ArticlePDF Available

Crash risk by driver age, gender, and time of day using a new exposure methodology

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Introduction: Concerns have been raised that the nonlinear relation between crashes and travel exposure invalidates the conventional use of crash rates to control for exposure. A new metric of exposure that bears a linear association to crashes was used as basis for calculating unbiased crash risks. This study compared the two methods - conventional crash rates and new adjusted crash risk - for assessing the effect of driver age, gender, and time of day on the risk of crash involvement and crash fatality. Method: We used police reports of single-car and multi-car crashes with fatal and nonfatal driver injuries that occurred during 2002-2012 in Great Britain. Results: Conventional crash rates were highest in the youngest age group and declined steeply until age 60-69 years. The adjusted crash risk instead peaked at age 21-29 years and reduced gradually with age. The risk of nighttime driving, especially among teenage drivers, was much smaller when based on adjusted crash risks. Finally, the adjusted fatality risk incurred by elderly drivers remained constant across time of day, suggesting that their risk of sustaining a fatal injury due to a crash is more attributable to excess fragility than to crash seriousness. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate a biasing effect of low travel exposure on conventional crash rates. This implies that conventional methods do not yield meaningful comparisons of crash risk between driver groups and driving conditions of varying exposure to risk. The excess crash rates typically associated with teenage and elderly drivers as well as nighttime driving are attributed in part to overestimation of risk at low travel exposure. Practical Applications: Greater attention should be directed toward crash involvement among drivers in their 20s and 30s as well as younger drivers. Countermeasures should focus on the role of physical vulnerability in fatality risk of elderly drivers.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Crash risk by driver age, gender, and time of day using a new
exposure methodology
,
☆☆
Shirley Regev,
a,
Jonathan J. Rolison,
b
Salissou Moutari
c
a
The School of Public Policy, University College London, The Rubin Building, 29/31 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9QU, UK
b
Department of Psychology, University of Essex, Colchester, UK
c
Department of Mathematics and Physics, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
abstractarticle info
Article history:
Received 26 November 2017
Received in revised form 1 April 2018
Accepted 2 July 2018
Available online 07 July2018
Introduction: Concerns have been raised that the nonlinear relation between crashes and travel exposure invali-
dates the conventional use of crash rates to control for exposure. A new metric of exposure that bears a linear as-
sociation to crashes wasused as basis for calculating unbiased crash risks. This study compared the two methods
conventional crash rates and new adjustedcrash risk for assessingthe effect of driver age, gender, and time of
day on the riskof crash involvement and crashfatality. Method:We used police reportsof single-car and multi-car
crashes with fatal and nonfatal driver injuries that occurred during 20022012 in Great Britain. Results: Conven-
tional crash rates were highest in the youngest age group and declined steeply until age 6069 years. The ad-
justed crash risk instead peaked at age 2129 years and reduced gradually with age. The risk of nighttime
driving, especially among teenage drivers, was much smaller when basedon adjusted crash risks. Finally, the ad-
justed fatality risk incurred by elderly drivers remained constant across time of day, suggesting that their risk of
sustaining a fatal injury due to a crash is more attributable to excess fragility than to crash seriousness. Conclu-
sions: Our ndings demonstrate a biasing effect of low travel exposure on conventional crash rates. This implies
that conventional methods do not yield meaningful comparisonsof crash risk between drivergroups and driving
conditions of varyingexposure to risk. The excesscrash rates typicallyassociated withteenage and elderly drivers
as well as nighttime driving are attributed in part to overestimation of risk at low travel exposure. Practical Appli-
cations: Greater attention should be directed toward crash involvement among drivers in their 20s and 30s as
well as younger drivers. Countermeasures should focus on the role of physical vulnerability in fatality risk of el-
derly drivers.
© 2018 The Authors. National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Keywords:
Crash rates
Age
Sex
Time of day
Low-exposure bias
1. Introduction
Road trafc collisions are a major global health concern. They ac-
count for more than 1.2 million deaths worldwide each year and an
even larger number of serious injuries (World Health Organization,
2015). Obtaining a better understanding of the factors that contribute
to driver crash risk is critical for the development of effective road safety
policies and initiatives.
A wealth of road safety research has assessed driver characteristics,
such as age and gender, linked to elevated crash risk. These studies
have typically shown that the youngest and oldest drivers have much
higher fatal and non-fatal crash risks than drivers in the middle-age
ranges (Lam, 2002; Ma & Yan, 2014; McAndrews, Beyer, Guse, &
Layde, 2013; Williams, 2003; Williams & Shabanova, 2003; Zhou,
Zhao, Pour-Rouholamin, & Tobias, 2015). Several studies have also
found differences in fatal and nonfatal crash risks among subgroups of
older drivers. For example, there is evidence that drivers aged 7074 ex-
hibit lower crash risk relative to drivers aged 7579, with the highest
risk seen in drivers aged 80 and older (Cheung & McCartt, 2011;
Cicchino, 2015; Cicchino & McCartt, 2014).
Road safety research has also addressed associations between driver
gender and elevated crash risk.In general, female drivers are considered
safer than male drivers (Åkerstedt & Kecklund, 2001; Kim, Brunner, &
Yamashita, 2008; Ma & Yan, 2014; Massie, Green, & Campbell, 1997;
Zhou et al., 2015). However, some studies suggest that while women
tend to have fewer fatal crashes than men do, their risk of injury crashes
may be higher (Massie, Campbell, & Williams, 1995;
Santamariña-Rubio, Pérez, Olabarria, & Novoa, 2014).
In addition to crash involvement, driver's age and gender have also
been shown to affect the severity of crash outcomes (i.e. the risk of
fatal injury given a crash). Male and elderly drivers are more likely to
be fatally injured in a crash than female drivers and drivers in the
Journal of Safety Research 66 (2018) 131140
Declarations of interest: None.
☆☆ Acknowledgments: The research was supported by a grant awarded by the UK
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC Reference; EP/M017877/1;
A new metric for the assessment of driver crash risks).
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: s.dorchin-regev@ucl.ac.uk (S. Regev).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2018.07.002
0022-4375/© 2018 The Authors. National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Safety Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr
younger age ranges (Huang & Lai, 2011; Kim, Ulfarsson, Kim, & Shankar,
2013; Li, Braver, & Chen, 2003; Valent et al., 2002; Vorko-Jović,Kern,&
Biloglav, 2006).
The risk ofcrash involvement also appears to vary with environmen-
tal factors, such as time of day. Crash risk is higher for nighttime com-
pared with other times of day, with the difference being more
pronounced for male drivers and at younger ages (Doherty, Andrey, &
MacGregor, 1998; Kim et al., 2013; Li, Baker, Langlois, & Kelen, 1998;
Massie et al., 1995). Time of day has also appeared to be associated
with crash severity, as drivers are more likely to sustain a fatal injury
due to nighttime crashes compared to daytime crashes, particularly
among the younger age groups (Huang & Lai, 2011; Valent et al.,
2002; Vorko-Jovićet al., 2006).
It is well recognized that in order to allow for meaningful compari-
sons of crash risk among driver groups or driving environments, it is
necessary to take into account their differences in intensity of travel ex-
posure (Elander, West, & French, 1993; Wolfe, 1982). If travel exposure
is not controlled for, one cannot determine whether a higher number of
crashes for a particular group (or environment) is due to a greater ten-
dency for crash involvement or to greater exposure to travel situations
that may result in a crash (Chapman, 1973; Muhlrad & Dupont, 2010).
Traditionally, researchers have accounted for differences in expo-
sure by dividing the crash counts of a particular driver group (e.g., age,
gender) by either their annual travel (Li et al., 2003; Massie et al.,
1995, 1997), their group size in number of licensed drivers (Chen et
al., 2010; McAndrews et al., 2013), or a combination of travel and
group size (Doherty et al., 1998; Li et al., 1998). However, the use of
crash rate to account for differences in driving exposure is appropriate
as long as crash counts increase proportionally with increased driving
exposure. That is, when the association between crash frequency and
driving exposure, known as the safety performance function,is linear
(Elander et al., 1993; Qin, Ivan, & Ravishanker, 2004). Crash rate can
be dened as the slope of the line from the origins to a particular
point on the safety performance function. If the safety performance
function is non-linear, then crash rate will vary at different exposure
levels. Consequently, crash rates would not allow for meaningful risk
comparisons among driver groups or driving conditions with varying
levels of exposure (Elander et al., 1993; Janke, 1991; Qin et al., 2004).
Importantly, numerous road safety researchers (Elander et al., 1993;
Elvik, 2014; Janke, 1991; Langford, Methorst, & Hakamies-Blomqvist,
2006; Maycock, Lockwood, & Lester, 1991; Qin et al., 2004;seeaf
Wåhlberg, 2009 for review) reported thatthe relationship between an-
nual crash counts and driving exposure is in fact nonlinear. Specically,
the relationship is often described as following a broadly logarithmic
curve, with an initial rapid increase in crash counts at low exposure
levels followed by gradually slowing down and nally attening out at
high exposure levels. As a result, as the distance driven increases, the
crash rate per distance driven declines. Thus, it is a common nding in
the literature that low-mileage drivers have greater crash rate than
high-mileage drivers (Alvarez & Fierro, 2008; Antin et al., 2017;
Hakamies-Blomqvist, Raitanen, & O'Neill, 2002; Langford et al., 2006).
There are several possible explanations for the nonlinearity of the
safety performance function. First, high-mileage drivers clock a greater
proportion of their miles on freeways, whereas low-mileage drivers
tend to restrict their travel to relatively hazardous urban roads
(Hakamies-Blomqvist et al., 2002; Janke, 1991; Keall & Frith, 2004,
2006). Second, high-mileage drivers accumulate greater driving experi-
ence than low-mileage drivers and therefore may possess betterdriving
skills (Elander et al., 1993; Elvik, 2014). Finally, older drivers with visual
or physical impairments tend to reduce their driving exposure (Alvarez
& Fierro, 2008; Stutts, 1998); thus, a low-mileage group might include a
larger number of impaired drivers who are more inclined to be involved
in crashes (Keall & Frith, 2004; Langford et al., 2006, 2013).
