ArticlePDF Available

Research on Risky Driving Behavior of Novice Drivers

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Novice drivers have become the main group responsible for traffic accidents because of their lack of experience and relatively weak driving skills. Therefore, it is of great value and significance to study the related problems of the risky driving behavior of novice drivers. In this paper, we analyzed and quantified key factors leading to risky driving behavior of novice drivers on the basis of the planned behavior theory and the protection motivation theory. We integrated the theory of planned behavior (TPB) and the theory of planned behavior (PMT) to extensively discuss the formation mechanism of the dangerous driving behavior of novice drivers. The theoretical analysis showed that novice drivers engage in three main risky behaviors: easily changing their attitudes, overestimating their driving skills, and underestimating illegal driving. On the basis of the aforementioned results, we then proposed some specific suggestions such as traffic safety education and training, social supervision, and law construction for novice drivers to reduce their risky behavior.
Content may be subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Research on Risky Driving Behavior of
Novice Drivers
Longhai Yang 1, Xiqiao Zhang 1, Xiaoyan Zhu 1, Yule Luo 1, * and Yi Luo 2
1School of Transportation Science and Engineering, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150090, China;
yanglonghai@hit.edu.cn (L.Y.); zxq103@126.com (X.Z.); zhuxiaoyan1994@163.com (X.Z.)
2Trac Management Research Institute of the Ministry of Public Security, Wuxi 214151, China;
luoy_tmri@163.com
*Correspondence: 19S032042@stu.hit.edu.cn
Received: 23 July 2019; Accepted: 2 October 2019; Published: 9 October 2019


Abstract:
Novice drivers have become the main group responsible for trac accidents because of their
lack of experience and relatively weak driving skills. Therefore, it is of great value and significance to
study the related problems of the risky driving behavior of novice drivers. In this paper, we analyzed
and quantified key factors leading to risky driving behavior of novice drivers on the basis of the
planned behavior theory and the protection motivation theory. We integrated the theory of planned
behavior (TPB) and the theory of planned behavior (PMT) to extensively discuss the formation
mechanism of the dangerous driving behavior of novice drivers. The theoretical analysis showed that
novice drivers engage in three main risky behaviors: easily changing their attitudes, overestimating
their driving skills, and underestimating illegal driving. On the basis of the aforementioned results,
we then proposed some specific suggestions such as trac safety education and training, social
supervision, and law construction for novice drivers to reduce their risky behavior.
Keywords:
novice driver; risky driving behavior; theory of planned behavior; protection motivation theory
1. Introduction
With the rapid development of China’s economy, the number of vehicles in China is dramatically
increasing. According to the statistics of the Trac Management Bureau of the Ministry of Public
Security of China, the number of motor vehicles in China was as high as 310 million by the end of
2017, whereas the number of motorists increased to 385 million. At the same time, trac accidents,
especially serious trac accidents, are still occurring, and trac safety has become a key issue.
Bad driving behavior is one of the main factors leading to road trac accidents. According to
statistics, if the number of trac accidents is divided by a driver’s number of years of driving
experience, the number of trac accidents for drivers with 1–5 years of driving experience is the largest,
accounting for 45.3% of the total. The probability of road trac accidents caused by novice drivers
who lack practical experience and cannot make accurate judgments and responses facing changing
trac conditions is much higher than that of experienced drivers. Novice drivers usually have higher
levels of risky and/or bad driving behavior when compared with experienced drivers. Therefore, it is
particularly important to explore the bad behavior of novice drivers to improve road trac safety.
In this paper, we integrate the planned behavior theory (TPB) and the protection motivation theory
(PMT) to analyze the bad driving behavior of novice drivers, and study the relationship between the
bad driving behavior of novice drivers and their subjective factors, social cognitive factors, and trac
education factors. The results can help explain the risky driving behavior of novice drivers, as well as
provide the theoretical basis for correcting bad driving behavior with strategies such as early education
and intervention, as well as bonus–punishment dierentiation specifically for such individuals. It can
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556; doi:10.3390/su11205556 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 2 of 20
also improve the road safety awareness of novice drivers and their awareness of compliance with
trac rules.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2presents a literature review on
bad driving behavior and trac accidents; Section 3introduces the methodology, including the TPB,
the PMT, and analysis of factors aecting bad driving behavior; Section 4gives a case study; and,
finally, Section 5concludes the paper. Figure 1shows the overview of this paper.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 20
factors, and traffic education factors. The results can help explain the risky driving behavior of novice
drivers, as well as provide the theoretical basis for correcting bad driving behavior with strategies
such as early education and intervention, as well as bonuspunishment differentiation specifically
for such individuals. It can also improve the road safety awareness of novice drivers and their
awareness of compliance with traffic rules.
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows: section 2 presents a literature review on bad
driving behavior and traffic accidents; section 3 introduces the methodology, including the TPB, the
PMT, and analysis of factors affecting bad driving behavior; section 4 gives a case study; and, finally,
section 5 concludes the paper. Figure 1 shows the overview of this paper.
Literature review
Behavioral theory
Planned behavior theory Protection motivation theory
Analysis of factors affecting bad driving behavior
Case analysis Investigate and analyze data Model hypothesis
Adaptability analysis Confirmatory factor analysis
Construction of integrated structural equation model
Model path analysis
Conclusion and novice driver’s risk driving behavior improvement strategy
Introduction
to model
theory
Impact
mechanism
analysis
Figure 1. The overview of this paper.
2. Literature Review
The road traffic accidents caused by bad driving behavior are becoming increasingly more
serious. Novice drivers are a high risk group in terms of bad driving behavior. Most traffic accidents
caused by novice drivers are related to their dangerous driving behavior [1]. Generally, novice
drivers pay greater attention to the less important details of the environment, and they often lack the
holistic perception of the dangers in the traffic setting [2]. In contrast, experienced drivers have the
overall perception of the traffic environment [3]. In addition, novice drivers are more likely to engage
in risky driving behavior when compared with experienced drivers, and they are more aggressive
when driving on the road [46]. Bad driving behavior is associated with less driving experience [7].
Day et al. discussed the high-risk factors of new drivers through interviews, and put forward
suggestions to reduce the risky driving behavior of new drivers [8]. Ma et al. studied the causes of
the high incidence of accidents among novice drivers, as well as the differences between novice
drivers and experienced drivers in terms of risk perception [9]. However, the formation mechanism
Figure 1. The overview of this paper.
2. Literature Review
The road trac accidents caused by bad driving behavior are becoming increasingly more serious.
Novice drivers are a high risk group in terms of bad driving behavior. Most trac accidents caused
by novice drivers are related to their dangerous driving behavior [
1
]. Generally, novice drivers pay
greater attention to the less important details of the environment, and they often lack the holistic
perception of the dangers in the trac setting [
2
]. In contrast, experienced drivers have the overall
perception of the trac environment [
3
]. In addition, novice drivers are more likely to engage in
risky driving behavior when compared with experienced drivers, and they are more aggressive when
driving on the road [46]. Bad driving behavior is associated with less driving experience [7]. Day et
al. discussed the high-risk factors of new drivers through interviews, and put forward suggestions
to reduce the risky driving behavior of new drivers [
8
]. Ma et al. studied the causes of the high
incidence of accidents among novice drivers, as well as the dierences between novice drivers and
experienced drivers in terms of risk perception [
9
]. However, the formation mechanism of the bad
driving behavior of novice drivers and the analysis and quantification of the key factors leading to
the bad driving behavior of novice drivers are seldom studied, which can be used to provide some
theoretical basis for correcting the bad driving behavior and provide strategies and suggestions for
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 3 of 20
relevant departments and individuals. Salmon et al. collected and analyzed data on the factors
that lead to drivers engaging in five fatal types of driving behavior. The results were mapped onto
a system ergonomics model of the road transportation system in Queensland, Australia, to show
where in the system the factors reside [
10
]. Xiang et al. constructed a data acquisition system by
using an InvenSense’s six-axis inertial measurement unit (IMU), and developed a fuzzy synthetical
evaluation model combined with ISO (international organization for standardization) 2631-1:1997/Amd
1:2010 standard [
11
]. S
â
rbescu et al. aimed at exploring the intra-individual variation of dangerous
driving behavior (errors, violations, and aggressive driving) and verified whether the outcomes could
be predicted by both situational variables (weekly kilometers, felt trac pressure, and trac mood)
and dispositional variables (Big-Five personality factors, age, and gender) [12].
