This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Dr Koepsell and colleagues¹ reported a 2-fold increased risk of pedestrian–motor vehicle collision at sites with a marked crosswalk in 6 cities in Washington state and California 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 . . . [Full Text of this Article]

RELATED ARTICLES

Dangers to Elderly Pedestrians at Crosswalks
George J. Hill
JAMA. 2003;289(10):1244.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Dangers to Elderly Pedestrians at Crosswalks—Reply
Thomas Koepsell, Anne Vernez Moudon, and David Buchner
JAMA. 2003;289(10):1245.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Crosswalk Markings and the Risk of Pedestrian–Motor Vehicle Collisions in Older Pedestrians
Thomas Koepsell, Lon McCloskey, Marsha Wolf, Anne Vernez Moudon, David Buchner, Jess Kraus, and Matthew Patterson
JAMA. 2002;288(17):2136-2143.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT