| Title |
Pedestrian Behavior at Five Dangerous and Busy Manhattan Intersections
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Community Health, February 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10900-015-0001-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Corey H. Basch, Danna Ethan, Patricia Zybert, Charles E. Basch |
| Abstract |
Technology-related distracted behavior is an emergent national concern. Listening to, looking at or talking into an electronic device while walking divides attention, increasing the risk of injury. The purpose of this study was to quantify technology-related distracted pedestrian behavior at five dangerous and busy Manhattan intersections. Data were collected over ten cycles of signal changes at each of the four corners of five intersections at four times of day. Data for 'Walk' and 'Don't Walk' signals were tallied separately. A total of 21,760 pedestrians were observed. Nearly one-third crossing on a 'Walk' signal (n = 5414, 27.8 %), and nearly half crossing on a 'Don't Walk' signal (n = 974; 42.0 %) were wearing headphones, talking on a mobile phone, and/or looking down at an electronic device. Headphone use was the most common distraction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 75% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 73 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 16 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 20% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 11% |
| Researcher | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 8 | 11% |
| Unknown | 20 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Engineering | 14 | 19% |
| Psychology | 14 | 19% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 13% |
| Unknown | 21 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 88. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 December 2017.
All research outputs
#406,011
of 22,793,427 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Community Health
#27
of 1,213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,299
of 255,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Community Health
#1
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,793,427 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,213 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 255,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.