Current research on dangerous driving behavior based on TPB theory and PMT theory mainly
focuses on age, gender, driver behavior decision-making, vehicle types, and abnormal driving,
among other factors. Research by Nancy Rhodes and Kelly Pivik shows that positive influence
and risk perception are two factors of driver behavior decision-making. Importantly, positive
influence contributes more to male and adolescent driving behavior than female and adult drivers [
13
].
Chung used the theory of planned behavior (TPB) to represent the intentional decision-making
mechanism, and used the intensity of habits to reflect the intuitive decision-making process.
Meanwhile, he applied the TPB model and AAR (the anticipated aective reactions) to study the
influence of emotional arousal on speeding behavior [
14
]. Catherine Jolton, Mark Connor, and Samantha
Jameson’s research addresses this problem by studying the eects of variables on the intention to
participate in three kinds of speed-related behaviors. A series of questionnaires based on TPB were
used to assess the main motivation factors aecting motorcycle drivers’ abnormal driving behavior,
which was similar to those observed in the field of risky driving [
15
]. Castanier et al. used the
theory of planned behavior to predict drivers’ intentions for road violation [
16
]. On the basis of the
theory of planned behavior, Li et al. developed the structural equation model of the relationship
between competitive driving intention and behavior, and proposed an eective method to correct
drivers’ competitive driving behavior [
17
]. Kergoat studied the principle of various forms of speed
limit information acting on overspeed driving behavior by using the protection motivation theory
and deterrence theory, and found that under the condition of speed limit, the protection motivation
theory has a better explanatory power of the acceleration intention of drivers [
18
]. Glendon and
Walker studied the mechanism of the speed limit information on the overspeed behavior by using the
protection motive theory [
19
]. Jiang et al. used the planned behavior theory to study drivers’ fatigue
driving behavior, proving that subjective norms, perceived behavior control, and orientation have
significant influence on fatigue driving behavior [
20
]. Rowe et al. studied risky driving behaviors, such
as speeding and distracted driving, by using the planned behavior theory, and found that attitude has
the strongest explanatory power of all the risky driving behavior intentions, finding that the control
of subjective norms and perceived behaviors on dangerous driving behaviors is also significant [
21
].
Chen introduced the concepts of green value perception, green useful sexy knowledge, and green
comfort perception, exploring the factors influencing the loyalty of the public bicycle system by using
the planning behavior theory, and found that green comfort perception and subjective norms have
the strongest explanatory power for user loyalty [
22
]. Brijs et al. used the theory of planned behavior
to explain and predict the behavior of drivers using mobile phones in the driving process, and put
forward various measures to reduce the phenomenon of drivers using mobile phones in the driving
process [
23
]. Eherenfreund et al. reasonably explained the dangerous driving behavior of young
drivers by adding emotional factors to the influencing factors of the planned behavior theory, showing
how the research results should be in the design of road safety information [
24
]. The theory of planned
behavior and the theory of protective motivation can analyze bad driving behavior from dierent
perspectives, study its formation mechanism, and formulate strategies from dierent perspectives,
such as early education and late rewards and punishments, to improve the bad driving behavior of
drivers. On the basis of TPB theory and PMT theory, this paper establishes a comprehensive structural
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 4 of 20
model. Through a case study, the proposed method can summarize the factors and mechanisms of the
formation of bad driving behavior of novice drivers, providing a theoretical basis for future research
on bad driving behavior.
By combing the existing research on motor vehicle drivers’ bad driving behavior at home and
abroad and the application of relevant behavioral theories, this paper summarizes the characteristics
of the research and determines the direction of the paper.
(1) There is little research on the psychological factors of motor vehicle drivers’ bad driving behaviors.
At present, bad driving behavior research is mainly based on accident data; scholars have analyzed
and forecasted bad driving behavior from the objective conditions of trac accidents. At the same time,
motor vehicle drivers’ subjective understanding and acceptance of bad driving behaviors largely aects
the intention of their bad driving behavior, and a driver’s bad driving behavior intention constitutes
their behavioral attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavior control, the threat severity, internal
and external return, response cost, the reaction eciency, and the subjective eect of self-ecacy.
Discovering how to quantify the drivers of the contribution of these psychological factors on bad
driving behaviors and explaining the inner mechanisms of the formation of bad driving behavior will
improve motor vehicle drivers’ bad driving behavior, an important premise of road trac safety.
(2) The comprehensive application of behavioral theory is rarely explored.
At present, there are more and more studies on the theory of planned behavior and the theory of
protection motivation in the field of transportation. However, the explanation of planned behavior
theory focuses on the early education and attitude change of the behavior subject. This method needs
to improve the behavior of the behavior subject from at its root, requiring a long period of subtle
education to achieve a better implementation eect. In comparison, the application of protection
motivation theory in the field of transportation is not as good as that of planned behavior theory. At the
same time, it needs to increase the influence of the consequences to make behavior the main body of
accepting or rejecting this behavior; this method can establish relevant policy rigidity, intensifying the
late penalty or reward to regulate behavior. In conclusion, the theory of planned behavior and the
theory of protection motivation are able to analyze bad driving behavior from dierent perspectives;
study its formation mechanism; and formulate strategies from dierent perspectives, such as early
education and late rewards and punishments, to improve drivers’ bad driving behavior.
3. Methodology
3.1. Theory of Planned Behavior
TPB is an extension of the rational behavior theory. It negates the hypothesis that the subject is a
rational person. TPB associates a person’s behavior with their beliefs. It no longer considers that the
actual behavior of the subject is determined only by intention. It also holds that perceived behavioral
control can shape a person’s behavior. It holds that attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral
control are the three main variables aecting behavioral intention and behavior. The more positive
their attitude, the greater the support of important others, and the stronger their perceived behavioral
control is, the greater their behavioral intention. The three variables are independent of each other yet
are related to each other. These three variables are influenced by personal behavioral beliefs, normative
beliefs, and control beliefs, respectively.
TPB assumes that behavioral attitudes have a positive impact on the behavioral intentions of
the actors. That is, the more positive the behavioral attitudes are, the stronger the willingness of the
actors [
25
]. Perceived behavior control refers to the diculty level of the subject in the process of
perceiving the execution of a specific behavior. The model assumes that perceived behavior control
directly aects the behavior intention and actual behavior of the actors, having a positive impact on
both. That is to say, the more easily an agent can perceive the execution of an act, the stronger their
intention to carry out the act and the greater the possibility of their actual execution of the action.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 5 of 20
The comprehensive eects of attitude, subjective norms, and perceived behavior control are reasonable
explanations for the actual behavior of the actors and have a great influence on behavior prediction.
When studying the influencing factors and the formation mechanism of the bad driving behavior
of novice drivers, TPB theory can be used to analyze the factors aecting the actual driving behavior
of novice drivers from many aspects. Unlike the theory of reasoned action (TRA), TPB theory has
perceptual behavior control, which often reflects personal past experience, second-hand information,
or expected obstacles. The more resources and opportunities for individuals they have, the less
obstacles they expect, and the stronger their perceptual behavior control will be. TPB theory has been
applied to the study of many bad driving behaviors in the field of transportation, which can better
study the relationships between novice drivers’ bad driving behavior and its subjective factors, social
cognitive factors, and trac education factors from a psychological point of view.
3.2. Protection Motivation Theory
PMT theory is the main theory of behavioral change, which explains behavioral change through
threat assessment and response assessment in the cognitive regulation process. According to the health
belief model, the adoption of a behavior depends mainly on its trust in short-term behavior. In 1983,
Rogers put forward the theory of protective motivation, that is, the rewards factor is added to the
health belief model, which considers the eect of "return" on behavior development in the long-term
process. It can be said that PMT is an extension of the health belief model (HBM).
Compared with the health belief model, PMT pays more attention to the long-term cognitive
process of behavior, and considers the influence of environmental factors and social factors on
behavior. PMT has two important elements: one is internal reward, that is, the subjective pleasure
of harmful behavior; the other is external reward, that is, the objective benefit of harmful behavior.
According to the pattern of behavior formation, PMT is divided into three parts: information source,
such as the environment or individuals; cognitive mediation process; and coping style. PMT theory
explains the meaning of "fear appeal". It believes that threat information in the environment and in
individuals will lead to individual threat assessment and response assessment. Threat assessment
is the assessment of risky behavior. It is a comprehensive result of individual perception of threat
severity, susceptibility, and return [
26
]. Coping ability evaluation is a comprehensive result of response
eectiveness, self-ecacy, and response cost, which determines whether an individual has motivation
to accept persuasion to avoid injury. Within the research background of this paper, on the basis of
the theory of protective motivation, drivers’ bad driving behavior can be explained in terms of their
awareness of social and trac policies. On this basis, we can standardize drivers’ bad driving behavior
by increasing penalties for bad driving behavior and making drivers aware of the serious consequences
of bad driving behavior through simulation driving.
