <http://info.ornl.gov/sites/publications/files/Pub4859.pdf>
14 NYC Department of Transportation. The New York City Pedestrian Safety Study and Action Plan. NYC DOT, 2010. Web. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc_ped_safety_study_action_plan.pdf>
15 New York State Department of Motor Vehicles. “Summary of New York City Motor Vehicle Crashes”. NYS DMV, n.d. Web. <http://dmv.ny.gov/sites/default/files/legacy_files/statistics/2012nyc.pdf>
16 Tuckel, Peter, and Milczarski , William. Pedestrian-Cyclist Accidents in New York State: 2007 – 2010. Hunter College, CUNY, Sep-tember 2011. Web. <http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/communications/repository/files/Pedestrian%20Cyclist%20Accidents_3.pdf>
17 Flegenheimer, Matt. “Crosswalks in New York Are Not Havens, Study Finds.” April 2, 2013. New York Times. Retreived at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/03/nyregion/study-details-injuries-to-pedestrians-and-cyclists-in-new-york-city.html
18 American College of Surgeons (2012). “Pedestrian accidents are more severe for seniors and more preventable for young people: Trauma surgeons examine injury differences, supervision, and mobile device use in pedestrian collisions with motor vehicles.” Press Release, October 1, 2012.
19 Ibid.
16
20 New York City (New York). A Local Law to amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to pedestrian safety. [New York, NY:] City Council [2008]. Web. <http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=447127&GUID=F8B7D92C-D55C-4BC6-B102-453292D61CA5>
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid.
23 Transport for London (2010). “Visitor Road Safety.” Retrieved from: http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/visitor-pedestri-an-safety-final-report.pdf
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 DOT Press Release on “LOOK!”. Retrieved at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pr2012/pr12_46.shtml
27 DOT, 2010. “The New York City Pedestrian Safety Study & Action Plan.” Retrieved at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc_ped_safety_study_action_plan.pdf
28 City of New York. “Vision Zero”. NYC. n.d. Web. <http://www.nyc.gov/html/visionzero/pages/home/home.html>
29 Goodman, David J., and Flegenheimer, Matt. “De Blasio Announces Steps to Reduce Traffic Deaths.” New York Times 16 Jan. 2014. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/nyregion/de-blasio-announces-steps-to-reduce-traffic-deaths.html>
30 City of New York, 2014. “Vision Zero Action Plan.” Retrieved at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/visionzero/pdf/nyc-vision-zero-action-plan.pdf
31 Aaron, Brad. STREETSBLOG NYC. Retrieved at: http://www.streetsblog.org/2013/03/18/dot-speeding-the-leading-cause-of-nyc-traf-fic-deaths-in-2012/
32 Hecht, Peter, Nasar, Jack, and Wener, Richard. “Mobile phones, distracted attention, and pedestrian safety.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2008. 40:69-75
33 Stavrinos, Despina, Byington, Katherine, and Schwebel, David. “Effect of Cell Phone Distraction on Pediatric Pedestrian Injury Risk.” Pediatrics, 2009. 123:179
34 Schwebel, David, Stavrinos, Despina, Byington, Katherine, et al. “Distraction and pedestrian safety: How talking on the phone, tex-ting and listening impact crossing the street.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2012. 45:266-271
35 Lamberg, Eric M., and Lisa M. Muratori. “Cell Phones Change the Way We Walk.” Gait & Posture, Volume 35, Issue 4 pp 688 – 690 (2012) Retrieved at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22226937
36 Ibid.
37 Nasar, Jack, and Troyer, Derek. “Pedestrian Injuries Due to Mobile Phone Use in Urban Spaces.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 21 Mar. 2013. Web. <http://facweb.knowlton.ohio-state.edu/jnasar/crpinfo/research/AAP3092Accidents_Final2013.pdf>
38 Ibid.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
41 Ibid.
17
42 Wigdor, Daniel and Dennis Wixon. “Brave NUI World: Designing Natural User Interfaces for Touch and Gesture.” Burlington: 2011.
43 See WalkSafe, an app developed by researchers at Dartmouth College and University of Bologna that uses the device’s camera to identify oncoming traffic and sends text or vibration warnings. Grifantini, Kristina. “Smart-phone App Warns Pedestrians of Oncoming Cars.” November 28, 2011. MIT Technology Review. See also CrashAlert, which relies on Kinect technology to warn texting pedestri-ans of objects ahead. Soper, Taylor. “This App Uses Kinect Technology to Prevent You from Running into Things While Texting.” May 31, 2013. GeekWire.
44 “Head’s Up! Texting and Walking: There’s an App for That. Gajitz. Retrieved at: http://gajitz.com/heads-up-texting-and-walking-theres-an-app-for-that/ 45 Ibid.
46 Danigelis, Alyssa. “Crash Alert App Clears Way to Walk and Text.” Discovery News, April 26, 2013. Retrieved at: http://news.discov-ery.com/tech/apps/crashalert-app-clears-way-to-walk-and-text-130426.htm
47 Ibid. 48 Ibid.
49 Blake, Joshua. “Introduction to Natural User Interfaces (NUI) and Kinect.” Retrieved at http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/k4wdev/Introduction-to-Natural-User-Interfaces-NUI-and-Kinect.
50 Lim, Ji Jung and Cary Feria. “Visual Search on a Mobile Device while Walking” (2012) Master’s Thesis. Paper 4145, Lamberg, Eric M., and Lisa M. Muratori. “Cell Phones Change the Way We Walk.” vGait & Posture, Volume 35, Issue 4 pp 688 – 690 (2012).
51 See Vehicle-to-Pedestrian “system that alerts drivers to the presence of pedestrians, cyclists, road construction workers and others who have a high chance of coming in contact with a moving vehicle.” Newcomb, Doug. “How Your Smartphone Could Stop a Car From Running You Over.” July 27, 2012. Wired.
52 See Vehicle-to-Pedestrian, which “uses a smartphone’s GPS and dedicated short range communications (DSRC) to warn drivers when a pedestrian steps out from behind a parked car or other obstruction. A light flashes on the dashboard to tell the driver of an ap-proaching pedestrian, while the hapless walker gets an alert on their smartphone.” Lavrinc, Damon. “Honda Thinks Smartphones Can Save Pedestrians From Bad Drivers.” September 3, 2013. Wired.
53 Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. “Connected Vehicle.” US DOT, 2014. Web. <http://www.its.dot.gov/safety_pilot/index.htm>
54 Ibid.