Risky and anxious-aggressive drivers: A key barrier to traffic safety legislation in Germany

Traffic safety is high on the agenda of European governments. Yet, countries including Germany maintain policies that are commonly identified as increasing traffic risks, such as speed limits set too high or trends of greater car motorization and mass. To better understand some of the interrelationships of driver characteristics and car segments, this paper identifies different groups of drivers, based on a representative sample of German automobilists (n = 1211). Psychological instruments used to identify driver segments include the Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ), the Multidimensional Driving Style Inventory (MDSI), and the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Based on k-means clustering, we identified four distinct groups: Risky drivers, Showy anxious-aggressive drivers, Anxious drivers and Calm drivers. Questions focused on socio-demographics, political orientation, and traffic laws are used to describe these psychographic segments. Findings suggest that Risky and Showy anxious-aggressive drivers represent a greater threat to traffic safety than other driver segments for different reasons: they drive more powerful and larger cars, deliberately violate traffic laws – creating unsafe traffic conditions for others –, and oppose legislation making traffic safer, while also voting for parties holding on to the status quo. As their political choices appear dominated by automobile interests, there are widespread implications for society.     

Examining U.S. drivers’ characteristics in relation to how frequently they engage in speeding on freeways

Speeding and speed-related crashes have consistently represented over 25% of all traffic fatalities over the past two decades. The severity of these speed-related incidents not only impact the drivers but all road users. Thus, characterizing drivers who speed, understanding their motivations, and identifying the types of risky driving behaviors associated with speeding play a critical role in developing, implementing, and sustaining effective countermeasures. Using a survey administered to a U.S. nationally representative sample (N = 2,930 licensed drivers aged 16 or older), this study develops a partial proportional odds model to examine differences in characteristics between types of speeders – frequent, occasional, and non-speeders – and explores characteristics and risk driving behaviors that are most associated with speeding behavior. Additionally, motivations for speeding are examined for drivers who frequently speed compared with those who occasionally speed. Results show speeders tended to engage in other unsafe driving behaviors, such as distracted, aggressive, unbelted, and alcohol-impaired driving. Among demographic and socio-economic variables examined in this study, drivers’ age was the greatest associated determinant. The association with engagement in red-light running, however, outweighed that with drivers’ age. Interestingly, the interaction between educational attainment and engagement in aggressive driving was also predictive of speeding behavior. For motivations for speeding, frequent speeders were more likely to report enjoying driving fast and disagreeing with speed limits compared with occasional speeders. The findings of this study are useful towards identifying the various characteristics and behaviors of drivers who engage in speeding, which can provide future insights into where effective countermeasures and prevention efforts should be focused.     

Group cycling safety behaviours: A systematic review

BackgroundThe popularity of cycling in a group is longstanding and increasing. Compared to riding as an individual, many cyclists feel safer when riding in a group as they have better personal security, potential support in case of mishaps, safer wayfinding and are more visible to other road users. However, further to the safety challenges shared with individual cyclists, group cyclist safety is impacted by rider proximity, the larger space taken up on roadways, potentially higher speeds, and social norms that could increase risky behaviours. Despite these unique safety considerations, the practice of cycling in groups has received little academic attention and group cyclist safety behaviours have not been analysed by road safety researchers.ObjectiveTo identify, describe, categorise and conceptualise within a teamwork framework, safety related behaviours of groups of cyclists as mentioned in academic literature.MethodsThree academic databases (Google Scholar, Proquest, and Scopus) were searched for peer reviewed literature that mentioned safe or risky behaviours of groups of cyclists. A total of 32 papers met the inclusion criteria. Relevant group cyclist behaviours were described and categorised using a conceptual teamwork framework.ResultsGroup cyclists’ safety behaviours are governed by a comprehensive but informal and adaptable set of rules. These rules are safety critical and are often strictly controlled within groups. Many groups of cyclists may ride in a safer manner than individual cyclists due to teamwork factors, particularly shared mental models, team orientation, and adaptability.ConclusionGroup cyclists take safety seriously. Teamwork factors may make behavioural interventions to decrease risky behaviours easier to implement with group cyclists compared to individual cyclists. Investigation of group cycling safety behaviours may inform safe system interventions to increase road safety.     

Attention in risky choice

Previous research on the processes involved in risky decisions has rarely linked process data to choice directly. We used a simple measure based on the relative amount of attentional deployment to different components (gains/losses and their probabilities) of a risky gamble during the choice process, and we related this measure to the actual choice. In an experiment we recorded the decisions, decision times, and eye movements of 80 participants who made decisions on 11 choice problems. We used the number of eye fixations and fixation transitions to trace the deployment of attention during the choice process and obtained the following main results. First, different components of a gamble attracted different amounts of attention depending on participants' actual choice. This was reflected in both the number of fixations and the fixation transitions. Second, the last-fixated gamble but not the last-fixated reason predicted participants' choices. Third, a comparison of data obtained with eye tracking and data obtained with verbal protocols from a previous study showed a large degree of convergence regarding the process of risky choice. Together these findings tend to support dimensional decision strategies such as the priority heuristic.     