3.3. Classification of Bad Driving Behavior
The novice driver’s bad driving behavior is complex and has complicated influencing factors.
Therefore, studying bad driving behavior is very challenging. According to behavioral psychology,
different behaviors are caused by different psychological processes. To comprehensively and effectively
analyze bad driving behavior, it is necessary to classify bad driving behavior and thus reduce the complexity
of risky driving behavior analysis. According to the different behavioral mental states of the driver’s
bad driving behavior, bad driving behavior can be divided into risky behavior, negligent behavior,
and intentional violation behavior. The three types of risky driving behavior have different features.
(a) Risky behavior
Risky behavior refers to habitual risky driving behavior in which the driver fails to correct the
wrong habits caused by lack of cognition in the early stage of driving experience, such as changing
lanes at will, turning around at random, not wearing a seatbelt, not looking at the rearview mirror,
driving on a line, and not using a turn signal.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 6 of 20
(b) Negligent behavior
Negligent behavior is divided into two types: operational errors and overconfidence due to
negligence. Examples include the misuse of the throttle brake, improper steering, lane departure,
driving close to other cars, overtaking at a corner, and misuse of the high beam.
(c) Intentional violation behavior
Intentional violation behavior is a violation of the rules by intention. Examples are speeding, drunk
driving, using a mobile phone while driving, retrograde behavior, illegally reversing, not following the
rules, and illegal parking.
3.4. Analysis of Factors Aecting Bad Driving Behavior
The key factors aecting bad driving behavior of novice drivers were analyzed combined with
the characteristics of bad driving behavior.
(a) The attitude of bad driving behavior
The attitude of bad driving behavior is the armation or negation of bad driving behavior caused
by the novice driver in the case of a priori basis and self-perception, pros and cons, and a close or
alienated stable emotional state. The attitude of bad driving behavior is the direct feeling of the novice
driver’s bad driving behavior, which has a direct impact on the driving intention of bad driving
behavior. The attitudes can be inferred through the individual’s emotions (e.g., like and disgust,
closeness and alienation) and rational perception (e.g., safety, benefit).
(b) Accepting subjective norms of bad driving behavior
Accepting subjective norms of risky driving behavior is the behavioral motivation of a novice
driver who wants their behavior to be consistent with social norms. The role of society in the behavior
of individuals is significant and profound. In practice, accepting subjective norms of risky driving
behavior can be measured by the influence of friends, family members, public advertising, and policies
on behavioral intentions when novice drivers engage in bad driving behavior.
(c) Perceived behavior control of bad driving behavior
Perceived behavior control of bad driving behavior is used to indicate the level of ability of a novice
driver in carrying out bad driving behavior. Perceived behavioral control of bad driving behavior is
measured by the novice driver ’s driving skills, conscious behavioral ability, and ability to bear economicrisks.
(d) Threat susceptibility of bad driving behavior
Threat susceptibility refers to the likelihood of an individual’s perceived risk factors.
The susceptibility towards bad driving behavior is related to the prevalence and susceptibility
factors of bad driving behavior. If there are serious trac accidents or serious fines caused by bad
driving behavior around the subject, the subject will bring a sense of crisis and evasion awareness.
(e) Threat severity of bad driving behavior
Threat severity refers to the degree of serious threat that a risk factor may pose to an individual’s
own interests. It is a subjective feeling. Therefore, dierent drivers have dierent judgments on the
seriousness of risky driving behavior.
(f) Bad driving behavior reward
Reward refers to the individual’s self-satisfaction and external benefits due to individual behavior.
The risky driving behavior reward refers to the pride and satisfaction of the novice driver after
performing a risky driving behavior, as well as the convenience of time or distance in exchange for
risky driving behavior.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 7 of 20
(g) Response cost of bad driving behavior
The response cost refers to the cost encountered by an individual when performing certain actions.
When a novice driver engages in risky driving behavior, he may have to bear the psychological burden
of trac enforcement and the physical or linguistic condemnation of other drivers who comply with
trac rules.
(h) Response eectiveness of bad driving behavior
Response eectiveness refers to an individual’s awareness of whether a certain behavior is
eective. Perceived behavioral control and self-ecacy operational definitions are not necessarily
distinct. Novice drivers perform bad driving behaviors because they believe they can benefit from
them. The target of response ecacy should be safe driving. Novice drivers can demonstrate their
superior driving skills, avoid trac jams, and avoid trac charges when performing bad driving
behavior. That is, the more the novice driver believes that such bad driving behavior is beneficial to
them, the easier it is for them to perform such behavior.
(i) Self-ecacy of bad driving behavior
Self-ecacy refers to the individual’s perception of their ability to perform certain behaviors,
that is, subjective feelings, beliefs, and judgments of the individual’s behavior before completing
a certain behavior. Novice drivers may feel that obeying trac rules are a time-consuming, costly,
and labor-intensive task. If there is no external force to supervise novice drivers’ behavior, they may
violate trac rules. Conversely, if the novice driver feels that their driving skills are very high and that
there is no possibility of accidents occurring when performing risky driving behavior, the driver may
maximize their risky driving behavior.
4. Case Analysis
Firstly, the RP (revealed preference survey)/SP (stated preference survey) survey method was
used to collect basic personal information of drivers, the cognitive status of bad driving, and the
corresponding characterization information about bad driving behavior. Then, the descriptive statistical
analysis and reliability and validity test of the survey data were carried out by using the method of
mathematical statistics. Characteristics of drivers’ bad driving behavior were summarized, laying out
a foundation for the establishment and fitting of the integrated model of drivers’ bad driving behavior.
4.1. Design of Survey Questionnaire for Bad Drivers’ Driving Behavior
Many studies have shown that drivers with driving experience of less than or equal to three years
generally have poor driving skills, have poor physical and mental quality, easily underestimate the
risk of road trac, and lack good vehicle driving predictability [
27
30
]. Moreover, driving experience
is also related to driving mileage. According to relevant research and surveys, the annual driving
mileage of Chinese non-professional motor vehicle drivers ranges from 10,000 to 15,000 km —the
lower limit being 10,000 km. Thus, a novice driver in this paper is defined as a driver with driving
experience of less than 3 years and a driving mileage of less than 30,000 km.
We used a simple random sampling survey to collect specific personal attributes and information
on bad driving behavior from Chinese novice drivers through online responses and roadside inquiry.
We collected a total of 313 questionnaires and deleted 29 invalid questionnaires with incomplete answers
and multiple extreme answers. A total of 284 valid questionnaires were collected, and the eective
response rate of this questionnaire reached 90.73%. The sample capacity requirements were met.
The questionnaire was divided into three parts. The first part focused on descriptive statistical
information, such as the personal attributes of the respondents. The second part investigated the
characterization information of risky driving behavior. The third part investigated the cognitive status
of risky driving behavior.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 8 of 20
Descriptive statistics represent individual dierences in motor vehicle drivers’ bad driving
behavior. It is necessary to establish a direct link between bad driving behavior and descriptive
statistical data in order to facilitate a targeted analysis of bad driving behavior of dierent samples.
The RP survey method was used to obtain the actual situation of the respondent. The descriptive
statistical variables in this paper include the age, gender, driving experience and driving mileage,
and degree of education, which correspond to the design of four questions, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics survey.
According to your actual situation, write on the corresponding options
I Your gender is:
Male Female
II Your age is:
Between 18 and 28 years old (including 18 and 28 years old) Over 28 years old
III Your driving experience and driving mileage are:
Driving age 3 years or driving mileage 30,000 km
Driving age 3 years and driving mileage >30,000 km
IV Your education is:
Elementary school and below Junior high school
High school/college Bachelor’s degree or above
The bad driving behavior characterization information mainly presented the specific risky driving
behavior of the respondents in their daily life, which also reflects the degree of concern of the motor
vehicle driver towards risky driving behavior. The RP survey method was used to determine the actual
experience of the respondent. The survey used a Likert-style scale to score five points; that is, on the
five semantic dierence scales, the three types of typical violations were evaluated. Among them, risky
behavior was characterized by eight issues: ITEM1, ITEM2, ITEM3, ITEM4, ITEM5, ITEM6, ITEM7,
and ITEM8. Negligent behavior was characterized by five issues: ITEM9, ITEM10, ITEM11, ITEM12,
and ITEM13. Intentional violations were characterized by six issues: ITEM14, ITEM15, ITEM16,
ITEM17, ITEM18, and ITEM19. Finally, the respondent chose the option of ‘agree/disagree’. The higher
the score, the higher the enthusiasm for this kind of risky driving behavior. A total of 19 questions
were designed for the questionnaire, as shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Survey of risky driving behavior characterization information.