Regardless of the underlying reasons, the exposurecrash relation-
ship is nonlinear, and hence crash rates become smaller with increased
driving exposure. Because of this, concerns have been raised in the road
safety literature that the use of crash rates may lead to biased risk com-
parisons when driver groups or driving conditions vary greatly in their
travel exposure (Elander et al., 1993; Elvik, 2014; Hauer, 1995; Janke,
1991; Qin et al., 2004). Accordingly, differences in crash rate between
groups or driving conditions may reect variation in exposure rather
than variation in crash tendency. Consequently, the rate-based method
may lead to overestimation of crash risk for low-exposed drivers, and
underestimation for high-exposed drivers (for similar reasoning against
the use of rates to control for exposure to risk applied to biological and
epidemiological data see Allison, Paultre, Goran, Poehlman, &
Heymseld, 1995; Curran-Everett, 2013; Packard & Boardman, 1999).
Acommonnding in the literature is that young and elderly drivers
have lower driving exposure than other age groups in terms of distance
traveled and number of license holders (e.g., Fontaine, 2003; Keall &
Frith, 2006; Langford et al., 2006). It follows that in the case of age
group comparisons, the use of crash rates may lead to underestimation
of crash risk for low-exposed age groups, such as young and elderly
drivers, and overestimation of crash risk for high-exposed age groups,
such as drivers in the middle-age range. In line with this, the proportion
of low-annual travel drivers as a function of age has a U-shaped curve
similar to that typically observed for crash rate by age: Elevated values
for younger and older drivers relative to the middle-aged drivers
(Fontaine, 2003; Janke, 1991; Keall & Frith, 2006). This observation
has led to the theoretical notion, referred to as low-mileage bias,
whereby the elevated crash risk among elderly drivers might be the re-
sult of their low distance traveled (Hakamies-Blomqvist et al., 2002). In
accordance with this reasoning, comparing subgroups of drivers of dif-
ferent ages matched for distance driven has led to the oldest drivers
being the safest or just as safe as drivers in other age ranges (Alvarez
& Fierro, 2008; Fontaine, 2003; Hakamies-Blomqvist et al., 2002;
Langford et al., 2006).
Biased estimation of crash rates might also occur for gender compar-
isons in crash risk. Studies have reported that women of all ages are less
likely than men to have a driver's license, and those who do tend to
drive lower annual mileage (Fontaine, 2003; Li et al., 1998; Massie et
al., 1995; Santamariña-Rubio et al., 2014). It is conceivable then that
the rate-based crash risk of female drivers might be underestimated,
while their male counterparts might have an overestimated crash risk.
The use of crash rates can be equally regarded as inappropriate for
any driving conditions that differ substantially in travel exposure, such
as time of day. The proportion of night driving is considerably small
across all ages, as most of the driving is done during daytime (Keall &
Frith, 2004, 2006; Powell et al., 2007). For example, in one study, re-
searchers found that only 13% of drivers' total driving distance was
made at night (Keall & Frith, 2004). The small exposure to risk during
nighttime hours may therefore be associated with biased estimates of
crash rates, whereby nighttime crash risk is exaggerated relative to
other times of day. Moreover, given that age and gender differences in
travel exposure vary with time of day (e.g., Keall & Frith, 2004), disag-
gregating crash risk by time of day would be of relevance for risk com-
parisons among driver groups.
This paper aims to examine the extent to which the traditional crash
rate approach is biased for risk comparisons between agegender
groups and across different times of day. To this end, we compared
the results of conventional crash rates to those of adjusted risk estima-
tors computed using a new exposure metric that provides a linear rela-
tionship for the safety performance function, as outlined below. We
hypothesized that when using conventional crash rate estimators,
young and elderly drivers would demonstrate a much higher risk of
crash involvement for fatal and nonfatal crashes compared to drivers
in the middle-age ranges; in contrast, when using adjusted risk estima-
tors, age differences in crash involvement risk would be substantially
reduced. Similarly, we hypothesized that the risk of crash involvement
for nighttime driving compared to driving during the day and evening
hours would be reduced when using the new adjusted risk estimators
compared to the traditional crash rates.
132 S. Regev et al. / Journal of Safety Research 66 (2018) 131140
As a further consideration, we also assessed the risk of crash fatality
(i.e., driver fatal injury given a crash had occurred) as estimated by the
traditional and adjusted methods. Fatality risk was dened as the ratio
of fatal crash involvement risk to both fatal and nonfatal crash involve-
ment risks. Our rationale was that if small driver numbers among the
young and elderly and infrequent travel atnight bias traditional assess-
ments of crash risk, then any measures of fatal injury risk based on this
approach would also be biased.
Single- and multi-vehicle crashes appear to differ substantially in
their characteristics and contributing factors (Bingham & Ehsani,
2012; Williams & Shabanova, 2003). Furthermore, it has been argued
that estimating crash risk of multi-vehicle collisions requires
adjusting for the travel exposure of all drivers involved (Elvik,
2014; Qin et al., 2004; Rolison, Moutari, Hewson, & Hellier, 2014).
Therefore, comparisons between conventional and adjusted crash
risk methods were made separately for single- and two-vehicle
crashes.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Travel exposure data
Estimates of driving exposure in terms of trip numbers and license
holders were obtained from the United Kingdom (UK) National Travel
Survey for the periods of 20022012 (Department for Transport [DfT],
2012a). Trip numbers per driver were estimated annually for each
driver age range (1720, 2129, 3039, 4049, 5059, 6069, 70
years), gender, and time of day (daytime 06:0018:00; evening
18:0021:00; nighttime 21:0006:00). Driver numbers in the popula-
tion were estimated annually for each age range and gender as the
product of the proportion of drivers in the UK National Travel Survey
sample (14,959 drivers on average, annually) and the estimated num-
ber of UK residents.
2.2. Road accident data
The road accident data were population-wide single- and two-car
collisions reported in Great Britain (England, Scotland, and Wales)
during the years 2002 through 2012. The road accident data were
recorded by police ofcials on location and were made available by
the University of Essex Data Archive after being processed by the
Department for Transport (DfT, 2012b). Driver deaths occurring
within 30 days following a road accident were classied as road
accident fatalities. Non-fatal collisions included non-fatal driver
injury cases.
2.3. Calculation for single-vehicle crashes
Traditional crash risk, γ
i
, was estimated by dividingthe crash counts,
x
i
, of each driver group, i, by the product of their estimated trips per
driver, y
i
, and their driver numbers in the population, z
i
, where:
γi¼xi
yizi
:ð1Þ
The γ
i
values were scaled annually by dividing each by the
largest across all driver groups (i.e., age, gender, time of day),
whereby γ
i
was equal to 1 for the driver group with the highest
crash risk.
Here, we employed the new exposure metric to provide a linear
safety performance function and remedy the biasing effects of crash
rates. Thisapproach involvesan alternative assessment of riskexposure.
Accordingly, the adjusted exposure, ξ
i
, of each driver group, i, is esti-
mated on theassumption that exposure should be high if the population
of a driver group is large and their trips are many, low if their population
is large andtheir trips are few,and higher if their population is small and
their trips are many than if their population is small and their trips are
few. It follows that:
ξi¼exp 2 zi
ðÞyi1zi
ðÞ
1yi
ðÞþexp 2 zi
ðÞ
;ð2Þ
where total trips per driver, yi, and the population, zi, are scaled values
that are calculated by dividing each value by the largest across driver
groups (i.e., age, gender, time of day).
The adjusted crash risk, γ
i
, of each driver group, i, is estimated on
the assumption that the crash risk of a driver group should be high if
their crashes are many and their adjusted exposure is small, low if
their crashes are few and their exposure is high, and higher if their
crashes are few and their exposure is low than if their crashes are
many and their exposure is high. Thus:
γ0
i¼αAi1ξixi
ðÞexp 2xi
ðÞ
1þexp 2xi
ðÞ
;ð3Þ
with:
α¼exp 1ðÞ
1exp 1ðÞ
;ð3aÞ
and:
Ai¼1þxiexp xi
ðÞξiexp ξi1ðÞ;ð3bÞ
where crash numbers, xi, are scaled values that are calculated by divid-
ing each value by the largest across all driver groups (i.e., age, gender,
time of day). As for traditional crash risks, the adjusted crash risks, γ
i
,
were scaled annually by dividing each by the largest across all driver
groups. Relative risks and 95% condence intervals were calculated
using beta regression analyses.
Fig. 1A plots the relationship between scaled conventional crash rate
and exposure levels (with exposure dened as the product of trip num-
bers and population size). For comparison, Fig. 1B plots the relationship
between the scaled adjusted crash risk and exposure levels based on the
proposed exposure metric. These plots show that traditional crash rates
are increased at the lowest exposure level with a rapid decrease and
attening out at higher exposure. In contrast, the adjusted crash risk
remained constant with exposure, enabling comparison of driver
groups that vary greatly in population numbers and amount of travel.
2.4. Calculation for multi-vehicle crashes
Traditional crash risk for two-car collisions was calculated using Eq.
(1) in the same way as for single-car crashes. In order to calculate two-
car adjusted crash risk, we employed the extended adjusted crash risk
metric, which explicitly accounts for all drivers involved in multicar col-
lisions. It follows that, for two-car crashes, adjusted crash risk, γ
i
,is
equal to the geometric mean of the adjusted crash risks across each of
the other driver age ranges involved in the same collision, such that:
γ0
i¼Y
N
j¼1
αAij
1ξijxij

exp 2xij

1þexp 2xij

0
@1
A
1=N
;ð4Þ
with
α¼exp 1ðÞ
1exp 1
ðÞ
;Aij ¼1þxij exp xij

ξij exp ξij1

;ξij
¼ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ξiξj
q;
where Nindicates the number of other driver ageranges involved in the
same multiple car collision. As such, the adjusted two-car crash risk of
each driver age range is aggregated after having adjusted for the risk
133S. Regev et al. / Journal of Safety Research 66 (2018) 131140
exposure of all other drivers involved in each multicar collision. As in
the single-car analysis, relative risks and 95% condence intervals
were calculated using beta regression analyses.
3. Results
3.1. Driving exposure estimates
In terms of population size, as expected, the youngest and oldest
drivers were fewest in number in the population (Table 1). Specically,
drivers aged 1720 years were 87% fewer in number and drivers aged
70 years and above were 46% fewer in number than drivers aged 40
49 years who represented the largest driver age group in the popula-
tion. In terms of the amount of travel, Table 1 shows that, expectedly,
trips per driver were fewest in number among men and women in the
youngest age range of 1720 years and in the oldest drivers aged
70+. The average number of trips per driver was highest in the 5059
age group for men and the 4049 age group for women. For both gen-
ders, fewer trips were made at night than during daytime or evening.
In fact, only 8% of trips taken by men and 5% of trips taken by women
occurred at night.
