Introduction

To determine if a driver could have avoided striking a pedestrian, the pre-collision speeds of both the vehicle and the pedestrian will usually be needed. Avoidance analysis will begin by determining the relative positioning of the vehicle and the pedestrian in the moments leading up to the collision. Then, the reconstructionist can determine when in moments leading up to the collision, the approaching driver would have been able to detect and perceive the pedestrian as a hazard and how much time was available for avoidance. Sometimes, the physical evidence will enable a determination of the collision speed of the pedestrian. Or, at least, the physical evidence may enable us to determine if the pedestrian was walking or running when they were struck, since this speed can influence how the pedestrian interacts with the vehicle. Nonetheless, a pedestrian can alter their speed and body posture prior to impact in response to the approaching vehicle, so knowing the collision speed of the pedestrian does not necessarily tell us the speed the pedestrian was going prior to their response.[1] There will not usually be tangible evidence of the pre-collision speed of the pedestrian beyond the information we might have from witnesses (unless there is video of the moments leading up to the collision). Often, an assessment of the speed of the pedestrian will come from a combination of witness statements and empirical observations of pedestrian walking and running speeds reported in the technical literature [2]. This section reviews published studies related to pedestrian walking and running speeds. There are many such studies, and the intent of this section is not to be exhaustive, but instead to highlight the factors that influence walking and running speeds and to suggest some studies that a reconstructionist may want to consult in establishing a range of speeds for a pedestrian. Some of the reviewed studies were conducted within a crash reconstruction context and others in a traffic engineering setting where walking speeds are of interest for timing pedestrian traffic signals. The walking speed studies covered in this section are reviewed chronologically.

When examining observational studies of pedestrian speeds, one consideration is whether or not the documented pedestrians were aware they were being observed. As with any study that documents human behavior, awareness of being observed can influence the characteristics of the behavior. Of course, awareness of being observed does not alter the physical limits of pedestrians, nor does it prevent the researchers from accurately characterizing the behavior of the observed pedestrians (walking, running, shuffling, etc.). Thus, studies in which the subjects are aware they are being observed are useful, but perhaps this factor could sometimes be an explanation of differences with other studies where the participants were naïve to being observed. Beyond that factor, the following factors can influence the walking or running speeds of pedestrians, and these factors could be considered when selecting a likely range of pre-collision speeds: 1) age; 2) gender; 3) weight; 4) if the pedestrian is walking alone or in a group; 5) the weather conditions; 6) the lighting conditions; 7) whether or not the pedestrian is walking inside or outside of a marked crosswalk; 8) the signalization characteristics at the intersection; 9) the proximity of approaching traffic; 10) and whether or not the pedestrian has a disability that limits their mobility.

Thompson

In a 1991 article, Thompson [3] reported speeds of walking and running pedestrians (unaware that they were being documented) at several intersections in Boise, Idaho. This 1½-page study was published in Accident Reconstruction Journal with little to no data reported about the methodology, weather, or traffic conditions. Thompson did not indicate if the pedestrians were walking alone or in a group. The reported data was segmented by gender and age. For pedestrians older than age 20, male pedestrians walked on-average faster than female pedestrians of the same age. Male pedestrians between the ages of 20 and 65 walked a speed of approximately 5 feet per second, on average. Male pedestrians younger than 20 were on average mildly slower, and male pedestrians older than 65 were significantly slower (approximately 2.7 feet per second). Female pedestrians between the ages of 20 and 65 walked on average approximately 4½ feet per second. Younger female pedestrians were mildly faster, and female pedestrians older than 65 were slower (approximately 3.2 feet per second). In this study, there were fewer observations of running pedestrians, and (presumably because of this) fewer discernable trends. For males, running speeds varied between 6½ and 13 feet per second. For females, running speeds varied between 6½ and 8½ feet per second.

Coffin and Morrall

In a 1995 study, Coffin and Morrall [4] reported speeds of pedestrians over the age of 60 from six field locations and a “seniors club.” The field locations were in Calgary and included pedestrian actuated midblock crosswalks, crosswalks at signalized intersections, and crosswalks at unsignalized intersections. The pedestrians at the field locations were unaware they were being observed. The pedestrians at the senior’s club were aware they were being observed. The authors reported that “people over the age 60 are not a homogeneous group; they possess a range of walking speeds and mobility levels.” This is statement that could be made of any age group, and analysis of the pre-collision positions of the pedestrian will usually utilize a range on the speed of the pedestrian. In the Coffin and Morrall study, average walking speeds for the women observed at the field locations varied between 3.7 and 4.5 feet per second. Average walking speeds for the men observed at the field locations varied between 3.9 and 4.8 feet per second.