Variates Numbers Questions
Risky behavior
ITEM1 During the driving process, I will change lanes according to my own needs and mood.
ITEM2 During the driving process, I will turn around according to my own needs and mood.
ITEM3
During the driving process, I sometimes suddenly find myself forgetting to wear a seatbelt.
ITEM4 During the driving process, I am not used to looking at the rearview mirror.
ITEM5 During the driving process, I sometimes suddenly drive the car onto the solid line.
ITEM6 During the driving process, I often forget to use the turn signal.
ITEM7
I may choose to overtake because of time pressure or other reasons, sometimes even when
driving in curved lanes.
ITEM8 I always follow the preceding vehicle closely to stop neighboring vehicles from
queue-jumping.
ITEM9 I always confuse the throttle and the brake in an emergency.
ITEM10
I always need to adjust the steering wheel several times to get the car in the right position.
Negligent behaviors ITEM11 I always find myself not driving in the center of the lane.
ITEM12 I always misuse high beams when passing other vehicles.
ITEM13 I always find my car is speeding when looking at the speedometer.
ITEM14 When I am confident to drive, I will choose to drive by myself, even if I have drunk a
certain amount of alcohol.
ITEM15
When there is a phone call, I will choose to check my mobile for fear of delaying my work.
ITEM16 Because of time pressure or other reasons, I will sometimes choose to reverse drive.
Intentional behaviors ITEM17 Sometimes when road conditions do not allow parking, but I have an urgent demand, I
will choose to park my car.
ITEM18 Sometimes, when there are no parking lots around restaurants or my workplace, I will
choose to park on the roadside.
ITEM19
When there are no cars and pedestrians at intersections, I will drive past the intersections
in spite of a red light.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 9 of 20
The survey of the cognitive status of bad driving behaviors was the main part of the questionnaire.
The results were used to explain the mechanism of the formation of risky driving behaviors. Here, the RP
method and SP method were used. First, the RP method can be used to determine the actual experience
and preferences of the drivers. Then, the SP method is used to obtain the intentional preferences
of the driver. Semantic dierentials in the five scores are also used for the collection of such data.
Nine latent variables in five semantic dierential scales were considered: attitudes towards bad
driving behaviors, subjective criteria, threat sensitivity, threat severity, rewards, response cost, response
eciency, self-eciency, and behavior intentions. Each latent variable was characterized by three
observed variables. Finally, respondents were asked to choose among some ‘agree/disagree’ options.
A higher score shows a higher probability to engage in risky driving behaviors. Thirty-one questions
were included in the questionnaire, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Survey of the cognitive status of the bad driving behaviors.
Latent variables Items Questions
Attitudes towards
bad driving
behaviors
ITEM20 I hate risky driving. I always drive normally.
ITEM21 I think sometimes I do not care about the appeal of safe driving.
ITEM22
Some trac regulations or regulations are unreasonable and need not be strictly observed.
Subjective criteria
ITEM23 My friends and relatives think that I can engage in risky driving behaviors properly.
ITEM24
I think my friends and relatives will worry about me if I engage in risky driving behaviors.
ITEM25 My friends and relatives may engage in risky driving behaviors in their daily life.
Threat sensitivity
ITEM26 I think risky driving behaviors will be noticed by trac policemen or video cameras.
ITEM27 I think my risky driving behaviors will be easily noticed by law enforcers.
ITEM28 When I engage in risky driving, it is within my control, just like safe driving.
Threat severity
ITEM29 I think risky driving behavior can cause serious trac accidents.
ITEM30 I don’t think risky driving behaviors will be severe enough to cause trac accidents.
ITEM31 I think engaging in risky driving behaviors will disrupt my life to a certain degree.
Rewards
ITEM32 I think engaging in risky driving behaviors will save lots of time.
ITEM33 I think risky driving behaviors can bring mental pleasure for me.
ITEM34 I think engaging in risky driving behaviors can shorten the trip distance.
Response cost
ITEM35 I think engaging in risky driving behaviors may cause trac chaos.
ITEM36 I think if I engage in dangerous driving behaviors, it will bring trouble to other travelers.
ITEM37
I think drivers around will sound their car horns or blame me if I engage in risky driving
behaviors.
Response eciency
ITEM38 I think engaging in risky driving behaviors can improve my trac eciency.
ITEM39 I think engaging in risky driving behaviors can reduce the time lost in congestion.
ITEM40 I think engaging in risky driving behaviors can avoid some trac fees.
Self-eciency
ITEM41 I am confident to engage in risky driving behaviors if I am decided.
ITEM42 I am confident that I can keep myself safe when engaging in risky driving behaviors.
ITEM43 I can aord the fine for risky driving behaviors.
Behavioral intentions
ITEM44 I always try to engage in risky driving behaviors when driving.
ITEM45 Sometimes I have to engage in risky driving behaviors.
ITEM46 I predict that I will certainly engage in risky driving behaviors.
4.2. Descriptive Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistical analysis is an important basis to guarantee the generality, representativeness,
and reliability of an investigation sample. SPSS software was used to analyze the data obtained
from the questionnaires, which showed the distribution of gender, age, driving experience, driving
mileage, and educational level of the drivers. Thereby, we could determine the descriptive statistical
characteristics of the sample and do our best to make the sample meet the requirements of the
respondents. Take a certain age interval as an example, in order to avoid errors caused by a simple
sample, distribution of various characteristics should be uniform, and statistics of each variable should
be analyzed.
(1) We compiled descriptive statistics about the personal characteristics of drivers. The results are
shown in Table 4.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 10 of 20
Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the personal characteristics of drivers.
Items Options Frequency Rate
Gender Male 150 52.82%
Female 134 47.18%
Age (18,28) 182 64.08%
(28,70) 102 35.92%
Driving experience and
driving mileage
Driving experience <3 years or
mileage <30,000 km 215 75.7%
Driving experience >3 years or
mileage >30,000 km 69 24.3%
Educational level
Primary school or below 3 1.06%
Junior high school 56 19.72%
High school or specialist 60 21.13%
Bachelor or above 165 58.1%
In the survey, males were more willing to cooperate and were more likely to drive in the family;
therefore, the rate of males was slightly higher. Most drivers were younger than 28 years old.
The educational level of the respondents was generally at the high school level or above. The driving
experience of respondents was mostly 3 years or less, while the mileage was mostly 30,000 km or less.
Both of these factors have a certain degree of consistency, which is related to the boom of the Chinese
driver’s license test.
(2) We compiled descriptive statistics of the observed variables of the risky driving behaviors.
The results are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Observed variables of the risky driving behaviors.
Kinds Items Subjects Minimum
value
Maximum
value
Mean
value
Standard
error
Standard
deviation
Bad
behaviors
ITEM1 Change lanes
randomly 1 5 2.47 1.362 0.081
ITEM2 Make U-turns
randomly 1 5 2.04 1.221 0.072
ITEM3 Not fastening
seatbelts 1 5 2.24 1.201 0.071
ITEM4 Not watching
rearview mirrors 1 5 1.87 1.075 0.064
ITEM5 Drive along center
line 1 5 1.87 1.080 0.064
ITEM6 Not using steering
lamp 1 5 1.75 1.039 0.062
Negligent
behaviors
ITEM7 Confusing throttle
and brake 1 5 1.74 1.004 0.060
ITEM8 Improper steering 1 5 2.05 1.145 0.068
ITEM9 Driving across center
line 1 5 1.77 1.081 0.064
ITEM10
Overtaking on a curve
1 5 2.52 1.220 0.072
ITEM11 Misusing high beams 1 5 2.15 1.133 0.067
ITEM12 Following vehicles
closely 1 5 1.79 0.950 0.056
Intentional
behaviors
ITEM13 Speeding 1 5 1.89 1.034 0.061
ITEM14 Driving drunk 1 5 1.35 0.828 0.049
ITEM15 Using mobile phone
when driving 1 5 1.85 1.033 0.061
ITEM16 Driving inversely 1 5 1.37 0.816 0.048
ITEM17 Parking illegally 1 5 1.93 1.076 0.064
ITEM18 Berthing illegally 1 5 2.20 1.088 0.065
ITEM19 Going against rules 1 5 1.42 0.851 0.051
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 11 of 20
According to Table 5, changing lanes randomly and not fastening seat belts in the bad behaviors,
overtaking in curve in the negligent behaviors, and berthing illegally in the intentional behaviors were
more common. These bad and negligent behaviors generally indicate that Chinese driving training
institutions must have stricter training mechanisms. In addition to good driving skills, drivers should
also be trained in common knowledge and driving habits. These intentional behaviors not only indicate
the lack of knowledge of drivers of trac laws and regulations, but also reflect the attitude of drivers
in dealing with irregularities and the weak deterrent eect of law enforcement on drivers’ behaviors
in China.