3.2. Frequency of single-vehicle crashes
The 3039 year age group had the highest frequency of daytime
crashes, whereas the 2129 year age group had the highest crash fre-
quency during evening and night hours (Table 2). Crash numbers
decreased gradually with age to a minimumat 70 or more years, the ex-
ception being fatal crashes where there was a slight increase in the
oldest age group. Men and women showed similar trends, but with
lowerfrequencyforwomen.
3.3. Single-vehicle crash involvement risk
Traditional rates of crash involvement by driver age and gender
were calculated based on the estimated number of licensed drivers
and trip numbers in each agegender group. The youngest age group
had an excess relative risk of being involved in fatal and nonfatal sin-
gle-car crashes compared with the reference group aged 6069 years
(Table 3). Specically, drivers aged 17 to 20, in both genders, had a
nearly 19-fold the risk of fatal crash involvement compared to drivers
aged 6069 years. Similarly, the risk of non-fatal crash involvement
for teen drivers was about 15 times as high as that of drivers aged 60
to 69. There was a steep decline in the relative risk of crash involvement
with drivers' age, for both fatal and non-fatal crashes. The crash risk of
female drivers aged 70 and over was 2.20 and 1.33 times as high as
those of female drivers aged 60 to 69, for fatal and non-fatal crashes, re-
spectively. Male drivers aged 70 and over had a fatal crash risk compa-
rable with 60 to 60 year olds, and even showed 10% reduction in the
relative risk for nonfatal crashes. Overall, with the exception of elderly
drivers, the traditional method for calculating rate-based crash risks
followed the familiar age pattern whereby young drivers have a much
higher risk of crash involvement than other age groups.
Conversely, based on the adjusted risk estimators, relative risk for
fatal and non-fatal crash involvement peaked at age 2129 years for
Fig. 1. Effectsof increasing exposure levels based on conventional exposure estimates (A) and the new exposure metric (B) on traditional and adjustedcrash risk.
Table 1
Estimated average annual tripand driver numbers in the population by age, gender, and
time of day in Great Britain, 20022012.
Trip numbers Driver numbers
Day Evening Night
Males
1720 411 113 86 440
2129 482 114 67 1,877
3039 534 106 52 3,015
4049 578 118 56 3,282
5059 610 105 54 2,877
6069 594 74 38 2,388
70+ 513 45 22 2,156
Females
1720 391 99 56 391
2129 517 97 42 1,974
3039 609 88 29 2,980
4049 647 104 36 3,109
5059 552 81 33 2,542
6069 457 51 24 1,888
70+ 388 31 16 1,301
Note. Trip numbers are annual numbers per driver in the population;driver numbers are
driver numbers in the population per 1,000 drivers.
Table 2
Single-car fatal andnon-fatalcrash counts by driverage, gender, and time ofday in Great
Britain, 20022012.
Fatal crash counts Nonfatal crash counts
Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Males
1720 16 10 44 2,081 938 2,251
2129 35 16 66 4,101 1,347 2,616
3039 40 16 35 4,702 1,218 1,637
4049 28 10 19 4,251 948 1,112
5059 17 7 12 3,086 591 578
6069 12 2 5 1,682 286 234
70+ 19 2 2 1,188 155 101
Females
1720 3 1 6 949 342 568
2129 6 2 7 2,069 539 610
3039 6 2 4 2,228 426 324
4049 6 1 2 1,831 333 215
5059 3 1 1 1,079 182 108
6069 2 0 0 553 79 40
70+ 6 0 0 474 50 22
134 S. Regev et al. / Journal of Safety Research 66 (2018) 131140
men and at age 3039 years for women. As illustrated in Table 3,therel-
ative risk of fatal and nonfatal crash involvementwas gradually reduced
across driver age ranges. Relative to male drivers in the 6069 age
group, young male drivers aged 17 to 20 had only 1.79 and 1.67 times
as much risk for fatal and nonfatal crash involvement, respectively.
These relative risks of crash involvement for male teen drivers were
about the same as those shown by middle-aged drivers and lower
than those of drivers in their 20s and 30s. For females, teen drivers
had 10% lower risk of being involved in a fatal crash and only 1.19
times as high risk of nonfatal crash involvement than drivers aged 60
to 69. Finally, the relative risk of the oldest female age group was com-
parable to 6069 year olds for fatalcrash involvementand even reduced
by 6% for nonfatal crashes.
When crash involvement for age-gender groups was examined by
time of day, it was found that nighttime crashes accounted for 80%
(95% CI, 80%81%) of the traditional single-car fatal crash risk for 17-
to 20-year-old men and 85% (95% CI, 84%86%) for women (Fig. 2A).
To a lesser extent, nighttime crashes also accounted for a large propor-
tion of teen drivers' non-fatal crash rates, with 66% (95% CI, 66%66%)
for men and 62% (95% CI, 62%63%) for women (Fig. 2B).Hence,thetra-
ditional method of estimating driver crash risk indicates a high risk of
driving at night among the youngest drivers relative to other times of
the day.
In contrast, the adjusted crash risk metric revealed that crashes at
night accounted for a much smaller proportion of the overall crash
risk in the 1720 year age range. Nighttime crashes accounted for 61%
(95% CI, 60%61%) of the adjusted fatal crash risk for men and 53%
(95% CI, 53%54%) for women (Fig. 2C). Just 47% (95% CI, 47%47%) of
the adjusted non-fatal crash risk of 17- to 20-year-old male drivers
was accounted for by nighttime crashes, compared to 42% (95% CI,
42%42%) for female drivers (Fig. 2D).
3.4. Single-car risk of fatal injury given crash involvement
The risk of fatal injury given crash involvement was measured as
fatal crash risk divided by the sum of fatal and non-fatal crash risk. Fig.
3shows the traditional and adjusted risk of fatal injury for each age
range and gender during daytime, evening, and nighttime hours. Risk
of fatal injury could range in value from 0 to 1. A value of 0.50 indicates
that the fatal crash risk of a driver group relative to other groups is equal
to the non-fatal crash risk relative to other groups. A value of greater
than 0.50 indicates a higher relative risk of fatal injury given crash in-
volvement and a value of less than 0.50 indicates a lower relative risk
of fatal injury.
Age differences in the risk of sustaining a fatal injury differed de-
pending on the method used to compute crash involvement risks. Risk
of fatal injury based on traditional crash rates showed an increase
from the 6069year group to the oldest age group in men during day-
time and evening hours (Fig. 3A) and in women (Fig. 3B) during day-
time, evening, and nighttime. In contrast, when based on adjusted
Table 3
Traditional and adjusted single-vehicle crash risks for fatal and nonfatal collisions by
driver age and gender in Great Britain, 20022012.
Fatal relative risk Nonfatal relative risk
Traditional Adjusted Traditional Adjusted
Males
1720 18.6 [17.619.8] 1.79 [1.751.83] 15.3 [14.715.9] 1.67 [1.631.70]
2129 8.50 [7.969.11] 2.54 [2.502.59] 5.46 [5.245.68] 2.17 [2.142.20]
3039 3.88 [3.634.14] 2.44 [2.392.49] 2.95 [2.813.09] 2.08 [2.052.12]
4049 2.01 [1.872.15] 1.79 [1.751.83] 1.91 [1.822.00] 1.75 [1.721.79]
5059 1.59 [1.491.70] 1.39 [1.351.43] 1.34 [1.271.41] 1.34 [1.321.36]
6069 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
70+ 0.90 [0.801.01] 1.12 [1.081.15] 0.90 [0.850.94] 0.92 [0.900.93]
Females
1720 18.8 [16.920.8] 0.94 [0.910.96] 14.8 [14.215.5] 1.19 [1.161.21]
2129 5.63 [4.996.37] 1.19 [1.161.22] 4.44 [4.264.63] 1.65 [1.621.67]
3039 3.38 [2.953.82] 1.39 [1.361.42] 2.46 [2.362.58] 1.67 [1.651.69]
4049 1.77 [1.542.02] 1.24 [1.211.28] 1.52 [1.461.58] 1.45 [1.431.47]
5059 1.74 [1.511.99] 1.13 [1.111.16] 1.20 [1.151.26] 1.18 [1.171.20]
6069 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
70+ 2.20 [1.902.51] 1.03 [1.001.06] 1.33 [1.271.39] 0.94 [0.930.96]
Note. Crash risks were scaled annually by dividing their valuesby the largest across age
and gender. Relativerisks were estimated usingbeta regressionanalyses. Figuresin paren-
thesis indicate the bootstrapped 95% condence intervals. Drivers aged 6069years were
used as the reference group.
Fig. 2. Traditionalsingle-vehiclefatal (A) and non-fatal (B) crash risk andadjusted single-vehicle fatal (C) and non-fatal(D) crash risk by driverage and gender stacked for daytime (06:00
h18:00 h),evening (18:00 h21:00h), and nighttime (21:00h06:00 h) hours. Leftand right columns represent maleand female crash risks, respectively.Traditional and adjusted crash
risks were eachscaled annually by dividing their values by the largest across driver groups.
135S. Regev et al. / Journal of Safety Research 66 (2018) 131140
crash risks, risk of fatal injury increased from age 6069 years to the
oldest age group only during daytime for both men (Fig. 3C) and
women (Fig. 3D). Female drivers, particularly those in the 3139 and
4149 age groups, had a very low risk of fatal injury during daytime.
The risk of fatal injury based on traditional estimates was greater for
nighttime crashes than for crashes in the evening and daytime hours, in
both male (Fig. 3A) and female drivers (Fig. 3B). When based on the ad-
justed estimates, therisk of fatal injury for nighttime crashes was higher
than that of daytime crashes, but similar to that of crashes occurring
during evening hours, in both men (Fig. 3C) and women (Fig. 3D).
3.5. Frequency of two-vehicle crashes
As illustrated in Table 4, on average, multicar non-fatal crashes were
greatest in number among 21 to 29-year-old men and women. The fatal
crash frequency of women was greatest among 2129 year olds,
whereas the fatal crash frequency of men was greatest in the 3039
year age range. Non-fatal crash numbers declined with age to a mini-
mum at 70+ years, whereas numbers of fatal crashes declined with
age until a rise from age 6069 years to age 70+ years. Fatal and non-
fatal crashes were greater in number during the daytime for men and
women than during evening or nighttime hours.
3.6. Multi-vehicle crash involvement risk
Traditional risk estimates for multi-vehicle fatal and non-fatal crash
involvement were calculated by driver age and gender. Crashrates were
highest among drivers aged 17 to 20 and reduced steeply with age
(Table 5;Fig. 4A and B). The risk of crash involvement for teen male
Fig. 3. Traditional and adjusted single-car risk of fatal injury given crash involvement by gender and driver age during daytime (06:00 h18:00 h), evening (18:00 h21:00 h), and
nighttime (21:00 h06:00h) hours. Risk of fatal injury given crash involvement was calculated annually by dividing the single-car fatal crash risk by the sum of the single-car fatal and
non-fatal crash risk.
