Evaluating a novice driver and pre-driver road safety intervention

Intervention or evaluation studies represent a small proportion of traffic psychology research. The current study evaluated the effectiveness of a road safety intervention by measuring attitudes toward unsafe driving behaviors and risk perception. A sample of high school students (n = 133) participated in a road safety intervention program focusing on attitudes and risk perceptions of young people as novice drivers, pre-drivers, and passengers. This sample was compared with a matched sample of students who did not take the program (n = 172) on their attitudes and perceived risk toward unsafe driving, both prior to the program (T1), immediately after the program (T2), and at 6-week follow-up (T3). While no changes in attitudes toward unsafe driving were found for the control group, the intervention group reported riskier attitudes toward unsafe driving behaviors from T1 to T2 and T3. No differences were found from T1 to T3 in perceived risk toward unsafe driving for either the intervention or control groups. Implications of the study include encouraging a higher rate of road safety program evaluations, leading to better understanding of the effectiveness of road safety intervention programs and how they may be designed and delivered to ensure lower engagement in unsafe driving behaviors by young drivers.     

Self-rated driving performance among elderly drivers referred for driving evaluation

PURPOSE: To explore whether elderly drivers of varying driving skill levels (1) differ in their perception of their driving evaluation performance and (2) determine if self-rated driving evaluation performance is related to cognitive ability. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-two drivers aged 65 years or older and referred for a driving evaluation were enrolled into the study. Subjects were asked the question, "how well do you think you will perform today on your driving evaluation compared to others your own age?" Subjects also completed the Mini-Mental State Exam and a 30-min drive on a STISIM Drivetrade mark simulation (Systems Technology, Inc., Hawthorne, CA). Only 47 subjects completed both the simulated drive and self-rated item. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of drivers rated themselves as performing better on a driving test than others of their age. Another 31.9% felt they would perform the same as others of their age on a driving test. A 50.0% of those considering themselves "a little better" and 52.9% of those considering themselves "a lot better" had an unsafe driving performance. As self-rated driving evaluation performance increased, there was a significantly increased risk of unsafe driving (p=0.02) in the study population. Drivers who considered themselves at least a little better than others of their age were over four times more likely to be unsafe drivers compared to others who believed they were comparable to or worse than other drivers of their age (RR=4.13, 95% CI=1.08-15.78). There was no significant difference in MMSE between self-rating groups (p=0.76). CONCLUSION: Older drivers assign high ratings to their driving performance, even in the presence of suspected skill decline. Cognitive ability was not related to self-rated driving evaluation performance.     

The potential effectiveness of young driver high-performance vehicle restrictions as used in Australia

Young drivers persistently have higher crash rates despite various countermeasures targeted at their risk factors and exposures. A potentially high risk situation for novice drivers may feasibly include the driving of high performance vehicles, which are subject to restrictions for probationary and restricted drivers in four Australian States. High performance vehicles are capable of high levels of acceleration and speed, which may encourage unsafe driving behaviours, particularly when driven by novice drivers, who may lack appropriate judgement and experience. This research sought to identify potential safety benefits of restrictions on certain vehicles for novice drivers using crash data from Australia and New Zealand, and vehicle licensing data from New Zealand.     

Driving under the influence of cannabis: Links with dangerous driving, psychological predictors, and accident involvement

Driving under the influence of cannabis (DUIC) has become a growing concern. Studies investigating the impact of DUIC on traffic safety have shown evidence that, during the acute period of cannabis intoxication, cannabis diminishes driving faculties and is associated with an elevated risk of collision. However, DUIC drivers seem to exhibit a general reckless driving style that may contribute to an over-estimation of DUIC-related collisions among this group. In this study, we investigated DUIC drivers with respect to self-reported dangerous driving habits (e.g., risky driving, aggressive driving and negative emotional driving), behaviours observed in a driving simulator, psychological predictors and crash involvement. Results suggest that DUIC is associated with self-reported and observed risky driving and negative emotional driving. We also found that sensation seeking and impulsivity are independent psychological predictors of DUIC. Finally, a trend suggests that self-reported DUIC is associated with an increased risk of being involved in a car accident, after controlling for dangerous driving and demographic variables. Implications for interventions are discussed.     