(3) After sorting out the data by SPSS software, the Cronbach’s alpha coecients of each variable
and its corresponding dimensions were analyzed. The coecient of internal consistency is shown in
Table 6below.
Table 6. Coecient of internal consistency.
Number of Items Cronbach’s alpha Standard Result
Bad behaviors 4 0.764 >0.6 ok
Negligent behaviors 4 0.752 >0.6 ok
Intentional behaviors 7 0.871 >0.6 ok
Attitudes towards behaviors 3 0.631 >0.6 ok
Subjective norm 3 0.668 >0.6 ok
Threat sensitivity 3 0.733 >0.6 ok
Threat severity 3 0.694 >0.6 ok
Rewards 3 0.846 >0.6 ok
Response cost 3 0.831 >0.6 ok
Response eciency 3 0.822 >0.6 ok
Self-eciency 3 0.609 >0.6 ok
Behavioral intention 3 0.712 >0.6 ok
From Table 6, it can be seen that the internal consistency coecients of each scale and its dimensions
met the test requirements, and that the test reliability was good.
5. Model Establishment
The TPA and PMT have similarities but also dierent focuses and uniqueness. Therefore, the TPB
and PMT theories are combined and complement each other, causing the degree of interpretation to
also improve [
31
]. The self-eciency parts are similar in the two theories; thus, they can be combined
as a cross-item. In summary, we integrated the two theories to lay out the path hypothesis below
and establish the initial integrated structural equation model of the two theories. The structure of the
model is shown in Figure 2.
H0: Bad driving behavior of novice drivers is influenced by threat sensitivity, threat severity,
rewards, response cost, response eciency, self-eciency, subjective norms, and attitudes towards
behaviors (above the line).
H1: Threat sensitivity of the drivers has a negative eect on risky driving behavior intentions.
H2: Threat severity of the drivers has a negative eect on risky driving behavior intentions.
H3: Rewards of the drivers have a positive eect on risky driving behavior intentions.
H4: Response cost of the drivers has a negative eect on risky driving behavior intentions.
H5: Response eciency of the drivers has a negative eect on risky driving behavior intentions.
H6: Self-eciency of the drivers has a positive eect on risky driving behavior intentions.
H7: Subjective norm of the drivers has a positive eect on risky driving behavior intentions.
H8: Attitudes towards behaviors of the drivers have a positive eect on risky driving
behavior intentions.
H9: Risky driving behavior intentions of the drivers have a positive eect on bad behaviors.
H10: Risky driving behavior intentions of the drivers have a positive eect on negligent behaviors.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 12 of 20
H11: Risky driving behavior intentions of the drivers have a positive eect on intentional behaviors.
H12: Self-eciency of the drivers has a positive eect on bad behaviors.
H13: Self-eciency of the drivers has a positive eect on negligent behaviors.
H14: Self-eciency of the drivers has a positive eect on intentional behaviors.
Behavioral intention
3
0.712
>0.6
ok
Figure 2. The integrated model of risky driving behaviors.
5.1. Evaluation of Fitness
We used the AMOS (advanced mortar system) to estimate the fit parameters of the novice drivers’
bad driving behavior model. AMOS is a software that uses structural equations to explore relationships
between variables. It contains analysis of variance, covariance, hypothesis testing, and other basic
analysis methods. The results are shown in Table 7. The fitting result showed that the values of each
fitting evaluation index of the model were all located at a good point in the interval of critical values,
which shows that the overall fit of the model was ideal and that the model had good predictive ability.
The latent variable had good predictive ability for the observed variables.
Table 7. Fitness parameters of the AMOS (advanced mortar system) model.
Fitting Evaluation Indexes Index Values Critical Values
Standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) 0.215 <0.50
Comparative fit index (CFI) 0.979 >0.90
Root mean square error approximate (RMSEA) 0.064 <0.08
Normed fit index (NFI) 0.935 >0.90
Goodness of fit index (GFI) 0.924 >0.90
Adjustment of goodness of fit index (AGFI) 0.937 >0.90
Chi-square dof ratio (χ2/df) 2.970 <5.00
5.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis
The load factors showed the importance of the observed variables on the latent variables and
were also important indicators for evaluating the basic fit of the model. The results of confirmatory
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 13 of 20
factor analysis of the model using AMOS are shown in Table 8. The results showed that all the load
factors were greater than 0.5, and that the model had a good fit.
Table 8.
The results of the confirmatory factor analysis of the risky driving behaviors of the
novice drivers.
Paths of the Measurement Model Load Factors TValues
ITEM1 <- Bad behaviors 0.50 *** 14.65
ITEM2 <- Bad behaviors 0.50 *** 14.71
ITEM5 <- Bad behaviors 0.74 *** 18.40
ITEM6 <- Bad behaviors 0.77 *** 18.69
ITEM8 <- Negligent behaviors 0.66 *** 16.78
ITEM9 <- Negligent behaviors 0.76 *** 18.54
ITEM10 <- Negligent behaviors 0.54 *** 14.76
ITEM12 <- Negligent behaviors 0.64 *** 16.53
ITEM13 <- Intentional behaviors 0.61 *** 16.27
ITEM14 <- Intentional behaviors 0.68 *** 17.01
ITEM15 <- Intentional behaviors 0.66 *** 16.72
ITEM16 <- Intentional behaviors 0.78 *** 18.76
ITEM17 <- Intentional behaviors 0.64 *** 16.55
ITEM18 <- Intentional behaviors 0.64 *** 16.57
ITEM19 <- Intentional behaviors 0.87 *** 34.98
ITEM20 <-
Attitudes towards behaviors
0.56 *** 14.83
ITEM21 <-
Attitudes towards behaviors
0.54 *** 14.74
ITEM22 <-
Attitudes towards behaviors
0.63 *** 16.47
ITEM23 <- Subjective norm 0.54 *** 14.75
ITEM24 <- Subjective norm 0.55 *** 14.79
ITEM25 <- Subjective norm 0.65 *** 16.60
ITEM26 <- Threat sensitivity 0.62 *** 16.31
ITEM27 <- Threat sensitivity 0.73 *** 18.35
ITEM28 <- Threat sensitivity 0.54 *** 14.75
ITEM29 <- Threat severity 0.72 *** 18.29
ITEM30 <- Threat severity 0.56 *** 14.85
ITEM31 <- Threat severity 0.66 *** 16.73
ITEM32 <- Rewards 0.75 *** 18.52
ITEM33 <- Rewards 0.82 *** 31.77
ITEM34 <- Rewards 0.79 *** 28.63
ITEM35 <- Response cost 0.84 *** 32.16
ITEM36 <- Response cost 0.93 *** 38.53
ITEM37 <- Response cost 0.64 *** 16.56
ITEM38 <- Response eciency 0.77 *** 18.68
ITEM39 <- Response eciency 0.70 *** 18.25
ITEM40 <- Response eciency 0.79 *** 27.42
ITEM41 <- Self-eciency 0.81 *** 31.25
ITEM42 <- Self-eciency 0.76 *** 18.53
ITEM43 <- Self-eciency 0.68 *** 17.05
ITEM44 <- Behavioral intention 0.77 *** 18.70
ITEM45 <- Behavioral intention 0.55 *** 14.83
ITEM46 <- Behavioral intention 0.57 *** 14.96
Note: *** =p<0.001.