Knoblauch et al.

In a 1996 study, Knoblauch et al. [5] studied walking speeds and start-up times for pedestrians and observed that these were influenced by environmental, traffic, and pedestrian characteristics. These authors defined start-up time as the time from the onset of a walk signal until the pedestrian stepped off the curb. Sometimes start-up times for pedestrians will be useful in a reconstruction setting, but they rarely will be a decisive variable in an avoidance analysis. Knoblauch et al.’s field studies involved 16 crosswalks at signal-controlled intersections in Richmond, Virginia; Washington, D.C.; Baltimore, Maryland; and Buffalo, New York. Knoblauch and his colleagues observed pedestrians at these intersections over the course of 8-hour collection periods. In total, 7,123 pedestrians were observed, including 3,458 under 65 years of age and 3,665 over the age of 65. They recorded the following information about the intersections: street width, posted speed limit, curb height, grade, number of travel lanes, signal cycle length, pedestrian signal type, street classification, crosswalk type, and channelization. Data was collected during the following weather conditions: dry, rain, and snow. The following types of pedestrians were excluded from the dataset: children under 13 years of age; pedestrians carrying children, heavy bags, or suitcases; pedestrians pushing strollers or grocery carts; pedestrians using a cane, walker, or crutches; people in wheelchairs; and pedestrians walking bikes or dogs. Pedestrians who crossed diagonally, stopped to rest, waited for traffic, entered the roadway running, or entering the roadway more than 4 feet outside of the crosswalk were also excluded. The gender of each subject recorded and whether or not they were walking in a group. According to Knoblauch, “a group was defined as two or more pedestrians crossing the roadway at about the same time, regardless of whether or not they were apparently friends or associates.”

In Knoblauch’s study, “pedestrian crossing times were measured with a hand-held, digital, electronic stopwatch. The watch was started as the subject stepped off the curb and stopped when the subject stepped up on the opposite side curb after crossing.” Knoblauch noted that many site and environmental factors were statistically significant; however, he noted that “it is important to consider the relative magnitude of the differences and whether or not the differences are meaningful.” He found that the mean walking speed for pedestrians under age 65 was 4.95 feet per second, and for pedestrians over age 65 it was 4.11 feet per second. The 15th percentile speed for pedestrians under 65 was 4.09 feet per second, and for pedestrians over 65 it was 3.19 feet per second. Younger males had the fastest mean walking speeds (5.11 feet per second); older females had the slowest (3.89 feet per second). Knoblauch also noted that “pedestrians who start on the Walk signal walk more slowly than those who cross on either the flashing Don’t Walk or the steady Don’t Walk.” Knoblauch found that weather conditions influenced walking speed, with the walking speeds in snow or rain being mildly higher than in dry conditions.

Bowman and Vecellio

In another 1996 study, Bowman and Vecellio [6] reported pedestrian walking speeds for urban and suburban medians located on unlimited-access arterials in Atlanta, Phoenix, and Los Angeles-Pasadena. Three types of cross-sections were studied – raised medians, two-way left turn, and undivided – and pedestrian speeds were documented both mid-block and at intersections. Pedestrian ages were grouped into three categories: less than 18 years old, aged 18 to 60 years old, and older than 60 years. These authors noted that “pedestrians aged 18 to 60 exhibit a significantly higher walking speed [two-way left turn] medians for both signalized intersections and midblock locations.” The mean walking speed for midblock crossings with a two-way left turn median was 1.47 m/s (4.82 ft/s) versus 1.17 m/s (3.83 ft/s) for undivided roadways. The mean walking speed for signalized intersections with the two-way left turn median was 1.46 m/s (4.79 ft/s) versus 1.19 m/s (3.90 ft/s) for the undivided roadway. These authors further reported that “the walking speed for the age group 18 to 60 is significantly higher than that of the over-60 age group for both signalized intersections and midblock locations…both age groups have significantly higher walking speeds at midblock locations than at signalized intersections.” Overall, the mean speed for pedestrians in the 18-60 year old age group for midblock crossings was 1.41 m/s (4.63 ft/s) and for signalized intersections was 1.35 m/s (4.43 ft/s). For the greater than 60 year old age group, these values were 1.19 m/s (3.90 ft/s) and 1.03 m/s (3.38 ft/s), respectively.

