Ictc Tattitudes&Accidents Katteler

366 views
284 views

Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
366
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ictc Tattitudes&Accidents Katteler

  1. 1. Accident involvement and traffic safety attitudes Herman Katteler Clara Woldringh ITS, Radboud University Nijmegen - NL
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>Focus of the study </li></ul><ul><li>Attitudes </li></ul><ul><li>Accident involvement </li></ul><ul><li>Attitudes and accident involvement </li></ul>
  3. 3. Aim of the study <ul><li>Guidance of traffic safety education </li></ul><ul><li>Relevant to DoE and DoT </li></ul><ul><li>Broad coverage </li></ul>
  4. 4. Comprehensive approach <ul><li>Knowledge but also attitudes and behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Not only road signs and rules: coverage of all relevant domains </li></ul><ul><li>All types of education </li></ul>
  5. 5. Domains <ul><li>Traffic rules; road signs </li></ul><ul><li>Risk identification </li></ul><ul><li>Changing of perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Alcohol and drugs </li></ul><ul><li>Dealing with group pressure </li></ul><ul><li>Physical aspects </li></ul><ul><li>Norms and values </li></ul>
  6. 6. Sub-domains   Domain 7   Domain x   Domain 1 Behaviour Attitude Knowledge
  7. 7. Examples of sub-domains <ul><li>Risk identification </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Recognizing risk </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Risk acceptance </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Group pressure </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge: -- </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Propensity to group conformity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peer behaviour </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Alcohol, dugs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Blood alcohol level permitted </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Attitude towards people driving with alcohol </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Using alcohol </li></ul></ul>
  8. 8. Requirements <ul><li>Applicable at any intellectual level </li></ul><ul><li>In all types of education </li></ul><ul><li>Test length of 45 minutes maximum </li></ul><ul><li>Reliability; scale construction </li></ul><ul><li>Validity </li></ul>
  9. 9. Approach <ul><li>Self-completion questionnaire </li></ul><ul><li>Completion in class context </li></ul><ul><li>Variety in presentation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Photographs </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Illustrated situations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Item sets </li></ul></ul>
  10. 12. Additional information <ul><li>Length and complexity of home-school route </li></ul><ul><li>Youngsters in rural areas </li></ul><ul><li>Accident involvement </li></ul>
  11. 13. Pupils sample (a) <ul><li>Age groups: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>45% 12-13 years old; 55% 14-16 years old </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Traffic safety education: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>20% without traffic safety education </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On average 10 hours safety education over 3 school years </li></ul></ul>
  12. 14. Pupils sample (b) <ul><li>Number of risky situations: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>None 11% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>1 34% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2+ 55% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>independent of where living </li></ul></ul><ul><li>length of bike trip: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>cities 9% > 30 m </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>small villages 27% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>rural area 56% </li></ul></ul>
  13. 15. Knowledge of elementary basic rules <ul><li>10 elementary right-of-way situations (bike-rider and 1 other road user) </li></ul>
  14. 17. Knowledge of elementary basic rules <ul><li>Disappointing result: 33% achieved poorly; 20% moderately </li></ul><ul><li>Tendency to overcautious behaviour! </li></ul>
  15. 19. Laying down a standard... 60% 70% 80% 40%
  16. 20. Attitudes: most negative ones <ul><li>Attitude towards own unsafe/ incorrect behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Propensity to behave decently </li></ul><ul><li>Attitude towards group following behaviour </li></ul><ul><li>Action tendency: use of safety increasing attributes </li></ul>
  17. 22. Attitudes towards traffic rules by age group
  18. 23. Alcohol: knowledge + attitude by age group
  19. 24. Girls – boys, 11 attitudes
  20. 25. Action tendency: alcohol use
  21. 26. Accident involvement <ul><li>Usually: exclusively injuries </li></ul><ul><li>Levels of seriousness </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Injury </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Material damage </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Near-accident </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Self-reports (last 2 years) </li></ul>
  22. 27. Accident involvement: % <ul><li>Injuries 11% </li></ul><ul><li> } 38% </li></ul><ul><li>Material damage 34% } 60% </li></ul><ul><li>Near-accidents 50% </li></ul>
  23. 28. Accident involvement
  24. 29. Intermediate conclusions <ul><li>Accident involvement is a gradual phenomenon </li></ul><ul><li>Injuries tip of ice-berg: usual focus incomplete </li></ul><ul><li>Splendid variable for analysis </li></ul><ul><li>Reliability to be improved </li></ul>
  25. 30. Predictive value of near-accidents for real accident involvement r=.34
  26. 31. Knowledge and accident involvement <ul><li>Not correlated ! </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Better knowledge does not reduce chance of accident involvement </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> .00 < r < .07 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Knowledge prerequisite > determining </li></ul></ul>
  27. 32. Attitudes and accident involvement <ul><li>Attitudes clearly correlated: r = > .20 </li></ul><ul><li>Strongest correlations: </li></ul><ul><li>real acc near-accidents </li></ul><ul><li>Peer behaviour -.17 -.30 </li></ul><ul><li>Behave decently -.17 -.29 </li></ul><ul><li>Traffic rules and signs -.12 -.26 </li></ul><ul><li>Risk acceptance -.15 -.25 </li></ul><ul><li>Attitudes internally correlated basic attitude </li></ul>
  28. 33. Predictive power of clusters of variables
  29. 34. Multivariate analysis <ul><li>Peer behaviour .28 </li></ul><ul><li>Use of safe bike attributes .32 </li></ul><ul><li>Nr of risky situations on-route .35 </li></ul><ul><li>Tendency to behave decently .37 </li></ul><ul><li>Length of home-school route .38 </li></ul><ul><li>Degree of risk acceptance .39 </li></ul><ul><li>mr = .39 r 2 = .15 </li></ul>
  30. 35. Conclusions <ul><li>Evidence for relevancy of attitudes </li></ul><ul><li>Traffic safety education needed + perspective </li></ul><ul><li>Attitudes firmer predictors than infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Relevancy of broad accident involvement concept </li></ul>
  31. 36. Colofon <ul><li>Herman Katteler / Clara Woldringh </li></ul><ul><li>ITS </li></ul><ul><li>Radbout University Nijmegen </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] nl </li></ul><ul><li>Willem Vermeulen </li></ul><ul><li>Transport Research Group (AVV) </li></ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul>

×