Because the scale was used to measure the same group of subjects at the same time, subjecting it to
the influence of the social approval eect, the subjects may have had a tendency to answer when they
answered. In order to control the deviation caused by this tendency, Harman’s single factor analysis
was used to analyze the data obtained by exploratory factor analysis. The results showed that nine
common factors greater than one were extracted from all the questions. The first factor explained
33.612% of the total variation, reaching 40% of the test criteria, and thus there was no common method
deviation in this study. The results of exploratory factor analysis were as follows: factor analysis could
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 14 of 20
only be carried out when the KMO (kaiser-meyer-olkin) test and battery ball test were carried out,
KMO >0.50 (significant probability of battery ball test statistics), and p<0.05. In this study, KMO =
0.906, =2122.952, p=0.000 for the results of the initial test. It was suitable for factor analysis of the
test results.
5.3. Path Analysis of Structural Equation Model
After the model confirmatory factor analysis was completed, the path analysis was carried out on
the bad driving behavior of the novice drivers, and the path coecient between the latent variables
was obtained, as shown in Figure 3.
Sustainability 2019, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 20
Figure 3. Integration model path of novice drivers bad driving behavior.
(1) Explanatory power for bad driving behavioral intention from the structural model:
Bad driving behavioral intention of novice drivers = (0.03) threat susceptibility +(0.09) threat
severity +(0.33) rewards +(0.17) response cost +(0.17) response efficiency +(0.39) self-efficiency +(0.02)
behavior attitude +(0.13) subjective norms.
It was found that for the explanatory power of bad driving behavioral intention, reward and
self-efficiency had the strongest explanatory power for novice drivers behavioral intention. Self-
efficiency had the strongest explanatory power for skilled drivers, and the other latent variables had
significant influence on their behavioral intention. At the same time, the explanatory power of the
other latent variables was comparable.
Because of the lack of driving experience, novice drivers have difficulty perceiving the threat of
bad driving behavior, and their perception of threat susceptibility is low. Generally, novice drivers
seldom experience or witness traffic accidents or social hazards caused by bad driving behavior. It is
easy for them to underestimate the risk of bad driving behavior. As a result, they lack perceptual
knowledge of the serious consequences of bad driving. They do not sufficiently pay attention to bad
driving behavior and are less aware of the perception of threat severity. This also leads to a lack of
knowledge about the cost of novice drivers bad driving behavior. At the same time, since the cost
pressure of bad driving behavior is not high at present, the novice driver thinks that they can afford
it, and their cost perception is low. Because the punishment mechanism for bad driving behavior and
the reward mechanism for obeying traffic rules are perfect at present, the perception of social and
individual interests brought about by obeying traffic rules is high; that is, the response efficiency
perception of bad driving behavior is low. Generally, novice drivers are younger and have had less
time to experience driving, which causes their ambiguous attitudes towards all kinds of driving
behaviors as well as their conformity behavior. Their attitude towards bad driving behavior is also
lower. At the same time, novice drivers more easily rebel, and there is a certain antagonistic mentality
towards others discouragement and demands. Therefore, their subjective norm has a negative
impact on bad driving behavior intention, and their perception degree is high. Relatively speaking,
novice drivers bad driving behavior intention has a high perception of their reward. The convenience
of time and space brought about by bad driving, as well as psychological satisfaction and mental
stimulation, are temptations that novice drivers cannot resist. Self-efficacy is the most explanatory
Figure 3. Integration model path of novice drivers’ bad driving behavior.
(1) Explanatory power for bad driving behavioral intention from the structural model:
Bad driving behavioral intention of novice drivers =(
0.03) threat susceptibility +(0.09) threat
severity +(0.33) rewards +(
0.17) response cost +(0.17) response eciency +(0.39) self-eciency +(0.02)
behavior attitude +(0.13) subjective norms.
It was found that for the explanatory power of bad driving behavioral intention, reward
and self-eciency had the strongest explanatory power for novice drivers’ behavioral intention.
Self-eciency had the strongest explanatory power for skilled drivers, and the other latent variables
had significant influence on their behavioral intention. At the same time, the explanatory power of the
other latent variables was comparable.
Because of the lack of driving experience, novice drivers have diculty perceiving the threat of
bad driving behavior, and their perception of threat susceptibility is low. Generally, novice drivers
seldom experience or witness trac accidents or social hazards caused by bad driving behavior. It is
easy for them to underestimate the risk of bad driving behavior. As a result, they lack perceptual
knowledge of the serious consequences of bad driving. They do not suciently pay attention to bad
driving behavior and are less aware of the perception of threat severity. This also leads to a lack of
knowledge about the cost of novice drivers’ bad driving behavior. At the same time, since the cost
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 15 of 20
pressure of bad driving behavior is not high at present, the novice driver thinks that they can aord
it, and their cost perception is low. Because the punishment mechanism for bad driving behavior
and the reward mechanism for obeying trac rules are perfect at present, the perception of social
and individual interests brought about by obeying trac rules is high; that is, the response eciency
perception of bad driving behavior is low. Generally, novice drivers are younger and have had less time
to experience driving, which causes their ambiguous attitudes towards all kinds of driving behaviors
as well as their conformity behavior. Their attitude towards bad driving behavior is also lower. At the
same time, novice drivers more easily rebel, and there is a certain antagonistic mentality towards
others’ discouragement and demands. Therefore, their subjective norm has a negative impact on bad
driving behavior intention, and their perception degree is high. Relatively speaking, novice drivers’
bad driving behavior intention has a high perception of their reward. The convenience of time and
space brought about by bad driving, as well as psychological satisfaction and mental stimulation,
are temptations that novice drivers cannot resist. Self-ecacy is the most explanatory factor for novice
drivers’ bad driving behavior, which is closely related to their behavior to overestimate their driving
skills and to underestimate the risk, and their lack of overall perception of the trac environment leads
to bad driving behavior.
(2) Explanatory power for bad habits from structural model:
Novice drivers’ bad habits =(0.34) behavioral intention +(0.28) self-eciency.
It was found that self-ecacy had strong explanatory power with regards to novice drivers’
bad habits.
In terms of bad habits, such as random lane change, random turnaround, and not looking at
rearview mirrors, novice drivers think more of self-ecacy. At the same time, behavioral intention
also plays a role. This shows that novice drivers are timid and need to consider all factors. If the
surrounding facilities or specific road conditions limit the self-eciency of novice drivers, it may hurt
their confidence in carrying out bad habits.
(3) Explanatory power for negligence from the structural model:
Novice drivers’ negligence =(0.43) behavioral intention +(0.16) response eciency.
It was found that the explanatory power of self-eciency was more powerful for explaining the
negligent behavior of novice drivers.
For negligence, such as overtaking on a curve and approaching cars, novice drivers consider more
of their driving skills. When performing these behaviors, novice drivers may give up because they
are not confident in their driving skills. For improper steering, lane departure, and other phenomena,
the novice driver, who is unskilled, may not be able to reach the standard of normal driving behavior,
even if they are suciently self-ecient, resulting in negligence.
(4) Explanatory power for deliberate irregularities from the structural model:
Novice drivers’ deliberate irregularities =(0.46) behavioral intention +(0.18) self-eciency.
It was found that self-eciency and behavioral intention both have strong explanatory power for
novice drivers’ deliberate irregularities.
For novice drivers, self-eciency is more influential than behavioral intention, which shows that
novice drivers are more concerned about whether their driving skills can support their successful
completion of deliberate irregularities. In some cases, if the novice drivers are not confident in their
driving skills, they may choose against deliberate irregularities.
6. Improvement Strategy of Novice Drivers’ Bad Driving Behavior
Through the above analysis, the causes and the specific mechanisms of the bad driving behavior of
novice drivers have been made clear. This study shows that the model can better explain the causes and
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 16 of 20
the trigger mechanisms of bad driving behavior of novice drivers. Therefore, it is necessary to make
targeted improvement strategies according to the characteristics of novice drivers’ bad driving behavior.
(1) Establishing an advanced trac monitoring system to reduce the susceptibility of novice
drivers to bad driving risks.
It is necessary to reduce novice drivers’ susceptibility to bad driving behavior. For this purpose,
we should establish an advanced trac monitoring system; use modern trac monitoring equipment
such as UAV(unmanned aerial vehicle), electronic police, and other modern trac monitoring
equipment; set them on the key sections and intersections; and constantly report road conditions to
the central trac monitoring system. If there is bad driving behavior of automatic vehicle drivers,
it should be confirmed immediately so that bad driving behavior cannot escape punishment. At the
same time, it is necessary to vigorously publicize that bad driving behavior will have a serious adverse
impact on the surrounding trac environment and trac safety, that it can easily face police control,
and that it will leave a bad impression on others, hurting the novice driver’s own social image.