Eubanks and Hill

In the 1999 edition of their pedestrian accident reconstruction book, Eubanks and Hill [7] reported walking and running speeds based on a study of nearly 3,000 individuals. These pedestrians were aware they were being observed, and Eubanks and Hill reported examples of the instructions given, such as “run as fast as you can.” The individuals in the study ranged in age from 17 months to 60 years. Regarding the age range from 17 to 24 months, these authors noted: “Even with specific directions on what to do, the children in this test group did whatever they wanted.” They further stated: “Originally, the test data was to be obtained for walking and running conditions. However, during the test it was obvious that most children this age do not understand the term walking or running. In fact, even if the child did know the term ‘walk’ they would take a few steps and then start to run and then return to walking.” Because of this, the authors recommended that within their test data the “85th percentile should be considered for running, the 50th percentile should be used for walking, while the 15th percentile should be applied for a dawdling child.”

For younger children it is also worth considering that children experience significant physical changes over short periods of time. As an example of how this observation could be relevant, consider that Eubanks and Hill reported a “running” speed for 17 to 24 month olds of 4.29 feet per second. However, they conducted additional observations at two different preschools, this time observing running speeds of nine “2 year old” males and reporting running speeds between 5.3 and 6.4 feet per second (3.6 and 4.4 mph), with a 50th percentile value of 5.6 feet per second (3.8 mph). Which would be the most appropriate value for a 24 month old? Within the dataset for “2 year olds,” the test subjects were parsed by their age in full years, and thus, these subjects could have been anywhere between 24 and 35 months old. Given this, the high end of this range is likely too high for a 24 month old. Rapid physical changes in the children were also evident in the data reported by the authors for pre-school children between 2 and 4 years old. For combined male and female data, two year olds had a 50th percentile walking speed of 2.8 feet per second. Three year olds walked at approximately 3.5 feet per second, and 4 year olds at approximately 4.1 feet per second. By the age of 7, the reported walking speeds were approximately equal to a typical adult male walking speed of approximately 5 to 5½ feet per second.

Smith

In a study published in 2000, Smith [8] reported pedestrian speeds obtained by the Lawrenceville (Georgia) Police Department. The pedestrians in this study were volunteers who were aware they were involved in the study. Their ages ranged from 24 to 54 years old, and they were of varying physical conditions, weights, and genders. According to Smith, “each subject was asked to walk the measured distance twice at each suggested speed of stride. The speeds of stride were described to each subject as ‘casual walk,’ ‘quick walk,’ and ‘trot as if crossing a busy street.’” These tests produced the following averages: 4.39 feet per second for a casual walk, 6.63 feet per second for a quick walk, and 10.11 feet per second for a trot.

Fugger, et al.

In a 2001 study, Fugger, et al. [9] reported the behavior of pedestrians at 8 intersections in Los Angeles, examining how much time elapsed between the illumination of a pedestrian walk sign and gait initiation, the pedestrians’ rate of acceleration from a stop, their steady state velocity, and the number of steps required for them to reach their steady state velocity. Fugger et al. modified the signal timing at each intersection to eliminate any all-red. This means that when the “cross traffic signal phased from green to yellow and then red, the pedestrian direction changed from red to green immediately…” Second, the pedestrian buttons were internally disabled (though they were left in place), and the pedestrian walk signal was set to automatically activate when the light became red for the cross traffic. The actions of the pedestrians were captured with a high-speed camcorder capturing video at 120 Hz. Motion tracking software was then used to track the center of gravity motion of the pedestrians. To determine the perception-response times of the pedestrians, the authors determined the time from the onset of the walk signal to the initial movement of the pedestrian. The resulting data is included in Table 1. In this table, the data is parsed by gender and approximate age. Within those categories, the pedestrians were further categorized by their actions. In relationship to these categories, Fugger stated that the “level of anticipation was subdivided into pedestrians who were looking directly at the ‘walk’ signal, pedestrians who were anticipating crossing either by watching the opposing traffic signal or flow of traffic, and pedestrians who were distracted in some way.” Non-compliant pedestrians were those who began crossing early. Typically, an accident reconstructionist will not know if a pedestrian was looking directly at the walk signal, anticipating the light change, distracted (in relationship to the signal), compliant, or non-compliant. Fortunately, a pedestrian’s perception-response time to a walk signal will usually not be a decisive variable in the causation of a crash. Still, this perception-response data may be useful for some evaluations of the pre-collision relative positions of the pedestrian and the striking vehicle.