Table 4
Two-vehicle fatal and non-fatal crash counts by driver age, gender, and time of day in
Great Britain, 20022012.
Fatal crash counts Nonfatal crash counts
Day Evening Night Day Evening Night
Males
1720 34 13 21 4,263 1,462 1,239
2129 66 24 30 8,449 2,342 1,787
3039 80 21 24 9,178 2,022 1,371
4049 74 20 18 7,651 1,501 933
5059 54 10 12 5,173 913 517
6069 34 5 6 3,011 452 219
70+ 64 6 5 2,671 307 118
Females
1720 8 2 3 1,833 551 357
2129 17 3 4 4,256 952 466
3039 13 3 3 4,423 778 305
4049 14 4 3 3,615 635 237
5059 13 2 2 2,229 373 140
6069 10 2 1 1,168 172 61
70+ 22 2 1 1,084 111 37
Table 5
Two-vehicle fatal and nonfatal crash risks based on traditional andadjusted crash risk, by
driver age and gender in Great Britain, 20022012.
Fatal relative risk Nonfatal relative risk
Traditional Adjusted Traditional Adjusted
Males
1720 7.75 [7.358.19] 0.98 [0.961.00] 11.1 [10.711.4] 1.10 [1.091.11]
2129 3.23 [3.023.46] 1.22 [1.201.25] 4.56 [4.394.76] 1.44 [1.431.45]
3039 2.04 [1.922.17] 1.34 [1.321.37] 2.74 [2.612.87] 1.45 [1.441.45]
4049 1.51 [1.421.60] 1.33 [1.311.35] 1.76 [1.691.84] 1.34 [1.331.36]
5059 1.15 [1.071.23] 1.10 [1.081.13] 1.28 [1.221.35] 1.12 [1.121.13]
6069 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
70+ 1.75 [1.631.87] 1.13 [1.101.16] 1.12 [1.071.18] 1.01 [1.001.02]
Females
1720 3.68 [3.284.13] 0.86 [0.840.87] 8.73 [8.379.09] 0.95 [0.950.96]
2129 1.31 [1.191.44] 0.97 [0.950.98] 3.05 [2.943.18] 1.16 [1.161.17]
3039 0.92 [0.831.01] 1.12 [1.111.14] 1.87 [1.791.95] 1.28 [1.271.29]
4049 0.77 [0.700.84] 1.10 [1.081.12] 1.27 [1.221.32] 1.20 [1.191.21]
5059 0.68 [0.620.74] 1.02 [1.011.04] 1.11 [1.061.17] 1.08 [1.081.09]
6069 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
70+ 2.29 [2.112.49] 1.01 [0.991.02] 1.46 [1.391.53] 0.97 [0.960.97]
Note. Crash risks were scaled annually by dividing their values by the largest across age
and gender.Relative riskswere estimated usingbeta regression analyses. Figuresin paren-
thesis indicate the bootstrapped 95% condence intervals. Drivers aged 6069 years were
used as the reference group.
136 S. Regev et al. / Journal of Safety Research 66 (2018) 131140
drivers was 7.75 and 11.1 times ashigh as the risk of drivers in the safest
age group (6069), for fatal and nonfatal crashes, respectively. Relative
to 6069 year olds, the crash risk of other age groups of male drivers
varied between 1.15 and 3.23 for fatal crashes; and between 1.12 and
4.56 for nonfatal crashes. The oldest male group was 1.75 and 1.12
times as likely to be involved in fatal and nonfatal crashes respectively,
as compared to the 6069 age group.
For female teen drivers, the risk of being involved in a fatal crash was
3.68 times as high as that among female drivers aged 60 to 69.The 21
29 and oldest age groups had 1.31 and 2.29 times as high fatal crash risk
as drivers aged 60 to 69. Fatal crash risk was reduced by 8% to 32%
among female drivers in the middle age ranges (30s to 50s) in compar-
ison to the 6069 reference group. The risk of nonfatal crash involve-
ment among female drivers was highest for the 1720 year olds, who
had a relative risk equal to 8.73; it then declined sharply with age up
to the oldest age group, having 1.46 times the risk compared to the ref-
erence age group.
In contrast with the age trends in traditional crash risk, adjusted
multicar fatal and non-fatal crash risk was highest among the 3039
year age range and showed a gradual decline with age (Table 5;Fig.
4C and D). Compared with drivers aged 60 to 69, teen female drivers
had 14% less risk of being involved in a fatal crash and 3% less risk of
being involved in a nonfatal crash. For male teen drivers, their risk of
fatal crash involvement was comparable to drivers aged 60 to 69, and
they were only 1.10 as likely to be involved in a nonfatal crash. Female
drivers aged 70 and over had similar or slightly reduced risk of being in-
volved in a crash as drivers in the 6069 age group. For males, the oldest
group of drivers had only 1.13 times the riskof fatal crash involvement
and their nonfatal crash risk was similarto that of drivers aged 60to 69.
Comparisons of crash involvement risk by driver group across time
of day revealed that crashes at nighttime accounted for 54% (95% CI,
54%55%) of the traditional multicar fatal crash rates among 17 to 20-
year-old men and 52% (95% CI, 50%54%) among women (Fig. 4A) and
accounted for 38% (95% CI, 38%38%) of the traditional non-fatal crash
risk for 17 to 20-year-old men and 38% (95% CI, 38%39%) for women
(Fig. 4B). Crash risks based on the adjusted method revealed a similar
multicar crash risk during nighttime relative to other times of day.
Accordingly, nighttime crashes accounted for 50% (95% CI, 50%50%)
of the adjusted fatal crash risk for 17 to 20-year-old men and 52%
(95% CI, 52%52%) for women and 43% (95% CI, 43%43%) of the non-
fatal crash risk for men and 47% (95% CI, 47%47%) for women.
3.7. Multicar risk of fatal injury given crash involvement
Risk of fatal injury based on traditional crash risks was greater in
nighttime crashes than in crashes during daytime or evening hours
among male (Fig. 5A) and female drivers (Fig. 5B). In contrast, based
on the adjusted crash risks, the risk of fatal injury for nighttime crashes
was similar to that of crashes occurring during evening hours, in both
men (Fig. 5C) and women (Fig. 5D). Similarly, age differences in fatal in-
jury risk differed depending on whether they were computed by the
traditional or adjusted crash risks. Based on traditional crash rates, the
risk of fatal injury increased from age 6069 years to age N70 years dur-
ing daytime, evening, and nighttime hours among men (Fig. 5A) and
women (Fig. 5B). In contrast, the risk of fatal injury as measured by ad-
justed crash risks increased from age 6069 years to age N70 years only
during the daytime for men(Fig. 5C) and women (Fig. 5D). As in the sin-
gle-vehicle analysis, female drivers' fatal crash risk was extremely low
during the daytime, especially among those in their 30s and 40s.
4. Discussion
Crash rates are commonly used to assess the risk of different driver
groups varying in exposure to risk. However, this approach requires
that crash frequency and the exposure index be correlated linearly
an invalid assumption when using conventional measurement of expo-
sure. Here we applied a crash risk method based on a new exposure
metric, for which the number of crashes is proportional to the amount
of driving exposure. We found that traditional crash rates reduced
steeply from age 1720 years through age 6069 years. Adjusted crash
risk instead peaked at age 2029 years and decreased gradually until
age 6069 years. Additionally, elderly drivers had reduced crash in-
volvement and fatality risks when using the adjusted crash risk com-
pared to conventional crash rates. Finally, nighttime driving among
Fig. 4. Traditional 2-car fatal (A) and non-fatal (B) crash riskand adjusted 2-car fatal (C) and non-fatal (D) crash risk by driver age and gender stacked for daytime (06:00 h18:00h),
evening (18:00 h21:00 h), and nighttime (21:00 h06:00 h) hours. Left and right columns represent male and female crash risks, respectively. Traditional and adjusted crash risks
were each scaled annually by dividing their values by the largest across driver groups.
137S. Regev et al. / Journal of Safety Research 66 (2018) 131140
teen drivers accounted for a smaller proportion of their single-vehicle
crash risk than implied by crash rates.
The dramatic reduction in conventional crash rates from young to
middle-age ranges reects the common ndings in the literature (e.g.,
Ma & Yan, 2014; McAndrews et al., 2013; Williams & Shabanova,
2003). However, the adjusted crash risks revealed a remarkably differ-
ent age-trend in driver risk: Crash risk was highest among 2129 year
olds and thereon reduced gradually with age. The current results are
in agreement with those obtained in studies using disaggregated
models and quasi-induced exposure methods for crash risk analyses.
These studies have shown that the youngest and oldest age groups are
not the riskiest drivers. Rather, drivers in their 20s and 30s were those
demonstrating the highest crash risk (Kam, 2003; Stamatiadis &
Deacon, 1997). While the robustness of our ndings is supported by
previousreports, we do not argue here against the enforcementof driv-
ing restrictions targeting young drivers. Justication for road safety reg-
ulations would also depend on drivers' ability to recognize their own
limitations and self-regulate their driving accordingly. The present in-
vestigation merely highlights that other age groups also exhibit sub-
stantial driver crash risk and may also benet from targeted road
safety initiatives.
Drivers, especially young males, are reported to have higher crash
involvement rates at nighttime compared to daytime (e.g., Keall &
Frith, 2006). Adjusting appropriately for the infrequency of nighttime
travel, we discovered that crashes at night accounted for far less of the
single-car crash risk of teen drivers compared to the traditional method.
In Great Britain, young drivers are not restricted in their travel at night.
Policymakers in countries where curfews are imposed on the youngest
drivers (McCartt & Teoh, 2015) should be cognizant that the contribu-
tion of nighttime driving to single-vehicle crashes of teenagers may be
exaggerated by traditional methods of analyzing crash risk.
Previous investigations using conventionalcrash rates have reported
increased crash risk in older age (e.g., Cicchino & McCartt, 2014; Massie
et al., 1995). We found that when controlling correctly for their small
driver numbers and infrequent travel, crash involvement and fatality
risks of elderly drivers were reduced. These ndings are consistent
with past research showing that older driver crash risk appears high
due to the biasing effects of their small driving exposure (Alvarez &
Fierro, 2008; Antin et al., 2017; Fontaine, 2003; Hakamies-Blomqvist
et al., 2002; Langford et al., 2006). Future research should include iden-
tication ofage subgroups among older drivers given possible variation
in their driving exposure and crash risks (Cicchino, 2015; Cicchino &
McCartt, 2014).