Perception of road accident causes

A theoretical two-dimensional model on prevalence and risk was developed. The objective of this study was to validate this model empirically to answer three questions: How do European drivers perceive the importance of several causes of road accidents? Are there important differences in perceptions between member states? Do these perceptions reflect the real significance of road accident causes? Data were collected from 23 countries, based on representative national samples of at least 1000 respondents each (n=24,372). Face-to-face interviews with fully licensed, active car drivers were conducted using a questionnaire containing closed answer questions. Respondents were asked to rate 15 causes of road accidents, each using a six-point ordinal scale. The answers were analyzed by calculating Kendall's tau for each pair of items to form lower triangle similarity matrices per country and for Europe as a whole. These matrices were then used as the input files for an individual difference scaling to draw a perceptual map of the 15 items involved. The hypothesized model on risk and prevalence fits the data well and enabled us to answer the three questions of concern. The subject space of the model showed that there are no relevant differences between the 23 countries. The group space of the model comprises four quadrants, each containing several items (high perceived risk/low perceived prevalence items; high perceived risk/high perceived prevalence items; low perceived risk/high perceived prevalence items and low perceived risk/low perceived prevalence items). Finally, perceptions of the items driving under the influence of alcohol, drugs and medicines and driving using a handheld or hands-free mobile phone are discussed with regard to their real significance in causing road accidents. To conclude, individual difference scaling offers some promising possibilities to study drivers' perception of road accident causes.     

Overly cautious and dangerous: An empirical evidence of the older driver stereotypes

Negative comments regarding the competency of older drivers are frequently heard in the general population. While negative stereotypes of older drivers seem to be present, their existence has yet to be empirically validated. We thus investigated the stereotypes pertaining to older drivers in two experiments. In both experiments young adults viewed 12 simulated clips of three categories of driving behaviors (i.e., younger adults’ unsafe behaviors, older drivers’ unsafe behaviors and appropriate-safe driving behaviors) without knowing the driver's age. They were asked to rate how representative the behaviors were of a typical younger, middle-aged, or older driver. Experiment 1 showed that older drivers’ unsafe behaviors were rated as significantly more representative of the typical older driver, while young adults’ unsafe behaviors were perceived as significantly more representative of the typical younger driver. In Experiment 2, younger participants viewed the same clips but were only asked to indicate whether the observed behavior was representative or not of the typical older driver. The main findings were replicated. When asked to describe the main features of the typical older drivers, participants qualified them as being overly cautious, uncomfortable behind the wheel, and unsafe and dangerous. The potential implications on driving performance of older drivers and on driving cessation and are discussed.     

Young drivers' optimism bias for accident risk and driving skill: Accountability and insight experience manipulations

This study aimed to determine whether two brief, low cost interventions would reduce young drivers’ optimism bias for their driving skills and accident risk perceptions. This tendency for such drivers to perceive themselves as more skilful and less prone to driving accidents than their peers may lead to less engagement in precautionary driving behaviours and a greater engagement in more dangerous driving behaviour. 243 young drivers (aged 17–25 years) were randomly allocated to one of three groups: accountability, insight or control. All participants provided both overall and specific situation ratings of their driving skills and accident risk relative to a typical young driver. Prior to completing the questionnaire, those in the accountability condition were first advised that their driving skills and accident risk would be later assessed via a driving simulator. Those in the insight condition first underwent a difficult computer-based hazard perception task designed to provide participants with insight into their potential limitations when responding to hazards in difficult and unpredictable driving situations. Participants in the control condition completed only the questionnaire. Results showed that the accountability manipulation was effective in reducing optimism bias in terms of participants’ comparative ratings of their accident risk in specific situations, though only for less experienced drivers. In contrast, among more experienced males, participants in the insight condition showed greater optimism bias for overall accident risk than their counterparts in the accountability or control groups. There were no effects of the manipulations on drivers’ skills ratings. The differential effects of the two types of manipulations on optimism bias relating to one's accident risk in different subgroups of the young driver sample highlight the importance of targeting interventions for different levels of experience. Accountability interventions may be beneficial for less experienced young drivers but the results suggest exercising caution with the use of insight type interventions, particularly hazard perception style tasks, for more experienced young drivers typically still in the provisional stage of graduated licensing systems.     

