Speeding & Perceived Risk

 

What is a perceived risk while driving?

Risk perception refers to drivers' experience of risk in potential traffic hazards. Risk perception is determined by the information of the potential hazards in traffic environment, and on the ability of driver to perceive the potential hazards resulting into actual accidents (Brown & Groeger, 1988).

What is meant by perceived risk?

Definition. This term refers to an individual's subjective evaluation of his or her risk of an illness or an adverse outcome, often in relation to performing a certain risky behavior.

Perceived risk is risk predicted by models and actual risk is the fundamental underlying risk. We measure perceived risk and care about actual risk. [Dec 12, 2018]

What are six types of perceived risk?

• Image result
• Perceived risk
• Functional Risk.
• Physical Risk.
• Financial Risk.
• Social/psychological Risk.
• Time risk.

What is one reason why teenage drivers tend to have a higher level of risk?

Teen drivers, particularly 16- and 17-year-olds, have high fatal crash rates because of their immaturity and limited driving experience, which often result in high-risk behavior behind the wheel. Peer pressure is an especially potent factor. [did I not mention peer pressure?]

***

Is speeding a risk factor?

Dangers of Speeding

For more than two decades, speeding has been involved in approximately one-third of all motor vehicle fatalities. In 2019, speeding was a contributing factor in 26% of all traffic fatalities.

Speeding endangers everyone on the road: In 2019, speeding killed 9,478 people. We all know the frustrations of modern life and juggling a busy schedule, but speed limits are put in place to protect all road users. Learn about the dangers of speeding and why faster doesn’t mean safer.

For more than two decades, speeding has been involved in approximately one-third of all motor vehicle fatalities. In 2019, speeding was a contributing factor in 26% of all traffic fatalities.

Speed also affects your safety even when you are driving at the speed limit but too fast for road conditions, such as during bad weather, when a road is under repair, or in an area at night that isn’t well lit.

Speeding endangers not only the life of the speeder, but all of the people on the road around them, including law enforcement officers. It is a problem we all need to help solve. NHTSA provides guides and toolkits to help spread the message about safe driving, including tips on what you can do if you encounter an aggressive driver on the road.

Consequences

Speeding is more than just breaking the law. The consequences are far-ranging:

Greater potential for loss of vehicle control;

Reduced effectiveness of occupant protection equipment;

Increased stopping distance after the driver perceives a danger;

Increased degree of crash severity leading to more severe injuries;

Economic implications of a speed-related crash; and

Increased fuel consumption/cost.

***What Drives Speeding?***

Speeding is a type of aggressive driving behavior. Several factors have contributed to an overall rise in aggressive driving:

Traffic

Traffic congestion is one of the most frequently mentioned contributing factors to aggressive driving, such as speeding. Drivers may respond by using aggressive driving behaviors, including speeding, changing lanes frequently, or becoming angry at anyone who they believe impedes their progress.

Running Late

Some people drive aggressively because they have too much to do and are “running late” for work, school, their next meeting, lesson, soccer game, or other appointment.

Anonymity

A motor vehicle insulates the driver from the world. Shielded from the outside environment, a driver can develop a sense of detachment, as if an observer of their surroundings, rather than a participant. This can lead to some people feeling less constrained in their behavior when they cannot be seen by others and/or when it is unlikely that they will ever again see those who witness their behavior.

Disregard for Others and For the Law

Most motorists rarely drive aggressively, and some never do. For others, episodes of aggressive driving are frequent, and for a small proportion of motorists it is their usual driving behavior. Occasional episodes of aggressive driving–such as speeding and changing lanes abruptly–might occur in response to specific situations, like when the driver is late for an important appointment, but is not the driver’s normal behavior.

If it seems that there are more cases of rude and outrageous behavior on the road now than in the past, the observation is correct—if for no other reason than there are more drivers driving more miles on the same roads than ever before. [https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/speeding]

What emotion occurs most in drivers?

1. Aggressiveness and Anger. Aggressiveness and anger are emotional states that extremely influence driving behaviour and increase the risk of causing an accident 

***

Some of the most common higher-risk categories include:

Young drivers under the age of 25.

Drivers with a history of speeding tickets.

Drivers with one or more auto accidents.

Drivers with a DUI.

Drivers with low credit scores.

***

10 Ways to Stop Speeding and How to Break the Habit

• Start Cruising. The easiest way to avoid speeding is to use your cruise control. ...
• Give Yourself More Time. ...
• Check Your Speedometer. ...
• Learn the Cost of Speeding. ...
• Consider Your Tires. ...
• Identify Speeding Triggers. ...
• Practice Calming Exercises. ...
• Use Technology. [https://www.wawanesa.com/us/blog/10-ways-to-stop-speeding-and-how-to-break-the-habit]

***

How People Perceive Traffic Risk

I'll leave the link to the study, I don't miss grad school that much. [http:://how-do-we-perceive-traffic-risk.pdf]

Results

The results of previous hypotheses testing are summarized and discussed in the following paragraphs:

H = hypothesis

(H1) On average, females perceive the risk of traffic situations as higher than males. This finding is consistent with earlier studies, which indicated that males tend to be more optimistic regarding their driving skills and perceive the behaviours as less serious and less likely to result in accidents (DeJoy, 1992; Farrand and McKenna, 2001; De Craen et al., 2011).