Interestingly, our analysis revealed that among elderly drivers, the
risk of sustaining a fatal injury from a crash remained constant across
time of day. This nding lends support to the role of fragility in worsen-
ing injury outcomes for elderly drivers who are involved in crashes,
since fragility (unlike crash seriousness) is not expected to be inu-
enced by time of day. Therefore, countermeasures beneting elderly
drivers should focus on improving in-vehicle technology to reduce in-
jury severity.
In either method, young and middle-aged drivers were more likely
to sustain a fatal injury from a crash that occurred at night than during
daytime. This resonates with previous research (e.g. Doherty et al.,
1998). However, the adjusted method also revealed that fatal injury
risk from nighttime crashes was similar to the risk from crashes in the
evening. Thus, the current ndings support the need to report age com-
parisons in crash involvement and injury severity by time of day and
highlight the importance of accounting properly for the variability in
travel exposure across time periods.
Findings from both methods regarding gender differences in crash
risk were generally consistent with prior research; male drivers are
more likely to be involved in fatal and non-fatal crashes compared to fe-
male drivers (e.g., Kimet al., 2008; Zhou et al., 2015). The adjusted
method has also demonstrated that the fatal crash risk of women, par-
ticularly those in their 30s to 40s, was extremely low during daytime.
These data t prior travel behavior research showing that women, espe-
cially those with children, aremore likely than mento make trips during
daytime with the intention of servingpassengers (e.g., Koppel, Charlton,
Kopinathan, & Taranto, 2011; Rosenbloom, 2006). Although the pres-
ence of passengers is associated with in-vehicle distraction (Koppel et
al., 2011; Stutts et al., 2005), having young passengers might be more
protective than harmful by reducing risk-taking behaviors among
women drivers. Future studies are needed to explore this possibility.
Fig. 5. Traditional and adjusted risk of fatal injurygiven multi-vehicle crash involvement by driver age and gender during daytime (06:00 h18:00 h), evening (18:00 h21:00 h), and
nighttime (21:00h06:00 h) hours. Risk of fatal injury given crash involvement was calculated annually by dividing multi-vehicle fatal crash risk by the sum of multi-vehicle fatal and
non-fatal crash risk.
138 S. Regev et al. / Journal of Safety Research 66 (2018) 131140
Our investigation has a number of potential limitations. First, moti-
vated by concerns about the use of mileage in age comparisons of
crash risk (Janke, 1991; Langford et al., 2013), we used annual trip num-
bers as our indicator of travel per person. In our study,traditional crash
rates per trip produced the familiar pattern of excessive crash risk
among the youngest drivers. Using different travel indicators might
have resulted in smaller amount of risk exposure for older drivers and
consequently larger crash rates in this age group.Nevertheless, previous
studies have shown that reduction in travel associated with older age
occurs both in terms of frequency of trips and distance traveled (Sivak
& Schoettle, 2011). Second, we used self-reports of trips made, which
may be associated with reporting biases that differ with driver age
(e.g., Bricka & Bhat, 2006). Future studies may benet from incorporat-
ing objective measures of risk exposure. Finally, we acknowledge that
the new crash risk approach is based on an exposure metric that is
more complex to compute in comparison to simple crash rate. Never-
theless, the new adjusted crash risk estimators are superior to the con-
ventional crash rates in producing unbiased risk comparisons for driver
groups and driving conditions that vary in their exposure to risk.
5. Conclusion
The current study applied a new approach to model crash risks
based on exposure metric that bears a linear relation with crashes.
Our ndings draw attention to the invalidity of crash ratesfor risk com-
parisons among groups and conditions that vary in driving exposure.
Specically, we have demonstrated that conventional crash rates over-
estimate the actual risk of crash involvement and fatal injury for the
youngest and oldest drivers as well as for nighttime driving. This work
has important practical implications for improving road safety initia-
tives, as meaningful comparisons are essential for identifying truly at-
risk drivers and driving conditions. It is hoped that the approach pre-
sented here will facilitate development of new crash modeling method-
ologies that are able to account for the non-linear shape of the safety
performance function, and provide reliable crash risk estimates for
road safety research and policies.
References
af Wåhlberg, A. E. (2009). Driver behaviour and accident research methodology: Unresolved
problems. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Åkerstedt, T., & Kecklund, G. (2001). Age, gender and early morning highway accidents.
Journal of Sleep Research,10(2), 105110. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2869.2001.
00248.x.
Allison,D. B., Paultre, F., Goran, M. I., Poehlman, E. T., & Heymseld, S. B. (1995). Statistical
considerations regarding the use of ratios to adjust data. International Journal of
Obesity and Related Metabolic Disorders,19(9), 644652.
Alvarez, F. J., & Fierro, I. (2008). Older drivers, medical condition, medical impairment and
crash risk. Accident Analysis and Prevention,40(1), 5560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2007.04.001.
Antin, J. F., Guo, F., Fang, Y., Dingus, T. A., Perez, M. A., & Hankey, J. M.(2017). A validation
of the low mileage bias using naturalistic driving study data. Journal of Sa fety
Research,63,115120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2017.10.011.
Bingham,C. R., & Ehsani, J. P. (2012). The relative odds of involvement in seven crash con-
gurations by driver age and sex. Journal of Adolescent Health,51(5), 484490.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.02.012.
Bricka, S., & Bhat, C. (2006). Comparative analysis of global positioning system-based and
travel survey-baseddata. Transportation ResearchRecord: Journal of the Transportation
Research Board,1972,920. https://doi.org/10.3141/1972-04.
Chapman, R. (1973). The concept of exposure. Accident Analysis and Prevention,5(2),
95110. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(73)90018-3.
Chen, H. Y.,Senserrick, T., Martiniuk, A.L. C., Ivers, R. Q., Boufous, S., Chang,H. Y., & Norton,
R. (2010). Fatal crash trends for Australian young drivers 19972007: Geographic
and socioeconomic differentials. Journal of Safety Research,41(2), 123128. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2009.12.006.
Cheung, I., & McCartt, A. T. (2011). Declines in fatal crashes of older drivers: Changes in
crash risk and survivability. Accident Analysis & Prevention,43(3), 666674. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2010.10.010.
Cicchino, J. B. (2015). Why have fatality rates among older drivers declined? The relative
contributions of changes in survivability and crash involvement. Accident Analysis &
Prevention,83,6773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2015.06.012.
Cicchino, J. B., & McCartt, A. T. (2014). Trends in older driver crash involvement rates and
survivability in the United States: An update. Accident Analysis & Prevent ion,72,
4454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.06.011.
Curran-Everett, D. (2013). Explorations instatistics: The analysis of ratiosand normalized
data. Advances in Physiology Education,37(3), 213219. https://doi.org/10.1152/
advan.00053.2013.
Department for Transport (2012a). National Travel Survey: 2012. https://www.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/le/243957/nts2012-01.pdf.
Department for Transport (2012b). Reported road casualties Great Britain: 2012. Avail-
able at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/
le/269601/rrcgb-2012-complete.pdf.
Doherty, S. T., Andrey, J. C., & MacGregor,C. (1998). The situational risks of young drivers:
The inuence of passengers, time of day and day of week on accident rates. Accident
Analysis and Preve ntion,30(1), 4552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(97)
00060-2.
Elander, J., West, R., & French, D. (1993). Behavioral correlates of individual differencesin
road-trafc crash risk: An examination of methods and ndings. Psycholo gical
Bulletin,113(2), 279294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.2.279.
Elvik, R. (2014). Towardsa general theory of the relationship between exposure and risk.
TØI report, 1316, 2014.
Fontaine, H. (2003). Âge des conducteurs de voiture et accidents de la route. Quel risque
pour les seniors? Recherche Transports Sécurité,79,107120. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0761-8980(03)00007-4.
Hakamies-Blomqvist, L., Raitanen, T., & O'Neill, D. (2002). Driver ageing does not
cause higher accident rates per km. Transportation Research Part F: Trafc
Psychology and Behaviour,5(4), 271274.https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8478
(03)00005-6.
Hauer, E. (1995). On exposure and accident rate. Trafc Engineering and Control,36(3),
134138.
Huang, W. S., & Lai, C. H. (2011). Survival risk factors for fatal injured car and motorcycle
drivers in single alcohol-related and alcohol-unrelated vehicle crashes. Journal of
Safety Research,42(2), 9399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2011.01.005.
Janke, M. K.(1991). Accidents, mileage,and the exaggeration of risk. Accident Analysis and
Prevention,23(2), 183188. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(91)90048-A.
Kam, B. H. (2003). A disaggregate approach to crash rate analysis. Accident Analysis and
Prevention,35(5), 693709. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00048-9.
Keall, M. D., & Frith, W. J. (2004). Older driver crash rates in relation to type and quantity
of travel. Trafc Injury Prevention,5(1), 2636. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15389580490269146.
Keall, M. D., & Frith, W. J. (2006). Characteristics andrisks of drivers with low annual dis-
tance driven. Trafc Injury Prevention,7(3), 248255. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15389580600672836.
Kim, K., Brunner, I. M., & Yamashita, E. (2008). Modeling fault among accidentInvolved
pedestrians and motorists in Hawaii. Accident Analysis and Preventi on,40(6),
20432049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2008.08.021.
Kim, J. K., Ulfarsson, G. F., Kim, S., & Shankar, V. N. (2013). Driver-injury severity in single-
vehicle crashes in California: A mixed logit analysis of heterogeneity due to age and
gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention,50, 10731081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2012.08.011.
Koppel, S., Charlton, J., Kopinathan, C., & Taranto, D. (2011). Are child occupants a signif-
icant source of driving distraction? Accident Analysis and Prevention,43(3),
12361244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.01.005.
Lam, L. T. (2002). Distractions and the risk of car crash injury: The effect of drivers' age.
Journal of Safety Research,33(3), 411419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(02)
00034-8.
Langford, J., Charlton, J. L., Koppel, S., Myers, A., Tuokko, H., Marshall, S., ... Macdonald, W.
(2013). Findings from the Candrive/Ozcandrive study: Low mileage older drivers,
crash risk and reduced tness to drive. Acci dent Analysis and Prevention,61,
304310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.02.006.
Langford, J., Methorst, R., & Hakamies-Blomqvist, L. (2006). Older drivers do not have a
high crash riskA replication of low mileage bias. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
38(3), 574578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.12.002.