The effects of perception of risk and importance of answering and initiating a cellular phone call while driving

Recent data suggest that laws banning cellular phone use while driving may not change use patterns, especially among young drivers with high rates of mobile phone adoption. We examined reasons younger drivers choose or do not choose to talk on a phone while driving among a sample of young drivers (n = 276) with very high ownership of cellular phones (over 99%) and a very high use of cellular phones while driving (100% for those that were primary operators of an automobile). Respondents were surveyed for patterns of use, types of call, perceived risk, and motivations for use. The data were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) to explore the relationships between perceived risk of the behavior, emotionality of the call, perceived importance of the call, and how often calls were initiated versus answered. The model suggests that even though people believe that talking on a cellular phone while driving is dangerous, they will tend to initiate a cellular conversation if they believe that the call is important.     

Video-based road commentary training improves hazard perception of young drivers in a dual task

This study used a video-based hazard perception dual task to compare the hazard perception skills of young drivers with middle aged, more experienced drivers and to determine if these skills can be improved with video-based road commentary training. The primary task required the participants to detect and verbally identify immediate hazard on video-based traffic scenarios while concurrently performing a secondary tracking task, simulating the steering of real driving. The results showed that the young drivers perceived fewer immediate hazards (mean = 75.2%, n = 24, 19 females) than the more experienced drivers (mean = 87.5%, n = 8, all females), and had longer hazard perception times, but performed better in the secondary tracking task. After the road commentary training, the mean percentage of hazards detected and identified by the young drivers improved to the level of the experienced drivers and was significantly higher than that of an age and driving experience matched control group. The results will be discussed in the context of psychological theories of hazard perception and in relation to road commentary as an evidence-based training intervention that seems to improve many aspects of unsafe driving behaviour in young drivers.     

Age and gender differences in risky driving: the roles of positive affect and risk perception

A phone survey of 504 teen (age 16–20) and 409 adult (age 25–45) drivers in the US state of Alabama was conducted to examine the relationships among risk perception, positive affect and risky driving. Male drivers reported engaging in risky driving behaviors more frequently than female drivers and teen drivers reported engaging in risky driving behaviors more frequently than adult drivers. Positive affect (liking for risky driving behaviors) and perceived risk mediated the relationships of age and gender with risky driving. Affect and risk perception were independent predictors of risky driving behavior. Interactions of positive affect and perceived risk with gender and age showed that positive affect more strongly predicted risky driving for teen and male drivers than for adult and female drivers. These findings are interpreted in the context of dual process models of behavioral decision making. Future research into interventions designed to moderate the positive affect surrounding driving may have promise for reducing risky driving behavior.     

Why drivers use cell phones and support legislation to restrict this practice

The use of cell phones while driving is ubiquitous, particularly in countries where the practice is legal. However, surveys indicate that most drivers favor legislation to limit the use of mobile devices during the operation of a vehicle. A study was conducted to understand this inconsistency between what drivers do and what they advocate for others. Participants completed a survey about their driving attitudes, abilities, and behaviors. Following previous research, drivers reported using cell phones for benefits such as getting work done. The hypocrisy of using cell phones while advocating restrictions appears to stem from differences in the perceived safety risks of self vs. others’ use of cell phones. Many if not most drivers believe they can drive safely while using mobile devices. However, they lack confidence in others’ ability to drive safely while distracted and believe that others’ use of cell phones is dangerous. The threat to public safety of others’ usage of mobile devices was one of the strongest independent predictors of support for legislation to restrict cell phone use.     

How accurately does the public perceive differences in transport risks? An exploratory analysis of scales representing perceived risk

This paper probes the extent to which the public accurately perceives differences in transport risks. The paper is based on a survey of a random sample of the Norwegian population, conducted in September 2003. In the survey, respondents were asked: "How safe do you think it is to travel by means of (bus, train, etc.)?" Answers were given as: very safe, safe, a little unsafe, and very unsafe. A cursory examination of the answers suggested that the Norwegian public was quite well informed about differences in the risk of accident between different modes of transport, as well as between groups formed according to age and gender for each mode of transport. This paper probes the relationship between statistical estimates of risk and summary representations of perceived risk more systematically. It is found that the differences in fatality rate between different modes of transport are quite well perceived by the Norwegian public, irrespective of the way in which perceived risk is represented numerically. The relationship between statistical estimates of risk and numerical representations of perceived risk for each mode of transport is more sensitive to the choice of a numerical representation of perceived risk. A scale in which the answer "very safe" is assigned the value of 0.01 and the answer "very unsafe" is assigned the value of 10 is found to perform quite well. When the perception of risk is represented numerically according to this scale, a positive correlation between statistically estimated risk and perceived risk is found in seven of the eight comparisons that were made to determine how well variation in accident rates according to age and gender for car occupants, car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are perceived.     