(H2) No difference was found between drivers and “other road users” (pedestrians/cyclists) in their average risk perception. While it appears as surprising, this may be caused by the fact that most of video clips displayed interactions between vehicles. It means that the respondents, who identified themselves as primarily pedestrians or cyclists, may perceive the risk as related to vehicle drivers rather than to themselves. Nevertheless this is not supported by theory, since neither cyclists’ risk perception nor comparisons to drivers’ risk perceptions have been sufficiently studied so far, as indicated e.g. by Chaurand and Delhomme (2013) or Lehtonen et al. (2016).

(H3a) No association was found between perceived risk and age and (H3b) No association was found between perceived risk and years of holding a driving licence. These findings are not consistent with general knowledge that hazard perception is related to age and experience (Finn and Bragg, 1986; Sagberg and Bjørnskau, 2006; Borowsky et al., 2009), which both contribute to over-involvement of young drivers in accidents. This might becaused by research sample bias, as the sample is rather small and consists mainly of students (younger participants) and traffic experts (older participants). Hypothesis then might be, that both groups perceive traffic risk at the same or similar level, but due to different reasons: young people because of their age (they are known to rather underestimate risk) and traffic experts (older drivers) because of their experience (belief that they can handle such a situation).

(H4a) There is no association between perceived risk and average monthly mileage and (H4b) There is no association between perceived risk and total accumulated mileage. Similarly to hypotheses H3a and H3b, we did not find sufficient evidence for the association of driving experience and risk perception in traffic situations in our sample. This could be the result of the aforementioned sample bias – most participants (85%) in our sample reported driving 2000 km or less on average per month and having driven 35000 km or less in total. A less restricted sample in terms of driving experience (i.e., including more professional drivers) might yield different results and become more consistent with existing literature. 

(H5) No association between perceived risk and self-assessment of driving skills was found. This finding is not surprising, since literature is mixed on this topic: some studies reported positive correlations, some negative, some none (e.g. Hattaka et al., 1997; Lund and Rundmo, 2009). We expected negative correlation between selfassessment of driving skills and level of risk perception: the better the grade drivers give themselves (with “1” 1051 meaning “excellent”), the higher the average risk perception (i.e. the more aware the drivers are of the traffic risk).

One of the reasons why this relationship is so unclear might be the fact that most of the studies (including ours) did not distinguish between risk perception (“if I can identify risk, I can see the risk”) and ability to handle the risk (“I perceive risk, but I believe I know how to handle it and so I don’t consider this situation as risky”).

– (H6) A negative association between perceived risk and population of city of residence was found. This finding may relate to possible differences in traffic performance and patterns in less vs more inhabited areas. Previous analyses, based on place of residence (as opposed to place of accident) shown that the risk is lower for city population compared to suburban and rural population (Blatt and Furman, 1998; Scheiner and Holz-Rau, 2011). These differences may have been translated to driving behaviour and skills, and in turn to hazard perceptions of users living in cities. However, we should keep in mind that the association in our sample was still rather weak.

– (H7) No difference was found between the student groups UPOL, VŠLG, ČVUT, the expert group and the group of seniors in terms of average risk perception. This hypothesis was originally formulated with the idea of checking the anticipated value of expert judgment, which is applied by certified auditors during road safety inspections. Lack of difference may be surprising; however there were previous studies aiming in the same direction. For example Sivak et al. (1989) did not find any differences in risk ratings of professional vs non-professional drivers; also Kouabenan (2002) found similar hazard perception patterns across various occupation and experience groups. In another study (Kruysse and Wijlhuizen, 1992), experts and lay persons were found equally reliable in judging

hazardous traffic situations. These features may influence the expert judgments, in addition to already known biases, such as reliability between experts, confirmation of expectancies or skewed descriptive analyses, which are all important elements in road safety inspections and investigations. Although solutions were proposed (Melcher et al., 2001; Cafiso et al., 2006; Elvik, 2006; Washington et al., 2009; Brenac et al., 2012; Park and Sahaji, 2013; Classen et al., 2015), they have not yet become a standard practice.

***

I Feel Safe Doing It! Prevalence, Risk Perception, and Motives for Risky Driving in Portugal

Abstract

Introduction: 

Road traffic injuries are among the top 10 causes of death and thus a major public health issue worldwide. Consistent differences between countries in the European Union justify a closer examination of the problem at a national level. The present study focused on identifying the socio-psychological factors behind risky driving, which can help interventions more successfully foster safer driving practices in Portugal. More specifically, this research ana­lysed the prevalence of self-reported risky driving behaviours and their association with perceived risks to establish whether this relationship differs across risk-taking practices. The study also examined drivers’ motives for taking risks. 

Methods: 

A telephone survey about road safety collected responses from 635 adult drivers. The respondents provided sociodemographic information so comparisons could be made between groups of drivers based on age, gender, and frequency of driving. 

Results: 

The risky driving practices most frequently reported by Portuguese drivers were speeding and disregarding the need for rest breaks. The respondents also evaluated these two practices as the least risky, suggesting that drivers minimise their personal risk of traffic accidents. The most frequently mentioned motives for risky driving were a perceived control over vehicles and road conditions. Male, younger, and everyday drivers have higher risk profiles since they reported engaging in risky driving practices more often and perceiving these behaviours as less risky. 

Conclusion: 

Portuguese drivers reported engaging consistently in risky driving practices, while evaluating their risk as moderate and their control over driving conditions as high. This contextualised understanding of factors that strengthen the likelihood of risky driving can help facilitate tailor-made interventions to reduce Portuguese drivers’ unrealistic perceptions of control and invulnerability, thereby ensuring safer roads. [https://www.karger.com/Article/Fulltext/505998]

***