Table 2 lists pedestrian speed and acceleration data reported by Fugger et al. In discussing this data, these authors concluded that “the elderly pedestrians have a slower acceleration rate and steady-state walking speed compared to the younger population.” This was not universally true, though, and at Intersection 6, the older pedestrians had a faster mean walking speed. Fugger et al. also reported that “the average step at which the observed pedestrians reached a constant walking velocity was 1.51 ± 0.56 steps. Relative to the gait cycle, this infers that a steady-state walking speed is generally reached before heel strike of the stance foot.” The Fugger et al. data exhibit some dependence on the intersection, suggesting that some reconstructions may warrant an intersection specific study of pedestrian walking or running speeds. Such a study could potentially be conducted in an inconspicuous manner with the use of a camera-equipped small unmanned aerial vehicle (sUAV, aka drone).

Table 2 – Pedestrian Speed and Acceleration Data from Fugger, et al. [9]

Toor et al.

In 2001, Toor et al. [10] reported walking speeds of elementary school children between the ages of 5 and 14. The subjects in this study were unaware that their speeds were being documented. These pedestrians, who were crossing the street at 10 different marked crosswalks adjacent to elementary schools, were videotaped at 30 frames per second with a camera hidden in a parked vehicle that was not visible from the crosswalk. The speeds were determined by analyzing this video footage. The roadways were level, and the majority of the data was collected under sunny and clear conditions. One day of data collection was conducted under rainy conditions. Data collection resulted in walking speeds for 406 children (240 males and 166 females). In addition to these 406 children, there were 53 subjects who were omitted from the dataset because they were running, jogging, or skipping across the road. Some pedestrians were also omitted because they were “bouncing a ball, walking with a bicycle, walking with a dog or pushing a scooter.” Showing similar results to the Eubanks and Hill data, by the age of 7, the reported walking speeds were approximately equal to typical adult walking speeds. The walking speeds reported by Toor et al. were mildly lower than those reported by Eubanks and Hill. Toor et al. reported that “walking speeds for both male and female pedestrians decrease when they traverse crosswalks in groups of 2 or more.” Also, the “young pedestrians were found to walk faster to school in the morning than when leaving school in the afternoon. Both male and female pedestrians reduced their median walking speeds in the afternoon by about 8%.” The data showed “no notable difference between the walking speeds of children who were and were not carrying bags.” For the pedestrians observed under rainy conditions (21), more than half ran across the road, and were therefore omitted from the dataset.

Fitzpatrick, Brewer, and Turner

In 2006, Fitzpatrick, Brewer, and Turner [11] reported walking speed data from 42 sites from seven states (Arizona, California, Maryland, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Washington). The sites included nine different types of pedestrian crossing treatments (half signals, Hawk beacon, midblock traffic control signal, passively activated overhead yellow flashing beacons, overhead flashing beacons active by push button, pedestrian crossing flags, high-visibility markings and signs, in-street pedestrian crossing sign, and pedestrian median refuge island). A total of 3,155 pedestrians were observed in this study, 81% of which were walking, and 19% which were running, both walking and running, or using some form of assistance such as skates or a bicycle. The non-walking pedestrians were not included in the analysis. There were also 107 walking pedestrians whose age could not be determined and 6 whose gender could not be determined. These also were not included. The 15th and 50th percentiles of the observed walking speeds by age group are included in Table 3 and by age and gender in Table 4. The influence of age group is more significant in these results than the influence of gender.

Montufar et al.

In 2009, Montufar et al. [12] reported research conducted in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada to determine if the walking speeds of pedestrians not crossing a street were different from the speeds of pedestrians crossing a street at a signalized intersection. They noted that “data were collected throughout the city [at 8 signalized intersections] as people went about their normal daily activities. None of the pedestrians in the study were aware that they were being observed.” Data for a total of 1,792 pedestrians was collected – 1,104 in the summer and 688 in the winter. Montufar et al. reported that, “in all cases the normal walking speed is less than the crossing walking speed. It also found that younger [20 to 65 years old] pedestrians walk faster than older [greater than 65 years old] pedestrians, regardless of the season and gender, and females walk slower than males, regardless of the season and age. Furthermore, both younger and older pedestrians have a greater normal walking speed in summer than in winter,” but a greater crossing walking speed in winter than in summer.