Thus, the occurrence of bad driving behavior of novice drivers will be reduced, and the perception of
bad driving behavior of novice drivers will be enhanced.
(2) Constructing the accident experience education and evaluation mechanism platform and
enhancing the threat severity of drivers’ bad driving behavior.
It is necessary to enhance novice drivers’ perception of the threat severity of bad driving behavior.
To increase education about accidents, we can carry out simulated hazard awareness training and
strengthen the awareness of the risks of driving and bad driving behavior. At the same time,
a comprehensive evaluation mechanism for motor vehicle driving behavior should be established,
and the driving behavior of motor vehicle drivers should be strictly monitored at irregular intervals.
Meanwhile, the results of the investigation should be put on record. If the cumulative number of bad
driving behaviors reaches a certain level, the driver will be warned. For impenitent recidivism, it is
necessary to organize regular study, education, and examination. Furthermore, undesirable drivers
who have caused serious consequences many times should be punished directly by revoking their
driver’s license so that the novice driver fully understands the seriousness of bad driving behavior.
(3) Improving road design, enhancing simulated driving, and reducing novice drivers’ bad
driving rewards.
Novice drivers’ perception of rewards for bad driving behavior should be reduced. First, in the
road design stage, the constructor should focus on the rationality of the design. Driving schools need
to increase the driver’s accident experience in the simulated training stage for the novice driver to
resist bad driving behavior, also eliminating the mental pleasure derived from bad driving behavior,
such as by speeding. In this way, we can eectively correct the driver ’s bad driving behavior through
early education.
(4) Establishing an online credit rating system to increase the cost of bad driving response for
novice drivers.
It is necessary to enhance novice drivers’ perception of the response cost for bad driving behaviors.
For this purpose, we should set up an online evaluation system for evaluating the credit degree of
motor vehicle drivers, which directly links the bad driving records of motor vehicle drivers with their
credit degrees. Motor vehicle drivers’ bad driving behavior records will directly aect their evaluation
of work units, bank loans, and family credit to prevent bad driving. For bad driving behavior, such as
drunk driving, road rage, and illegal driving, we need to increase the punishment period to eectively
curb bad driving behavior and increase the response cost of such behavior.
(5) Constructing a reward and punishment mechanism for driving behavior to reduce the bad
driving response eciency of novice drivers.
To reduce novice drivers’ perception of the response eciency for bad driving behavior, we should
establish a reward and punishment mechanism for bad driving behavior. On the one hand, motorists
who have excellent performance and have accumulated zero points on the bad driving record in one
year will be awarded the incentive to extend the audit period of their driver’s license to enhance their
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 17 of 20
perception of the response eciency for obeying trac rules. At the same time, for motorists who
show bad performance and accumulate more than six points on the bad driving record in one year,
there will be a punishment of shortening the audit period of the driver’s license. In the case of serious
circumstances, the driver will not be granted a driver’s license for the rest of his life. In this way,
the perception of the response eciency for bad driving behavior will be reduced.
(6) Developing driving training institutions to reduce the bad driving self-ecacy of novice drivers.
To promote novice drivers’ correct understanding of their self-eciency, we should increase the
safe driving experience of novice drivers in driving school training institutions and fully and eectively
regulate the driving habits of new drivers. In addition to learning driving skills, it is necessary to
strengthen the learning of trac rules and carry out simulated environment practice for the novice
drivers to understand trac rules more comprehensively, understand their driving skills and driving
risks objectively, and lose their confidence in engaging in bad driving behavior.
(7) Being strict in driving school training and in the examination mechanism to correct novice
drivers’ attitudes towards bad driving behavior.
We should strengthen the education of novice drivers’ attitudes towards bad driving behavior
by taking advantage of their behavior and attitude, which can be changed easily. Most of China’s
trac laws and regulations are learned in driving school; thus, the school must be responsible for the
society and the whole trac system, providing a good education on trac laws and regulations by
increasing the diculty of the examination. It is necessary to focus on correcting the attitude of the
driver’s driving behavior, making them obey the trac rules consciously. Therefore, the driving school
and other training institutions need a strict training and assessment mechanism.
(8) Changing the educational form and constructing a subjective norm of bad driving for
novice drivers.
We should take advantage of subjective norms’ unique negative correlation impact eects on
novice drivers. It shows that in practice, family and friends should change the educational form of bad
driving behavior for novice drivers, as it is easy for novice drivers to produce adverse psychology.
More encouraging and easily accepted language should be used to educate novice drivers. At the same
time, family and friends should serve as examples by obeying trac rules. In this way, there will be an
imperceptible influence on novice drivers. This can reduce the bad driving behavior of novice drivers.
7. Limitations and Outlook
On the basis of the theory of planned behavior and protection motivation, this paper analyzed the
key factors of bad driving behavior of motor vehicle drivers. However, because of the shortcomings
of the survey methods and the complex and diverse factors aecting individual drivers’ bad driving
behaviors, the paper still has some shortcomings, which need to be further improved and studied:
(1) This paper mainly adopted the questionnaire survey method for research, and there was
a certain randomness when individual drivers filled in the questionnaire. Although unqualified
questionnaires were eliminated according to scientific methods, it was dicult to check the survey
accuracy of subjective intention of the questionnaire. In the future, a simulated driving method should
be adopted to investigate bad driving behaviors, and the accuracy of survey data should be improved
by summarizing the performance of drivers in actual operation and subsequent continuous observation.
(2) On the basis of the theory of planned behavior and the theory of protection motivation, this
paper constructed the integration model of motor vehicle driver’s bad driving behavior, and the data
analysis results showed that the model and data fit well. Although this paper used behavioral and
psychological factors to characterize external stimuli such as road trac law enforcement environment
and cost pressure, in fact, external stimuli should also include objective factors such as weather
conditions, which need to be enriched in subsequent studies.
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 18 of 20
8. Conclusion
This paper summarized and classified drivers’ bad driving behavior, and established the initial
integrated structural equation model on the basis of the integration of TPB and PMT theories.
This paper also selected the bad driving behavior influence variables through the questionnaire and
used statistical methods and the structural equation model to analyze the statistical properties of the
bad driving behavior, gaining the bad driving behavior of the key factors for novice drivers. This paper
explored the decision-making process and influencing degree of factors of bad driving behavior from
dierent perspectives, and provided a theoretical basis for early education, management intervention,
and dierential formulation of related rewards and punishments in the later period. There were two
important aspects of this study, as follows:
(1) Integrating structural equation model of bad driving behavior based on behavior theory.
An integrated model of bad driving behavior including planned behavior theory and protective
motivation theory was established. The integrated model was estimated on the basis of the partial least
squares parameter estimation method. The behavior attitude, subjective norms, perceived behavior
control, threat susceptibility, threat severity, internal and external returns, response cost, response
eciency, and self-ecacy are the key factors aecting drivers’ bad driving behavior, and the causal
relationship between the key factors was proven.
(2) Formulating targeted improvement strategies.
The integrated model was verified and analyzed by using the data of novice drivers. It found
that the incentive and self-ecacy had the greatest impact on bad driving behavior intention. If the
trac management department can find and punish the bad driving behavior in time, the reward of
the novice driver’s compliance with trac rules is greater than that of the bad driving behavior. In this
way, the novice driver group will evolve into the trend of obeying trac rules and reach a stable state
of evolution. This not only reflects the influence of bad driving behavior on novice drivers, but also
reflects the lack of relevant education, laws, and regulations for novice drivers.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, L.Y. and X.Z.; methodology, X.Z; software, Y.L.; validation, L.Y. and
X.Z.; investigation, X.Z. and Y.L.; resources, Y.L.; data curation, Y.L.; writing—original draft preparation, X.Z.;
supervision, L.Y. and X.Z.; project administration, Y.L.
Funding:
This research was funded by the Open Project of Key Laboratory of Ministry of Public Security for Road
Trac Safety, grant number 2019ZDSYSKFKT01.
Acknowledgments:
The research for this paper has been supported by the Open Project of Key Laboratory of the
Ministry of Public Security for Road Trac Safety (no. 2019ZDSYSKFKT01). The authors sincerely thank all the
teachers and classmates who gave many valuable suggestions on this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
Pollatsek, A.; Narayanaan, V.; Pradhan, A.; Fisher, D.L. Using eye movements to evaluate a PC-based risk
awareness and perception training program on a driving simulator. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc.
2006,48, 447–464. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2.
Finn, P.; Bragg, B.W. Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev.