Re-conceptualising the reckless driving behaviour of young drivers

Reckless driving is a major contributing factor to road morbidity and mortality. While further research into the nature and impact of reckless driving, particularly among young people, is urgently needed, the measurement of reckless driving behaviour also requires increased attention. Three major shortcomings apparent in established measures of driver behaviour are that they do not target the full range of reckless driving behaviours, they measure characteristics other than driving behaviours, and/or they fail to categorise and label reckless driver behaviour based on characteristics of the behaviours themselves. To combat these shortcomings, this paper reports the development and preliminary validation of a new measure of reckless driving behaviour for young drivers. Exploratory factor analysis of self-reported driving data revealed four, conceptually distinct categories of reckless driving behaviour: those that increase crash-risk due to (a) distractions or deficits in perception, attention or reaction time (labelled “distracted”), (b) driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (labelled “substance-use”), (c) placing the vehicle in an unsafe environment beyond its design expectations (labelled “extreme”), and (d) speed and positioning of the vehicle relative to other vehicles and objects (labelled “positioning”). Confirmatory factor analysis of data collected from a separate, community sample confirmed this four-factor structure. Multiple regression analyses found differences in the demographic and psychological variables related to these four factors, suggesting that interventions in one reckless driving domain may not be helpful in others.     

Differentiating risky and aggressive driving: Further support of the internal validity of the Dula Dangerous Driving Index

The Dula Dangerous Driving Index (DDDI) is a cross-cultural validated instrument that measures simultaneously various manifestations of behaviours, cognitions, and affects associated with dangerous driving. The aims of the study were to translate the DDDI into French and then to verify the validity and reliability of the French version of the scale by means of observed behaviours on a driving simulator, and of self-reported measures of driving behaviours, personality and sociodemographic characteristics. A first sample of 395 drivers completed self-reported questionnaires and a second sample of 75 male drivers also completed tasks on a driving simulator. A confirmatory factorial analysis supported the internal validity of the scale. Findings also show that the French version of the DDDI yields good internal consistency, concomitant and convergent validity for each subscale (risky driving, negative cognitive/emotional driving and aggressive driving) and total score. The scale was useful to differentiate sociodemographic and psychological profiles associated with each subscale.     

Age differences in male drivers' perception of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability

Young (18-25) and older (35-50) male drivers were compared in their perception of driving risk and confidence in driving ability. Both groups provided responses a questionnaire on accident risk and driving ability and further generated subjective ratings of risk to a series of videotaped sequences depicting various elements of driving behavior. Although young drivers' estimates of accident involvement in the next year were higher than those of older drivers, young drivers gave lower ratings of accident risk for specific driving situations which demanded fast driving reflexes or substantial vehicle-handling skills. Young drivers rated their own risk of an accident and driving abilities as being the same as for older drivers. However, they saw their peers as being significantly higher at risk and having poorer abilities than themselves. Young drivers were more confident in their driving abilities than the older drivers. Evidence is provided to suggest that perceived risk and self-perceived driving abilities are interrelated. Further, the data from young drivers showed two disturbing characteristics: first, a notable dissociation between perceived and actual ability and, second, a tendency to view themselves as immune from the effects of higher levels of risk, which they are prepared to ascribe to their peers but not to themselves.     

Car driver attitudes,perceptions of social norms and aggressive driving behaviour towards cyclists

The interaction of car drivers and cyclists is one of the main causes of cycle incidents. The role of attitudes and social norms in shaping car drivers’ aggressive behaviour towards cyclists, is not well understood and merits investigation. A sample of 276 drivers completed an online questionnaire concerning their attitudes towards cyclists, attitudes towards risky driving, perception of social norms concerning aggressive driving towards cyclists, and the frequency with which they engage in such aggressive driving behaviours. The results showed that attitudes towards cyclists, as well as social norm perceptions concerning aggressive driving towards cyclists, were associated with aggressive driving towards cyclists. Negative attitudes towards cyclists were more pronounced in non-cyclists than cyclists and their association with aggressive driving behaviour was stronger in cyclists than non-cyclists. The perception of social norms concerning aggressive driving towards cyclists had a stronger association with aggressive driving in non-cyclists than cyclists. Attitudes towards risk taking did not affect aggressive driving towards cyclists. These findings can inform campaigns that aim to improve cyclist and car driver interaction on the roads, making them safer to use for cyclists.     

