Constructing pedestrian-centric street mobility: Observation and simulation for design

There are three principal components to the research presented in this thesis: a video-observation study of pedestrian behaviours and interactions with traffic, leading to the development of an agent-based digital simulation, and demonstrating the potential of this simulation for designing pedestrian-centric interventions in the streetscape. The long-term objective is to devise streetscapes that responsively adapt to the needs of pedestrians. Since the advent of car culture in the late 1930s, the approaches to street design have prioritised efficient motorised traffic flow, restricting walking and neglecting the pedestrian point of view. In recent years, however, a growing interest in making urban spaces more pedestrian-friendly has emerged, popularising concepts such as walkability, shared space, and traffic calming. These approaches aim to promote active travel and reduce car dependency in order to mitigate congestion, pollution, accidents and other harms. Urban studies have concentrated primarily on pedestrian-only zones and utilised spatial features as a way to reach pedestrian-friendly streets. Meanwhile, transport studies have tended to approach the street from a throughput and vehicle-oriented stance. Despite these endeavours, pedestrian-oriented approaches appear to lack systematic consideration of pedestrian behaviours as they interact with motor vehicles and street infrastructure. My PhD research differs from prior studies by focusing on these behaviours and interactions to support a pedestrian-oriented street mobility system. The current design of streets communicates to pedestrians via its structures and signs, such as barriers, crossings, and lights, while its capacity to respond and adapt is minimal. In contrast, this thesis argues that, since the street environment is inherently dynamic, we should analyse its dynamics and design the street to be responsive. Through responsiveness, my aim is to increase the convenience of pedestrian movement whilst creating a safe experience. This PhD asks the question 'how to design a pedestrian-centric street system that dynamically manages street mobility?'. The research takes a practice-based and reflective approach, designing agent-based simulations based on a qualitative observational study. Designing a simulation accomplishes two things: 1) it creates a space for implementing and evaluating possible design interventions, and 2) it prompts new insights into the behavioural processes of pedestrians. My research has followed an iterative cycle in line with second-order cybernetics: in two feedback loops, the first study informed the second study while the second informed the first. The video observation of street behaviours particularly explored pedestrian decision and interaction processes, identifying pedestrians’ own observational strategies and their varying levels of risk-taking. These aspects are reflected in the simulation. The first chapter introduces the pedestrian issues on the street and sets out the key concepts in pedestrian-centric street design. The second chapter examines the literature and existing practice that addresses pedestrian and vehicle interactions on the street. Chapter three sets out the theoretical framework and the following chapter describes the methodology. The three subsequent chapters present the following studies: (1) understanding the context by conducting qualitative video observation in a real street environment to observe and document the relations between streets, pedestrians and vehicles; (2) creating an artificial pedestrian society for simulation purposes, using agent-based modelling, both to refine the understanding developed through video analysis and to create a platform for experimentation; (3) design and implementation of prototype responsive interventions within the simulation, focusing on localised changes in the environment to empower pedestrians. The last chapter reflects on these projects by discussing the research contributions in terms of methods, techniques, and practices. The methodological innovation includes combining qualitative and computational tools as well as the use of simulation and video analysis in an iterative and reflexive cycle. Theoretical contributions include evaluating streets through pedestrian dynamics, creating a taxonomy of existing pedestrian interventions according to their spatial and temporal impacts, and rethinking the street as a responsive environment. The practical component advances the technical state of the art by expanding the capabilities of pedestrian agents when negotiating with vehicles and making crossing decisions and demonstrates the potential for designing novel interventions in the streetscape, including those that respond to pedestrian behaviour. The last chapter, also, emphasises the role of reflective design practice and the place of simulation within it

Towards transparency between the autonomous vehicle and the pedestrian

This paper addresses the new problem of transparency in relation to pedestrians’ interaction with driverless vehicles, arising from their lack of visual cues to replace those currently provided by the visible behaviours of the driver. It reports two observational investigations of the affordances of the street, one looking at the street as static environment, the other at pedestrian behaviours in relation to driven vehicles. The findings of the research were used to identify the decision-making process, timings and exhibited behaviours of pedestrians and drivers in the street environment

Creating artificial societies through interaction analysis: Translating qualitative observational study into agent-based modelling

The use of interaction analysis for creating agent-based models could lead to more empirical simulations. This study focuses on pedestrian-street interaction during negotiations at a signal-controlled crossing. It examines which data from interaction analysis could be used in the development of artificial pedestrian societies. This article sets out a framework for structuring the data deriving from interaction analysis and demonstrates the process of developing an agent-based model by translating the acquired data into the model. The data collected through interaction analysis serves as input for the agent-based model. The structuring performed on the interaction analysis data is used to define the outcome variables for agent-based modelling. The study concludes by proposing an initial framework that describes the use of interaction analysis in simulations

Defining Ritualistic Driver and Passenger Behaviour to Inform In-Vehicle Experiences

By discovering unconscious ritualistic actions in everyday driving such as preparing for the morning commute, we seek design opportunities to help people achieve critical emotional transitions such as moving from an anxious state to relief. We have gathered and analysed data from workshops and phone interviews from a variety of vehicle and public transport users to capture these key ritualistic scenarios and map their emotional transitions. Design ideation is used to generate concepts for improving the in-vehicle user experience through redesign of vehicle layout, environment and analogue and digital interfaces. We report a set of human-centred design approaches that allow us to study the details of action, objects, people, emotions and meaning for typical car users which are indispensable for designing driving experiences and are often overlooked by the car design process