Li, G., Baker, S. P., Langlois, J. A., & Kelen, G. D.(1998). Are female drivers safer? An appli-
cation of the decomposition method. Epidemiology,9(4), 379384.
Li, G., Braver, E. R., & Chen, L. H. (2003). Fragility versus excessive crash involvement as
determinants of high death rates per vehicle-mile of travel among older drivers.
Accident Analysis and Prevention,35(2), 227235. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-
4575(01)00107-5.
Ma, L., & Yan, X. (2014). Examining the nonparametric effect of drivers' age in rear-end
accidents through an additive logistic regression model. Accident Analysis and
Prevention,67,129136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.02.021.
Massie, D. L., Campbell, K. L., & Williams, A. F. (1995). Trafc accident involvement rates
by driver age and gender. Accident Analysis and Prevention,27(1), 7387. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(94)00050-V.
Massie, D.L., Green, P. E., & Campbell, K. L. (1997). Crashinvolvement rates bydriver gen-
der and the role of average annual mileage. Accident Analysis and Prevention,29(5),
675685. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(97)00037-7.
Maycock, G., Lockwood,C. R., & Lester, J. F. (1991). The accidentliability of car drivers. TRL
Report 315. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.
McAndrews, C., Beyer, K., Guse, C. E., & Layde, P. (2013). Revisiting exposure: Fatal and
non-fatal trafc injury risk across different populations of travelers in Wisconsin,
20012009. Accident Analysis and Prevention,60,103112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2013.08.005.
McCartt, A. T., & Teoh, E. R. (2015). Tracking progress in teenage driver crash risk in the
United States since the advent of graduated driver licensing programs. Journal of
Safety Research,53,19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.01.001.
Muhlrad, N.,& Dupont, E. (2010). Consultation of a panel of experts on theneeds for data
and technical tools in road safety policy-making. Deliverable 1.1/4.1 of the EC FP7
project DaCoTA. Retrieved May 1, 2017, from http://www.dacota-project.eu.
139S. Regev et al. / Journal of Safety Research 66 (2018) 131140
Packard,G. C., & Boardman, T. J.(1999). The use of percentagesand size-specicindicesto
normalize physiological data for variation in body size: Wasted time, wasted effort?
Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology. Part A, Molecular & Integrative Physiology
(1), 3744. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1095-6433(98)10170-8.
Powell, N.B., Schechtman, K. B.,Riley, R. W., Guilleminault, C.,Chiang, R. P. Y., & Weaver,E.
M. (2007). Sleepy driver near-misses may predict accident risks. Sleep,30(3),
331342.
Qin, X., Ivan, J. N., & Ravishanker, N. (2004). Selecting exposure measures in crash rate
prediction for two-lane highway segments. Accident Analysis and Prevention,36(2),
183191. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00148-3.
Rolison, J. J., Moutari, S., Hewson, P. J., & Hellier, E. (2014). Overestimated crash risks of
young and elderly drivers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,46(1), 5864.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2013.08.014.
Rosenbloom, S. (2006). Understanding women's and men's travel patterns: The research
challenge. Research on women's issues in transportation, Transportation Research Board
conference proceeding s. 35.(pp.728). Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Santamariña-Rubio, E., Pérez, K., Olabarria, M.,& Novoa, A. M. (2014). Gender differences
in road trafc injury rate using time travelled as a measure of exposure. Accident
Analysis and Prevention,65,17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.11.015.
Sivak, M.,& Schoettle, B. (2011).Recent changes in theage composition ofUS drivers: Im-
plications for the extent, safety, and environmental consequences of personal trans-
portation. Trafc Injury Prevention,12(6), 588592. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15389588.2011.605817.
Stamatiadis, N., & Deacon,J. A. (1997). Quasi-induced exposure: Methodology and insight.
Accident Analysis and Prevention,29(1), 3752. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575
(96)00060-7.
Stutts, J. C. (1998). Do older drivers with visual and cognitive impairments drive less?
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society,46(7), 854861. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.
1532-5415.1998.tb02719.x.
Stutts, J., Feaganes, J., Reinfurt, D., Rodgman, E., Hamlett, C., Gish, K., & Staplin, L. (2005).
Driver's exposure to distractions in their natural driving environment. Accident
Analysisand Prevention,37(6),10931101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.06.007.
Valent, F., Schiava, F., Savonitto, C., Gallo, T., Brusaferro, S., & Barbone, F. (2002). Risk fac-
tors for fatal road trafc accidents in Udine, Italy. Accident Analysis and Prevention,34
(1), 7184. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(00)00104-4.
Vorko-Jović, A., Kern, J., & Biloglav, Z. (2006). Risk factors in urban road trafcaccidents.
Journal of Safety Research,37(1), 9398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2005.08.009.
Williams, A. F. (2003). Teenage drivers: Patterns of risk. Journal of Safety Research,34(1),
515. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(02)00075-0.
Williams,A. F., & Shabanova, V. I. (2003). Responsibility of drivers, byage and gender, for
motor-vehicle crash deaths. Journal of Safety Research,34(5), 527531. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jsr.2003.03.001.
Wolfe, A. C. (1982). The concept of exposure to the risk of a road trafcaccidentandan
overview of exposure data collection methods. Accident Analysis and Prevention,14
(5), 337340. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(82)90010-0.
World Health Organization (2015). Global status report on road safety 2015. Available at
http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015.
Zhou, H., Zhao, J., Pour-Rouholamin, M., & Tobias, P. A. (2015). Statistical characteristics of
wrong-way driving crashes on Illinois freeways. Trafc Injury Preventi on,16(8),
760767. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2015.1020421.
Shirley Regev, PhD, is a Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at Oxford Brookes Uni-
versity in the United Kingdom. Dr. Regev's research is focused on applied cognitive psy-
chology in the context of transportation safety, especially driver distraction and risky
driving behavior. Her recent research includes projects related to statistical and cognitive
bias in road safety analysis.
Jonathan Rolison, PhD, is a Lecturer in the Department of Psychology at University of
Essex in the United Kingdom.His research is primarily in the area of risk taking behaviors
across adulthood.
Salissou Moutari, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Mathematics and Physics, at
Queen's University Belfast in the United Kingdom. Dr. Moutari is also afliated with the
Centre for Statistical Science and Operational Research (CenSSOR) at Queen's University
Belfast.
140 S. Regev et al. / Journal of Safety Research 66 (2018) 131140
... Young drivers have significantly more risk of being involved in traffic accidents compared to the other age groups (Constantinou et al., 2011;Regev et al., 2018;Scott-Parker & Oviedo-Trespalacios, 2017). Other factors include their lack of experience, but with the tendency to overestimate their abilities and underestimate the possibilities of accidents (Fisher et al., 2002). ...
Article
Full-text available
Risky driving behavior is the most dominant human error among young novice drivers. This research's objective was to find the correlation between difficulties in emotion regulation and optimistic bias towards risky driving behavior of teenagers. Sample was Senior High School students from grade 10 to 11 S who drove private vehicles on a daily basis (N=160). Instruments used were modified Behavior of Young Novice Drivers' Scale (BYNDS), modified Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS) and optimistic bias scale. Hypotheses were tested using multiple regression analysis. Results showed that there was a positive and significant correlation between difficulties in emotion regulation and optimistic bias towards risky driving behavior (F (2, 157) = 47.846; p < .01). Bigger contribution was found on difficulties in emotion regulation, indicating that teenagers while driving, relied more on their emotion regulation abilities than their awareness of driving risks.
... The college student sample is pertinent to our study because they are the potential buyers of vehicles equipped with autonomous features and are likely to be open-minded to the new technology (Haboucha et al., 2017). Also, driving safety is a big issue for those who are in their twenties (Regev et al., 2018). ...
Article
This study examines how favorable attitudes towards autonomous vehicle technology and automation-induced complacency relate to unsafe driving behaviors using semi-autonomous vehicles as an exemplar. The sample consisted of 441 college students and a repeated measures design was used to examine the relationships between psychological attitudes and susceptibility to risky driving behaviors across three scenarios. Linear regression analyses were conducted for hypothesis testing. Study 1 showed that favorable attitudes towards autonomous vehicle technologies were not significantly associated with susceptibility to risky driving behaviors. Study 2 replicated this finding, however, automation-induced complacency was significantly associated with susceptibility to risky driving behaviors. Additionally, evidence was found for the incremental validity of automation-induced complacency over favorable attitudes towards autonomous features. In distinguishing favorable attitudes toward autonomous features from automation-induced complacency, future research and policy-making can separately address these constructs for the promotion of traffic safety and policy-making.Practitioner Summary: We aimed to assess inclinations towards risky driving behaviors in semi-autonomous vehicles. Using vignettes, we found that favorable attitudes towards autonomous vehicles are not associated with risky behaviors, but automation-induced complacency was. Our findings suggest policies like educational programs can be implemented to prevent misuse of semi-autonomous vehicles.
... and young adults (18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29) have the highest overall rates of crash involvement per miles driven: they are almost twice to 4.5 times more likely to crash than drivers above 30, respectively (Tefft, 2017). The relative risk for fatal and nonfatal crashes is also higher in these groups relative to other age groups, with a peak in drivers aged 21-29 both for male and female drivers (Regev, Rolison, & Moutari, 2018). As a result, motor-vehicle crashes are the primary cause of mortality and injury among young people (Banz, Fell, & Vaca, 2019;Patton et al., 2009). ...
Article
Introduction: Peer pressure is a main factor influencing risky driving behavior in young people. Most empirical studies have focused either on direct or indirect peer pressure, and comprehensive measures assessing both are currently lacking. The present study aimed at developing and validating a scale to examine the influence of different types of peer pressure on risky driving in young drivers: the Peer Pressure on Risky Driving Scale (PPRDS). Method: Scale construction and assessment of its psychometric properties involved four phases: item development, assessment of content validity by expert reviewers, pre-testing of the scale and evaluation of psychometric properties of the final version in a sample of 773 young drivers aged 18–29. Results: Confirmatory factor analysis supported a three-factor structure that reflected the multifaceted definition of peer pressure on risky driving in the immediate driving context: risk-encouraging direct peer pressure; risk-discouraging direct peer pressure, and indirect pressure. The three factor scales showed good internal consistency and construct reliability, and correlated as expected with self-reported risky driving. Younger drivers (18–24) reported more direct and indirect peer pressure to engage in risky driving. Males indicated more direct peer pressure towards risky driving. Finally, interaction effects between age and sex were observed. Young male drivers reported the greatest direct peer pressure and adult female drivers the lowest direct peer pressure. Conclusions: The 23-item PPRDS scale has good psychometric properties and provides a useful tool for assessing different forms of peer pressure on risky driving. Practical Applications: The PPRDS can be used for evaluating the impact of peer-based education and road safety programs. The scale also provides valuable information for the design of evidence-based intervention.