How accurately does the public perceive differences in transport risks?: An exploratory analysis of scales representing perceived risk

This paper probes the extent to which the public accurately perceives differences in transport risks. The paper is based on a survey of a random sample of the Norwegian population, conducted in September 2003. In the survey, respondents were asked: “How safe do you think it is to travel by means of (bus, train, etc.)?” Answers were given as: very safe, safe, a little unsafe, and very unsafe. A cursory examination of the answers suggested that the Norwegian public was quite well informed about differences in the risk of accident between different modes of transport, as well as between groups formed according to age and gender for each mode of transport. This paper probes the relationship between statistical estimates of risk and summary representations of perceived risk more systematically. It is found that the differences in fatality rate between different modes of transport are quite well perceived by the Norwegian public, irrespective of the way in which perceived risk is represented numerically. The relationship between statistical estimates of risk and numerical representations of perceived risk for each mode of transport is more sensitive to the choice of a numerical representation of perceived risk. A scale in which the answer “very safe” is assigned the value of 0.01 and the answer “very unsafe” is assigned the value of 10 is found to perform quite well. When the perception of risk is represented numerically according to this scale, a positive correlation between statistically estimated risk and perceived risk is found in seven of the eight comparisons that were made to determine how well variation in accident rates according to age and gender for car occupants, car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians are perceived.     

Public attitudes towards motorcyclists’ safety: A qualitative study from the United Kingdom

The aim of the reported research was to examine the perceptions of road user safety amongst different road users and examine the link between attitudes, empathy and skill in motorcycle safety behaviour. Motorcyclists were perceived by the study participants, members of the public at four different locations at the UK (including motorcyclists and non-motorcyclists), as a group be at a high risk of accidents on the road. This was due to perceived behavioural characteristics of motorcyclists – who were viewed as ‘thrill seekers’ – as well as observed behaviours on the road. This, coupled with the physical vulnerability and excessive speeds, meant that motorbike driving was considered by the study participants as the least safe form of road use. There was broad agreement that motorcycling was dangerous as a whole, but not all motorcyclists were necessarily risky riders. The issue of ‘competitive space’ emerged between car drivers and motorcyclists in particular and it was suggested that there was a lack of mutual awareness and considerations between the two groups. Generally, greatest empathy comes from drivers who are motorcyclists themselves. Engineering, education, enforcement interventions were investigated. These were aimed at two main areas: normalising safer driving behaviours for motorcyclists and increasing awareness of bikes for motorists—particularly in relation to reducing speed limits at urban junctions. Finally, the idea of risk mapping and reduced speed limits on rural roads was seen as potentially effective—particularly as certain motorcyclists highlighted that they changed their riding behaviours by increasing speed and taking greater risks on these roads.     

Modeling safe and unsafe driving behaviour

A sample of 743 Dutch drivers was queried about driving-related errors and violations, and about the frequency of their accident involvement over the past 3 years. In addition, the following risky behaviours and characteristics related to driving were measured through self-report: strategic decisions made about driving before starting a trip, attitudes related to committing violations, psychological precursors of unsafe driving (such as being tired or stressed when driving), and physical precursors of unsafe driving (suffering physical or psychological handicaps when driving). The results show that several scales have acceptable reliability coefficients, though several others are in need of improvement. Path analysis showed that an acceptable structural model could be developed to describe all empirical relationships. Considerable parts of the variance in the violations scores and the psychological precursors scores could be explained by the other model variables. In terms of predictive power, "unsafe" attitudes, physical precursors, and psychological precursors had the most impact, each explaining up to 9% of the variance in violations scores, errors scores, and/or psychological precursors scores. The way these results can be utilized in future accident prevention programs and in driver training programs are indicated, as are their implications for future research.