Vancomycin versus Linezolid in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Meningitis

Abstract Background: Vancomycin is the mainstay of treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) meningitis. However, successful outcomes with linezolid have not been reported in a large series of patients. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study to compare vancomycin with linezolid in the treatment of MRSA meningitis. Methods: We extracted data and outcomes for all adult patients (age > 18 years) with culture-proved MRSA meningitis who received vancomycin or linezolid between January 2006 and June 2011. A definite diagnosis of meningitis was based on the isolation of MRSA in at least one cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture and findings in CSF that are typical of the infection. Linezolid was given intravenously (IV) at a dosage of 600 mg q12h and vancomycin IV at 500 mg q6h. Results: A total of 8 patients with MRSA meningitis (5 male, 3 female; age [mean -SD] 61.6 -13.2 years) received vancomycin and 9 patients (7 male, 2 female; age 59.1 -15.6 years) received linezolid. All isolated strains of MRSA were susceptible to both vancomycin and linezolid. The rates of microbiologic success with linezolid or vancomycin, in terms of clearance of MRSA from CSF on day 5, were 7/9 and 2/8 (p = 0.044, Fisher exact test). No severe adverse events occurred in either treatment arm of the study. One-month survival of the patients in whom treatment was successful microbiologically was 2/2 in the vancomycin-treated group and 4/7 in the linezolidtreated group. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) data for vancomycin were available for 5/6 treatment failures with vancomycin, and vancomycin MIC values of these five strains were 2 mg/L. Conclusion: Analysis of the findings in the limited cohorts in our study suggests that linezolid is superior to vancomycin for treating MRSA meningitis, especially in cases in which there is a high MIC (2 mg/L) for vancomycin. A clinical study involving larger cohorts may increase the evidence available in relation to this question

State of design report

In 2019 the UK Design Council declared “Whatever the question, design has an answer.” While not quite so bold the British designer Jay Osgerby maintains that “Design is the Answer to a Very Difficult Question.” Both valiant statements play on Cedric Price’s massively exploited conundrum “Technology is the answer, but what was the question?” A superficial trawl of the web reveals – “Big Data Is the Answer … But What Is the Question?” – “Design Thinking Is Not The Answer - Especially If You Don’t Know The Question” – “Universal Design – The Answer to Everything?” – “If Design-Based Research is the Answer, What is the Question?” And the web also exposes curiously aligned beliefs that “Love or war or music or summer or Jesus or art or wool (or countless other subjects) is the answer.” Perhaps Price was already playing with Shakespeare’s mission for Hamlet “To be, or not to be, that is the question.” It seems that the answers already surround us. It’s the question we don’t know. But its vitally important to place before this catechism the simple fact is that each designer creates their precursors. Their work modifies our conception of the past, as it will modify the future. Price asked what WAS the question and everyone after him writes what IS the question as if there is no conception of the past. WAS used to be the totally artificial world; a future responsible. Whereas IS is now the totally financial world; a future already mortgaged. In which case we can only ask - was the past simple, is the present perfect and will the future be affordable? In 1990 Donella H. Meadows’ wrote the “State of the Village Report”, which presented a framework for understanding the world as a combination of physical, economic, and social relationships by imagining the world was a village of 1000 people. Scaling down the numbers was a very palpable way to change mindsets and help build awareness about what an individual could do to help manage the complex environmental, social and economic systems of which we are all a part

Vancomycin versus Linezolid in the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Meningitis

WOS: 000323419000004PubMed ID: 23672240Background: Vancomycin is the mainstay of treatment for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) meningitis. However, successful outcomes with linezolid have not been reported in a large series of patients. We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study to compare vancomycin with linezolid in the treatment of MRSA meningitis. Methods: We extracted data and outcomes for all adult patients (age > 18 years) with culture-proved MRSA meningitis who received vancomycin or linezolid between January 2006 and June 2011. A definite diagnosis of meningitis was based on the isolation of MRSA in at least one cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) culture and findings in CSF that are typical of the infection. Linezolid was given intravenously (IV) at a dosage of 600mg q12h and vancomycin IV at 500mg q6h. Results: A total of 8 patients with MRSA meningitis (5 male, 3 female; age [mean +/- SD] 61.6 +/- 13.2 years) received vancomycin and 9 patients (7 male, 2 female; age 59.1 +/- 15.6 years) received linezolid. All isolated strains of MRSA were susceptible to both vancomycin and linezolid. The rates of microbiologic success with linezolid or vancomycin, in terms of clearance of MRSA from CSF on day 5, were 7/9 and 2/8 (p = 0.044, Fisher exact test). No severe adverse events occurred in either treatment arm of the study. One-month survival of the patients in whom treatment was successful microbiologically was 2/2 in the vancomycin-treated group and 4/7 in the linezolid-treated group. Minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) data for vancomycin were available for 5/6 treatment failures with vancomycin, and vancomycin MIC values of these five strains were 2 mg/L. Conclusion: Analysis of the findings in the limited cohorts in our study suggests that linezolid is superior to vancomycin for treating MRSA meningitis, especially in cases in which there is a high MIC (2mg/L) for vancomycin. A clinical study involving larger cohorts may increase the evidence available in relation to this question