Carson

In 2010, Carson [13] reported the speeds of pedestrians in a crosswalk at a major sports complex. The roadway was asphalt and was straight and level. The time for the pedestrians to traverse a 39-foot distance was documented with a digital stopwatch. Pedestrians were timed prior to the beginning of the sports event and before the crowds became so dense that a pedestrian’s walking speed may have been affected by them walking within crowds across the roadway. Only pedestrians who walked a straight line and were walking alone were timed. There was no precipitation falling during the documentation. Carson recorded a total of 391 measurements. The average speed for the pedestrians was 4.28 feet per second (2.92 mph). He found no influence of ethnicity or gender, but age did have an effect. “Children younger than 11 generally moved slower than 4 ft/sec. Pedestrians in their late teens walked the fastest of any age group, clocking in at an average of 4.7 ft/sec. Adults whose age estimates ranged from 21 to 50 collectively averaged almost exactly 4.0 ft/sec. Pedestrians in the 51 to 65 age range had an average walking speed of 3.3 ft/sec, as did those estimate to be 66 years of age or older.”

Lu and Fernie

Lu and Fernie [14] examined pedestrian behavior at a two-stage crossing with a center refuge island. The pedestrian signals for this crossing were timed separately on the two sides of the refuge island, such that pedestrians were expected to cross one side, then wait on the refuge island for another signal before crossing the other side. These authors compared the speeds of pedestrians who complied with the pedestrian signals to those that did not. They also examined the influence of temperature and weather on the compliance rate and on the pedestrians’ speeds. This study utilized a single eight-lane divided road in downtown Toronto. The pedestrians were filmed without their knowledge from a nearby rooftop. The authors reported that “a total of 484 pedestrians (78%) complied with the signal when they started the first stage crossing and a total of 135 pedestrians (22%) complied with the signal at stage 2 crossing.” The average walking speed for non-compliers was 5.48 ± 0.98 ft/s (1.67 ± 0.30 m/s) and for compliers it was 4.23 ± 0.69 ft/s (1.29 ± 0.21 m/s). The outdoor temperature and weather had a significant effect on the compliance rate, with the compliance rate decreasing in cold and snowy conditions. In terms of walking speed, compliers walked faster on cold days than on warm days – 4.56 ± 0.69 ft/s (1.39 ± 0.21 m/s) versus 4.07 ± 0.43 ft/s (1.24 ± 0.13 m/s). Non-compliers also walked faster on cold days – 5.64 ± 0.79 ft/s (1.72 ± 0.24 m/s) versus 5.18 ± 0.56 ft/s (1.58 ± 0.17 m/s).

Jakym, Attalla, and Kodsi

In a 2013 study, Jakym, Attalla, and Kodsi [15] reported the crossing speeds of 242 adults crossing midblock and having to make gap acceptance decisions. These authors noted that “none of the pedestrians involved in this study were aware of the study being conducted, nor were any of the vehicles along the roadway.” The data was collected in front of a community center in Ontario. The roadway was straight and level with three through lanes in each direction. There was a single lane dedicated to left turning traffic between the eastbound and westbound lanes. The speed limit was 60 km/h (37.3 mph). The motion of the pedestrians was captured with high-definition video cameras at 30 frames per second and speeds were determined from the video. The authors reported that “traffic on the roadway had an effect on pedestrian behavior; however, there were exceptions. For example, there were pedestrians who ran across the road when there were no vehicles in close proximity, and there were some pedestrians who casually walked across the road despite vehicle that were in close proximity…the speed of pedestrians appeared to be affected by the lane of the approaching primary hazard vehicle. For example, the average speed of pedestrians when the primary hazard vehicle was in the near (1st) lane was 1.71 m/s, while the average speed of pedestrians when the primary hazard vehicle was in the middle (2nd) lane was 1.83 m/s. Furthermore, the average speed of pedestrians was 1.99 m/s when the primary hazard vehicle was in the far (3rd) lane…when the gap was approximately 20 seconds or greater, the proximity of the vehicle had little effect on the crossing speed of the pedestrian. Where the gap was less than about 20 seconds, the speed of the pedestrian would be influenced by the primary hazard vehicle’s proximity. As the gap decreased, pedestrians were observed, in general, to travel faster.” The authors’ findings related to the gap size are summarized in Table 1‑3.