... Young drivers aged 21-29 are at greatest risk of being involved in automobile accidents, particularly if they have been consuming alcohol (Bates et al., 2014;Regev et al., 2018). Therefore, it is important to gain a greater understanding of how alcohol impairs driving in this group. ...
Article
Full-text available
Background: The possibility of residual impairment of cognitive performance after multiday drinking sessions is particularly important given the potential for the deleterious effects of fatigue and hangover. This pilot study aimed to devise a methodology to compare sober performance on driving-relevant attentional tasks at the end of a 4-day music festival with performance at varying levels of the breath–alcohol curve. Methods: Fifty-two participants completed selective and sustained attention tasks at a breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) of 0.00%, 0.05%, and 0.08% following acute dosing in a controlled laboratory setting. A subset of participants (n = 13) were then tested at the conclusion of a 4-day music festival at 0.00% BrAC, with task performance compared with laboratory results. Results: During the laboratory phase, sustained attention was poorer at the 0.05% ascending timepoint only (compared to 0.00% BrAC). During the festival phase, participants made a greater number of errors on the selective attention task predeparture than at 0.00% and 0.05% BrAC in the laboratory. Sustained attention performance was poorer while intoxicated in the laboratory. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the absence of blood alcohol acutely may not be indicative of unimpaired cognitive performance and that other factors related to multiday drinking may produce driving-related attentional deficits. The findings reinforce the need to measure attentional performance in real-world drinking contexts despite the methodological complexities of doing so. A larger study is warranted to replicate the findings and should include attentional measures that either are more sensitive to the effects of acute alcohol intoxication than those in our study or are based on a driving simulator
... This makes sense for asset values that may cease to exist once their value reaches zero (e.g., in the event of bankruptcy). However, this is counter-intuitive in the context of monthly crash rates, which are largely dependent on travel patterns and traffic volumes (Wolfe 1982, Jovanis and Chang 1986, Commandeur et al. 2013, Regev et al. 2018), but are otherwise unrelated enough to be assumed as temporally independent. As such, we scale successive values in the series only to the initial value 1 . ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Modelling crash rates in an urban area requires a swathe of data regarding historical and prevailing traffic volumes and crash events and characteristics. Provided that the traffic volume of urban networks is largely defined by typical work and school commute patterns, crash rates can be determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy. However, this process becomes more complicated for an area that is frequently subject to peaks and troughs in traffic volume and crash events owing to exogenous events (for example, extreme weather) rather than typical commute patterns. One such area that is particularly exposed to exogenous events is Washington, DC, which has seen a large rise in crash events between 2009 and 2020. In this study, we adopt a forecasting model that embeds heterogeneity and temporal instability in its estimates in order to improve upon forecasting models currently used in transportation and road safety research. Specifically, we introduce a stochastic volatility model that aims to capture the nuances associated with crash rates in Washington, DC. We determine that this model can outperform conventional forecasting models, but it does not perform well in light of the unique travel patterns exhibited throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, its adaptability to the idiosyncrasies of Washington, DC crash rates demonstrates its ability to accurately simulate localised crash rates processes, which can be further adapted in public policy contexts to form road safety targets.
... This makes sense for asset values that may cease to exist once their value reaches zero (e.g., in the event of bankruptcy). However, this is counter-intuitive in the context of monthly crash rates, which are largely dependent on travel patterns and traffic volumes (Wolfe 1982, Jovanis and Chang 1986, Commandeur et al. 2013, Regev et al. 2018), but are otherwise unrelated enough to be assumed as temporally independent. As such, we scale successive values in the series only to the initial value 1 . ...
Article
Full-text available
Modelling crash rates in an urban area requires a swathe of data regarding historical and prevailing traffic volumes and crash events and characteristics. Provided that the traffic volume of urban networks is largely defined by typical work and school commute patterns, crash rates can be determined with a reasonable degree of accuracy. However, this process becomes more complicated for an area that is frequently subject to peaks and troughs in traffic volume and crash events owing to exogenous events-for example, extreme weather-rather than typical commute patterns. One such area that is particularly exposed to exogenous events is Washington, D.C., which has seen a large rise in crash events between 2009 and 2020. In this study, we adopt a forecasting model that embeds heterogeneity and temporal instability in its estimates in order to improve upon forecasting models currently used in transportation and road safety research. Specifically, we introduce a stochastic volatility model that aims to capture the nuances associated with crash rates in Washington, D.C. We determine that this model can outperform conventional forecasting models, but it does not perform well in light of the unique travel patterns exhibited throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, its adaptability to the idiosyncrasies of Washington, D.C. crash rates demonstrates its ability to accurately simulate localised crash rates processes, which can be further adapted in public policy contexts to form road safety targets.
... Researchers in the past showed that teen (or young) drivers are at utmost risk of getting involved in crashes (Ma and Yan 2014;Zhou et al. 2015;Regev et al. 2018). Moreover, the maximum risk is within the first six months of their driving (Mayhew et al. 2003). ...
Article
Motor vehicle crashes are one of the leading causes of teen deaths worldwide. It is important to assess the environment and identify the risk factors influencing teen crashes for planning strategies and improving their safety. This research, therefore, focuses on exploring the effect of road network, demographic, and land use characteristics to compute teen crash frequency. Data for 201 spatially distributed road segments in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, USA were considered for the evaluation. Data related to teen crashes were obtained from the Highway Safety Information System (HSIS). Demographic and land use characteristics were extracted around each selected road segment using two different buffer widths (0.25 miles and 0.5 miles). Teen crash frequency of each road segment was used as the dependent variable. The generalized linear models with the negative binomial distribution (GLM-based NB model) and geographically weighted negative binomial regression models (GWNBR and GWNBRg) were developed and compared. The annual average daily traffic (AADT), light commercial land use, number of household units, and number of pupils enrolled in public or private high schools are significant explanatory variables influencing teen crash frequency. Both methods have good predictive capabilities and can be used to compute teen crash frequency. However, the GWNBR and GWNBRg better capture the spatial dependency and spatial heterogeneity of associated risk factors influencing teen crash frequency.
Article
Introduction: EEG (electroencephalogram) has been applied as a valuable measure to estimate drivers’ mental status and cognitive workload during driving tasks. However, most previous studies have focused on the EEG features at particular driver status, such as fatigue or distraction, with less attention paid to EEG response in emergent and safety–critical situations. This study aims to investigate the underlying patterns of different EEG components during an emergent collision avoidance process. Method: A driving simulator experiment was conducted with 38 participants (19 females and 19 males). The scenario included a roadside pedestrian who suddenly crossed the road when the driver approached. The participants’ EEG data were collected during the pedestrian-collision avoidance process. The log-transformed power and power ratio of four typical EEG components (i.e., delta, theta, alpha and beta) were extracted from four collision avoidance stages: Stage 1-normal driving stage, Stage 2-hazard perception stage, Stage 3-evasive action stage, and Stage 4-post-hazard stage. Results: The activities of all four EEG bands changed consistently during the collision avoidance process, with the power increased significantly from Stage 1 to Stage 4. Drivers who collided with the pedestrian and drivers who avoided the collision successfully did not show a significant difference in EEG activity across the stages. Male drivers had a higher delta power ratio and lower alpha power ratio than females in both hazard perception and evasive action stages. Conclusions: Enhanced activities of different EEG bands could be concurrent at emergent and safety–critical situations. Female drivers were more mentally aroused than male drivers during the collision avoidance process. Practical Applications: The study generates more understanding of drivers’ neurophysiological response in an emergent and safety–critical collision avoidance event. Driver state monitoring and warning systems that aim to assist drivers in impending collisions may utilize the patterns of EEG activity identified in the collision avoidance process.
Article
In this article, it will be concluded that the major automotive racing league, Formula 1, is failing in its efforts to be a truly unisex sport. In the current Formula 1 series, there are no female drivers. Although women have never been officially prohibited from competing in Formula 1, there have been fewer than 10 female drivers since its inception. This inquiry focuses on why women drivers have been prevented from securing professional driving positions in Formula 1 and racing on equal terms with men. I argue that there are five major barriers which perpetuate women’s exclusion from this league: historical and current attitudes, assumed physical and mental inferiority, sexualisation, money, and representation and (in)visibility. In this cultural examination, I demonstrate that the situation for women in Formula 1 appears to be bleaker than in other sports that are making progress in their quest for gender equality. However, I also suggest that, despite ethical issues, W Series – a new, women-only, single-seater car racing championship – could potentially motivates positive change for women’s car racing by promoting gender equity through a new league which enables women to improve themselves in a protected category. This article also considers the impact of sex in Formula 1, which is pertinent to the discussion surrounding alleged biological differences. The discussion employs Simone de Beauvoir’s conceptualisation of ‘Otherness’, as well as Helmut Pflugfelder’s account of female embodiment in motorsport. The overall findings are that more focused research is required for gender issues in Formula 1 to be accurately addressed.
Article
The fear of being without a mobile phone has emerged as a global psycho-social phenomenon impacting smartphone users and their behaviour. Determining whether higher levels of nomophobia are associated with an increased likelihood of illegal smartphone use in vehicles may provide driver licencing authorities with avenues to reduce risk by developing programs and training aimed at mitigating nomophobia. This study builds upon a previous analysis that revealed only one of nomophobia's four factors—the fear of being without access to information—predicted the likelihood of illegal smartphone use while driving. By measuring total nomophobia scores in terms of severity, not factors, this study identified a stronger relationship than previously thought between driver's illegal smartphone use and the fear of being without a mobile phone. Indeed, using a sample of 2773 Australian smartphone users from the state of Victoria, individuals with ‘severe’ nomophobia were 85% more likely to engage in illegal use while driving. In other words, the odds of engaging in illegal smartphone use among those with severe nomophobia increased by a factor of 6.6. Given the global prevalence of severe nomophobia is over 20%, these findings become significant for road users around the world, especially in low to middle income countries where 90% of road traffic deaths occur. Developing educational and/or behavioural programs reducing nomophobia may reduce road traffic deaths.