A Go/No-go approach to uncovering implicit attitudes towards safe and risky driving

Self-report measures of driving-related attitudes and beliefs miss potentially important precursors of driving behaviour, namely, automatic and implicit thought processes. The present study used an adapted Go/No-go Association Task to measure implicit thought without relying on the participants’ self-reports. Implicit attitudes towards safe and risky driving were measured in 53 Danish drivers (31 female, 22 male). Further, we explored the relationship between implicit attitudes towards risky and safe driving, and self-reported driving behaviour and skills. The results suggest that implicit attitudes towards driving behaviour can be measured reliably with the Go/No-go Association Task. Also, the results suggest that implicit attitudes towards safe driving and risky driving, respectively, may be separable constructs, and might thus stem from different cognitive processes. Finally, implicit attitudes were significantly related to self-reported driving behaviour and skills for male (but not female) drivers. Pending future research with larger sample sizes, the difference between implicit attitudes towards safe versus risky driving that we observed may contribute to a greater theoretical understanding of the causes of safe and risky driving.     

Can friendship serve as an impetus for safe driving among young drivers?

Reckless driving is a key factor in injury and death among young people, especially men, throughout the world. At this developmental stage (ages 17–24), the youngster’s behavior, including driving habits, is strongly influenced by the social discourse. Whereas previous studies have investigated the impact of concepts such as peer pressure and the number of passengers in the car, they have dealt little with the overall social relations that characterize young people, particularly, the nature of their friendships and their reflection in safe versus risky driving.Using qualitative phenomenological methodology, the present study relies on 32 semi-structured in-depth interviews to explore the elements of the relationships among young drivers in the context of driving behavior. Aristotle’s conceptualization of three types of friendship was employed as the interpretative framework. The findings reveal that a young driver’s behavior when driving with friends is associated with the different perceptions of friendship, and is gender and age sensitive. The elements of a friendship of utility (reciprocal interests, practical and beneficial interactions) were connected with safety at all ages and in both genders, and those of a friendship of virtue (responsibility, equality, concern for others) were associated with safe driving among females of all ages and among some of the older male drivers (21–24 years). In contrast, the components of a friendship of pleasure (spending leisure time together, sharing mutual interests) were related to risky and distracted driving, especially among the younger male drivers (17–19 years). It is suggested that interventions might promote safe driving among young people by fostering the positive aspects of their peer relationships.     

Sensitivity to reward and risky driving,risky decision making,and risky health behaviour: A literature review

Young driver road safety has persisted as a global problem for decades, despite copious and diverse intervention. Recently the influence in reward sensitivity, which refers to the individual’s personal sensitivity to rewards, has received attention in health-related research, including more generally through decision making in risky circumstances, and in risky driving behaviour specifically. As such, a literature review and synthesis of the literature regarding reward sensitivity in relation to risky driving, risky decision making, and risky health behaviour, with a focus on literature in which adolescents and young adults feature, is timely. Thirty-one papers were identified, and the literature revealed that young drivers with greater reward sensitivity engage in more risky driving behaviours including speeding, crashes and traffic violations; and that individuals with greater reward sensitivity engage in more risky decision making and other risky health-related behaviours (such as drinking and drug use). Adolescents and young adults exhibit heightened sensitivity to rewards in the presence of peers, which has considerable implications for young driver road safety as research consistently demonstrates that carrying peer passengers places all vehicle occupants at greater risk of being involved in a road crash. Consideration of the influence of reward sensitivity in young driver road safety, and other adolescent/young adult health-related safety, appears to be a promising avenue of intervention, with gain-framed messages more likely to be accepted by young drivers with greater reward sensitivity. Future research in jurisdictions other than Australia and Europe will increase our understanding of the influence of reward sensitivity, and exploration of the differential impacts of reward-responsiveness and fun-seeking specifically are warranted.     

Individual differences in need for cognition and decision making in the Iowa Gambling Task

Differences in decision making between individuals differing in Need for Cognition (NFC) are examined using the Iowa Gambling Task (IGT). Previous work using normative one time decisions suggests that individual low in NFC process gains and losses differently than those high in NFC and are more susceptible to decision biases. The IGT is a popular laboratory task that involves making risky decisions from experience involving both gains and losses. In the first experiment, low NFC participants performed significantly worse than the high NFC participants. A second experiment designed to examine the nature of these differences provides evidence that low NFC participants place more importance on gains as opposed to losses when performing the IGT. Results are discussed in light of previous work suggesting that low NFC participants place more importance on losses in mixed outcome decisions.     

Anger,aggression, risky behavior,and crash-related outcomes in three groups of drivers

High anger drivers who acknowledged problems with driving anger and were interested in treatment were compared to high and low anger drivers who did not acknowledge problems with driving anger or want treatment. Although high anger drivers who acknowledged problems reported greater anger on two measures than high anger drivers who did not acknowledge problems, both high anger groups tended not to differ from one another and were more frequently and intensely angered when driving, reported more aggressive and less adaptive/constructive forms of expressing anger while driving, engaged in more aggressive and risky behavior on the road, and experienced more of some accident-related outcomes than low anger drivers. High anger groups did not differ from each other, but reported more trait anxiety and anger and more outward negative and less controlled general anger expression than the low anger group. The two groups of high anger drivers, however, require different types of interventions given their state of readiness for driving anger reduction. Results were also interpreted as supportive of the state-trait model of anger and construct validity of the Driving Anger Scale.