Table 5 – Influence of Gap on Pedestrian Speed [15]

References

Soni, A., Robert, T., Rongieras, F., Beillas, P., “Observations on Pedestrian Pre-Crash Reactions during Simulated Accidents,” Stapp Car Crash Journal, Vol. 57, November 2013, pp. 157-183.
Wach, W. and Unarski, J., “Uncertainty Analysis of the Preimpact Phase of a Pedestrian Collision,” SAE Technical Paper 2007-01-0715, 2007, https://doi.org/10.4271/2007-01-0715.
Thompson, T., “Pedestrian Walking and Running Velocity Study,” Accident Reconstruction Journal, Volume 3, No. 2, March/April 1991, pp. 28-29.
Coffin, A., Morrall, J., “Walking Speeds of Elderly Pedestrians at Crosswalks,” Transportation Research Record 1487, 1995.
Knoblauch, Richard, “Field Studies of Pedestrian Walking Speed and Start-Up Time,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, Volume 1538, 1996.
Bowman, B.L., Vecellio, R.L., “Pedestrian Walking Speeds and Conflicts at Urban Median Locations,” Transportation Research Record 1438, 1996.
Eubanks, Jerry J., Hill, Paul F., Pedestrian Accident Reconstruction and Litigation, Second Edition, Lawyers & Judges Publishing Company, Inc., 1999, ISBN 0-913875-56-2.
Smith, J.L., “Pedestrian Velocity Trials,” Accident Reconstruction Journal, Volume 11, No. 1, January/February 2000.
Fugger, T., Randles, B., Wobrock, J., Stein, A. et al., “Pedestrian Behavior at Signal-Controlled Crosswalks,” SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-0896, 2001, https://doi.org/10.4271/2001-01-0896.
Toor, A., Happer, A., Overgaard, R., and Johal, R., “Real World Walking Speeds of Young Pedestrians,” SAE Technical Paper 2001-01-0897, 2001, https://doi.org/10.4271/2001-01-0897.
Fitzpatrick, K., Brewer, M.A., and Turner, S., “Another Look at Pedestrian Walking Speed,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1982, 2006, pp. 21-29.
Montufar, Jeannette; Arango, Jorige; Porter, Michelle; Nakagawa, Satoru, “Pedestrians’ Normal Walking Speed and Speed When Crossing a Street,” Accident Reconstruction Journal, Volume 19, No. 3, May/June 2009.
Carson, Frank, “Pedestrian Walking Speed in Crosswalk Study,” Accident Reconstruction Journal, Volume 20, No. 6, November/December 2010, pp. 11-15.
Lu, Yue, Fernie, Geoff, “Pedestrian behavior and safety on a two-stage crossing with a center refuge island and the effect of winter weather on pedestrian compliance rate,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, 42 (2010) 1156-1163.
Jakym, J., Attalla, S., and Kodsi, S., "Modeling of Pedestrian Midblock Crossing Speed with Respect to Vehicle Gap Acceptance," SAE Technical Paper 2013-01-0772, 2013, https://doi.org/10.4271/2013-01-0772.

[1] Soni, et al. reported: “Accident situations were simulated with volunteers using a non-impacting methodology. Fifty one reactions from 23 volunteers of two age groups were observed. Most of the volunteers were found to run, step-back or stop in fright in a dangerous situation.” More specifically, out of 51 trials, 25 pedestrians accelerated in response to the impending collision, 15 froze, 5 backed-up, and 6 did not alter their speed. These results, of course, imply the pedestrians were aware of the potential of being struck – at least the ones that reacted. Unaware pedestrians would not alter their speed or body posture in response to an impending collision. In the present context, the point being made is simply that, even if there were a reconstruction technique that enabled determination of a pedestrian’s speed at impact, it may not be valid to assume that the pedestrian did not alter their speed prior to impact. For pedestrian collisions not captured on video, the reconstructionist will be dependent on witness statements about the pedestrians walking speed and will likely need to consider a range of speeds [9].

Photo by Diego Jimenez on Unsplash

Pedestrian Walking and Running Speeds (Pedestrian Accident Reconstruction)