Article
Full-text available
Objective: Driving the wrong way on freeways, namely wrong-way driving (WWD), has been found to be a major concern for more than 6 decades. The purpose of this study was to identify characteristics of this type of crash as well as to rank the locations/interchanges according to their vulnerability to WWD entries. Methods: The WWD crash data on Illinois freeways were statistically analyzed for a 6-year time period (2004 to 2009) from 3 aspects: crash, vehicle, and person. The temporal distributions, geographical distributions, roadway characteristics, and crash locations were analyzed for WWD crashes. The driver demographic information, physical condition, and injury severity were analyzed for wrong-way drivers. The vehicle characteristics, vehicle operation, and collision results were analyzed for WWD vehicles. A method was brought about to identify wrong-way entry points that was then used to develop a relative-importance technique and rank different interchange types in terms of potential WWD incidents. Results: The findings revealed that a large proportion of WWD crashes occurred during the weekend from midnight to 5 a.m. Approximately 80% of WWD crashes were located in urban areas and nearly 70% of wrong-way vehicles were passenger cars. Approximately 58% of wrong-way drivers were driving under the influence (DUI). Of those, nearly 50% were confirmed to be impaired by alcohol, about 4% were impaired by drugs, and more than 3% had been drinking. The analysis of interchange ranking found that compressed diamond interchanges, single point diamond interchanges (SPDIs), partial cloverleaf interchanges, and freeway feeders had the highest wrong-way crash rates (wrong-way crashes per 100 interchanges per year). Conclusions: The findings of this study call for more attention to WWD crashes from different aspects such as driver age group, time of day, day of week, and DUI drivers. Based on the analysis results of WWD distance, the study explained why a 5-mile radius of WWD crash location should be studied for WWD fatal crashes with unknown entry points.
Article
Full-text available
Article
Full-text available
This study examined U.S. teenagers' crash rates since 1996, when the first graduated driver licensing (GDL) program in the United State was implemented. Passenger vehicle driver crash involvement rates for 16-19 and 30-59 (middle-aged) year-olds were examined, using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System, Census Bureau, and National Household Travel Surveys. Per capita fatal and police-reported crash rates in 2012 were lower for 16year-olds than for middle-aged drivers but older teenagers' rates were higher. Mileage-based fatal and police-reported crash rates in 2008 were higher for teenagers than for middle-aged drivers and higher for 16-17year-olds than for older teenagers. In 1996-2012, teenagers' per capita fatal and police-reported crash rates declined sharply, especially for 16-17year-olds, and more so than for middle-aged drivers. Substantial declines also occurred in teenagers' mileage-based fatal and police-reported crash rates from 1995-96 to 2008, generally more so than for middle-aged drivers. Regarding factors in fatal crashes in 1996 and 2012, proportions of young teenagers' crashes occurring at night and with multiple teenage passengers declined, more so than among older teenagers and middle-aged drivers. The proportion of fatally injured drivers who had been drinking declined for teenagers but changed little for middle-aged drivers. Improvements were not apparent in rates of driver errors or speeding among teenage drivers in fatal crashes. Teenage drivers' crash risk dropped during the period of implementation of GDL laws, especially fatal crash types targeted by GDL. However, teenagers' crash risk remains high, and important crash factors remain unaddressed by GDL. Although this study was not designed to examine the role of GDL, the results are consistent with the increased presence of such laws. More gains are achievable if states strengthen their laws. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd and National Safety Council. All rights reserved.
Article
This paper examines the driver demographics, driver travel characteristics, and driver adherence to survey protocol considerations that affect the likelihood of underreporting in a household travel survey. The research considers both the likelihood of vehicle driver trip underreporting and the level of vehicle driver trip underreporting by using a joint binary choice-ordered response discrete model. The empirical analysis uses the Global Positioning System–equipped sample of households from the 2004 Kansas City (Kansas and Missouri) Household Travel Survey which also provided travel diary information. The empirical results provide important insights about underreporting tendencies in household travel surveys. In particular, adults younger than 30 years of age; men; individuals with less than a high school education; unemployed individuals; individuals working in clerical and manufacturing professions; workers employed at residential land uses; individuals who make many trips, travel long distances, and trip chain; and respondents who fail to use a travel diary to log their travel before telephone retrieval of their patterns are associated with more underreporting. The underlying factors that influence whether an individual underreports are different from the factors that affect the level of underreporting.
Article
Introduction This paper evaluated the low mileage bias (LMB) phenomenon for senior drivers using data mined from the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Naturalistic Driving Study. Supporters of the LMB construct postulate that it is only those seniors who drive the lowest annual mileage who are primarily responsible for the increased crash rates traditionally attributed to this population in general. Method The current analysis included 802 participants, all aged 65 or older who were involved in 163 property damage and injury crashes, and deemed to be at-fault in 123 (75%) of those instances. Poisson regression models were used to evaluate the association between annualized mileage driven and crash risk. Results Results show that the crash rate for drivers with lower annualized mileage (i.e., especially for those driving fewer than approximately 3000 miles per year) was significantly higher than that of drivers with higher annualized mileage, and that 25% of the overall sample were low- mileage drivers according to this criterion. Data were also evaluated by gender and meta-age group (i.e., younger-old: 65–74 and older-old: 75–99), and the results were consistent across these sub-groups. Conclusions This study provides strong support for the existence of the LMB. Practical applications These results can help to reshape how transportation safety stakeholders view senior drivers in general and help them to focus their efforts on those seniors most in need of either risk-reducing countermeasures or alternative means of transportation.
Article
This study examined the trend in fatality rates per vehicle miles traveled (VMT) among older drivers relative to middle-aged drivers and quantified the contributions of changes in crash involvement and survivability to this trend. Using U.S. national databases, changes in driver deaths per crash involvement (marker of death risk when involved in a crash) and crash involvements per VMT (marker of crash risk) from 1995-1998 to 2005-2008 among older drivers aged 70 and over relative to changes among middle-aged drivers aged 35-54 were computed. The contributions of these components to the relative changes in older drivers' fatality rates per VMT were calculated using the decomposition methodology. Fatality rates per VMT declined more among older drivers than among middle-aged drivers over the study period. Relative to middle-aged drivers, drivers aged 75 and older experienced large declines in crash risk and modest declines in death risk. Relative declines in crash risk accounted for 68-74% of the larger decline in fatalities per VMT among drivers aged 75 and older compared with middle-aged drivers. Drivers aged 70-74 experienced modest relative declines in crash risk and death risk. Declines in death risk among drivers aged 75 and older relative to middle-aged drivers were much larger in side-impact crashes; improvements in crash survivability accounted for nearly half of the relative decline in fatality rates in these crashes. Relative survivability did not change significantly in frontal impacts. Higher death risk was more important than higher crash risk in explaining older drivers' elevated fatality rates per VMT relative to middle-aged drivers during 1995-1998, and the contribution of heightened death risk was even greater during 2005-2008. Many factors may have reduced crash involvements among drivers 75 and older, including changes in travel patterns, health, and roadway design. In side impacts, side airbags and reduced passenger vehicle incompatibility may have improved survivability for older drivers. Because excess fragility now makes an even larger contribution to older drivers' elevated fatality rates, future countermeasures that improve survivability can likely provide large benefits. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Article
This paper examines the driver demographics, driver travel characteristics, and driver adherence to survey protocol considerations that affect the likelihood of underreporting in a household travel survey. The research considers both the likelihood of vehicle driver trip underreporting and the level of vehicle driver trip underreporting by using a joint binary choice-ordered response discrete model. The empirical analysis uses the Global Positioning System-equipped sample of households from the 2004 Kansas City (Kansas and Missouri) Household Travel Survey which also provided travel diary information. The empirical results provide important insights about underreporting tendencies in household travel surveys. In particular, adults younger than 30 years of age; men; individuals with less than a high school education; unemployed individuals; individuals working in clerical and manufacturing professions; workers employed at residential land uses; individuals who make many trips, travel long distances, and trip chain; and respondents who fail to use a travel diary to log their travel before telephone retrieval of their patterns are associated with more underreporting. The underlying factors that influence whether an individual underreports are different from the factors that affect the level of underreporting.
Article
In this paper the concept of exposure to road accidents is developed, from its general to its particular use, with references to the work of many road safety investigators; the paper can be regarded as a fairly complete review of exposure literature. The subject is presented in the following order: Concept of Exposure; Exposure for Large Areas, Groups, or Times; Induced Exposure Measures; Exposure as Opportunities; Specific Exposure at Locations, to Persons, or in Time.
Article
Objective: Previous research has shown that fatal crash involvement rates per licensed driver aged 70 and older declined significantly more per year in the United States than rates for middle-aged drivers aged 35-54 during 1997-2008, and per vehicle mile traveled from 1995-1996 to 2001-2002. Analyses of police-reported crash data during 1997-2005 indicated that the greater declines for older drivers were due to decreases in crash involvement and in the risk of dying in the crashes that occurred. The current study examined if trends in crash rates, crash involvements, and survivability persisted into more recent years. Methods: Trends for drivers 70 and older were compared with trends for drivers aged 35-54 for U.S. national fatal passenger vehicle crash involvements per 100,000 licensed drivers during 1997-2012 and for U.S. national fatal passenger vehicle crash involvements per vehicle miles traveled in 1995-1996, 2001-2002, and 2008. Using police-reported crash data during 1997-2008 from 20 U.S. states, trends in involvement rates in non-fatal crashes of various severities per 100,000 licensed drivers and changes in the odds of death and the odds of death or serious injury in a crash were compared between older and middle-aged drivers. Results: During 2007-2012, declines in national fatal crash involvement rates per licensed driver were similar for drivers 70 and older and middle-aged drivers (18 percent each). However, when considering the entire study period, fatal crash involvement rates continued to reflect a substantially larger decline for drivers 70 and older than for middle-aged drivers (42 vs. 30 percent per licensed driver during 1997-2012, 39 vs. 26 percent per vehicle mile traveled from 1995-2006 to 2008). When analyses of police-reported crash data were extended through 2008, non-fatal injury crash involvement rates per licensed driver declined more for older than for middle-aged drivers (39 vs. 30 percent), and unlike in prior research, average annual declines were significantly larger for drivers 80 and older. Property damage-only crash involvement rates similarly declined significantly more for older than for middle-aged drivers (15 vs. 3 percent). Drivers 70 and older in 1997 were 3.5 times more likely than middle-aged drivers to die in a crash, and this ratio declined to 3.2 by 2008. Conclusions: Although declines in fatal crash involvement rates in recent years have not differed between older and middle-aged drivers, this did not undo earlier gains for older drivers. The recent slowing in the relative magnitude of the decline for older drivers may be related to the differential effect of the U.S. recession on fatal crash involvements of drivers in these age groups. The decreased likelihood of being involved in a crash of any severity and increased survivability when a crash occurred held when examining data through 2008, and for drivers 80 and older, significant declines in crash involvement relative to middle-aged drivers extended to non-fatal injury crashes.