1986
,
18, 289–298. [CrossRef]
3.
Benda, H.V.; Hoyos, C.G. Estimating hazards in trac situations. Accid. Anal. Prev.
1983
,15, 1–9. [CrossRef]
4.
Shinar, D.; Compton, R. Aggressive driving: An observational study of driver, vehicle, and situational
variables. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2004,36, 429–437. [CrossRef]
5.
Blows, S.; Ameratunga, S.; Ivers, R.Q.; Lo, S.K.; Norton, R. Risky driving habits and motor vehicle driver
injury. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2005,37, 619–624. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 19 of 20
6.
Ben-Ari, O.T.; Yehiel, D. Driving styles and their associations with personality and motivation.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012,45, 416–422. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7.
Kweon, Y.J.; Kockelman, K.M. Overall injury risk to dierent drivers: combining exposure frequency,
and sensitivity models. Accident. Anal. Prev. 2003,35, 441–450. [CrossRef]
8.
Day, M.R.; Thompson, A.R.; Poulter, D.R.; Stride, C.B.; Rowe, R. Why do drivers become safer over the first
three months of driving? A longitudinal qualitative study. Accid. Anal. Prev.
2018
,117, 225–231. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
9.
Ma, L.H.; Tang, Z.H.; Cheng, L. Analysis of old and new driver ’s risk perception. Sciencepaper Online
2011
,6,
854–857.
10.
Salmon, P.M.; Read, G.J.; Beanland, V.; Thompson, J.; Filtness, A.J.; Hulme, A.; McClure, R.; Johnston, I.
Bad behaviour or societal failure? Perceptions of the factors contributing to drivers’ engagement in the fatal
five driving behaviours. Appl. Ergon. 2019,74, 162–171. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11.
Xiang, H.; Yang, S.; An, S.; Ren, S. Evaluation and Prediction of Driver ’s Bad Driving Behavior Based on the
Moving Vehicle Attitude. IJSIA 2015,9, 63–76. [CrossRef]
12.
S
â
rbescu, P.; Maricu¸toiu, L. Are you a “bad driver” all the time? Insights from a weekly diary study on
personality and dangerous driving behavior. J. Res. Pers. 2019,80, 30–37. [CrossRef]
13.
Rhodes, N.; Pivik, K. Age and gender dierences in risky driving: The roles of positive aect and risk
perception. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011,43, 923–931. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14.
Chung, Y.-S. Seemingly irrational driving behavior model: The eect of habit strength and anticipated
aective reactions. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015,82, 79–89. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15.
Kathryn, C.; Mark, C.; Samanth, J. Identifying the psychological determinants of risky riding: An application
of an extended Theory of Planned behavior. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012,49, 142–153.
16.
Castanier, C.; Deroche, T.; Woodman, T. Theory of planned behavior and road violations: The moderating
influence of perceived behavioral control. Transp. Res. Part. F 2013,18, 148–158. [CrossRef]
17.
Li, P.F.; Shi, J.J.; Liu, X.M. Modeling of Competitive Driving Behavior Based on Theory of Planned Behavior.
J. Transp. Sys. Eng. Inform. Tech. 2016,16, 92–98.
18.
Kergoat, M.; Delhomme, P.; Meyer, T. Appraisal of speed-enforcement warning messages among young
drivers: Influence of automatic versus human speed enforcement in a known or unknown location. Transp. Res.
Part. F 2017,46, 177–194. [CrossRef]
19.
Glendon, A.I.; Walker, B.L. Can anti-speeding messages based on protection motivation theory influence
reported speeding intentions? Accid. Anal. Prev. 2013,57, 67–79. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20.
Jiang, K.; Ling, F.; Feng, Z. Why do drivers continue driving while fatigued? An application of the theory of
planned behavior. Transp. Res. Part. A 2017,98, 141–149.
21.
Rowe, R.; Andrews, E.; Harris, P.R. Identifying beliefs underlying pre-drivers’ intentions to take risks: An
application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016,89, 49. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Chen, S.Y. Using the sustainable modified TAM and TPB to analyze the eects of perceived green value on
loyalty to a public bike system. Transp. Res. Part. A 2016,88, 58–72. [CrossRef]
23.
Brijs, K.; Cuenen, A.; Brijs, T. Evaluating the eectiveness of a post-license education program for young
novice drivers in Belgium. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014,66, 62–71. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24.
Eherenfreund-Hager, A.; Taubman–Ben-Ari, O. The eect of aect induction and personal variables on
young drivers’ willingness to drive recklessly. Transp. Res. Part. F 2016,41, 138–149. [CrossRef]
25. Ajzen, I. The theory of planning behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process 1991,50, 453–474. [CrossRef]
26.
Rogers, R.W.; Cacioppo, J.T.; Petty, R. Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude
change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In Social Psychophysiology: A Sourcebook; Guilford Press:
New York, NY, USA, 1983.
27.
Cao, X.T. Analysis of Characteristic of Driver Involved in Road Trac Accident. China J. Highw. Transp.
2009
,
6, 1–2.
28.
Klauer, S.G.; Guo, F.; Simons-Morton, B.G. Distracted driving and risk of road crashes among novice and
experienced drivers. N Engl J. Med. 2014,46, 54–59. [CrossRef]
29.
Deery, H.A. Hazard and risk perception among young novice Drivers. J. Safet. Res.
1999
,30, 225–236.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2019,11, 5556 20 of 20
30.
Scialfa, C.T.; Desch
ê
nes, M.C.; Ference, J.; Boone, J.; Horswill, M.S.; Wetton, M. A hazard perception test for
novice drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011,43, 204–208. [CrossRef]
31.
Ifinedo, P. Understanding information systems security policy compliance: An integration of the theory of
planned behavior and the protection motivation theory. Comp. Secur. 2012,31, 83–95. [CrossRef]
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
... Many scholars [15][16][17][18][19][20] have researched road section types and risky driving behaviors, but they mainly focused on simple data collection and subjective risk judgment. In addition, few articles comprehensively studied the influence of the two factors on traffic crashes. ...
Article
Full-text available
The causes of traffic crashes are complex and uncertain, among which the risky driving behaviors of drivers and the types of road sections in high-crash areas are all critical influencing factors. We used ArcGIS software to draw traffic heat maps under different thresholds to prevent the occurrence of traffic crashes accurately and effectively according to the vehicle GPS data of urban expressways in Jinan City, Shandong Province. This paper studied the relationship between risky driving behaviors (rapid acceleration, rapid deceleration, and overspeed) and road types with traffic crashes. The traffic safety evaluation model of urban expressways based on ordered logistic was established to predict the safety level of the urban expressway. The model’s accuracy was 85.71%, and the applicability was good. The research results showed that rapid deceleration was the most significant influencing factor of crashes on urban expressways. When the vehicle deceleration was less than or equal to −4 m/s2, the probability of a crash was 22.737 times greater than when the vehicle deceleration was at −2 to −2.5m/s2; when the vehicle acceleration was greater than or equal to 3 m/s2, the probability of a crash was 19.453 times greater than when the vehicle acceleration was at 1 to 1.5 m/s2. The likelihood of a crash at a road section with a ramp opening was 8.723 times greater than that of a crash at a non-ramp opening; the crash probability of a speeding vehicle was 7.925 times greater than that of a non-speeding vehicle; the likelihood of a crash on a curve was 6.147 times greater than that on a straight. The research results can provide adequate technical support for identifying high-risk sections of expressways and active early warning of traffic crashes.
... Conner et al. [17] added user intention, behavioural perceptions, and behavioural stability based on the original theory, thus enhancing the explanatory power of the model. Presently, TPB is used in many practical domains, such as online shopping [18], medical waste separation [19], driving [20], sports [21], eating [22], privacy paradox [23], and other practical areas related to behaviour. ...
Article
Full-text available
Shared mobility is an important part of a smart city transportation system. However, during the short period it has been in effect, privacy leakages have frequently occurred, and as travellers are increasingly paying attention to their privacy, leakages hinder the rapid development of shared mobility. Therefore, it is important to explore the origin of the privacy paradox in the context of shared mobility and propose some targeted measures for improvement. The privacy paradox has been attested in numerous studies, where, despite their obvious concern that their privacy will be compromised, users continued to adopt services that may compromise it. This study constructs a model for the privacy paradox based on the theory of planned behaviour, privacy calculus theory, and construal level theory. A questionnaire survey was conducted with 301 Chinese college students to quantitatively analyse the relationship between the main factors of users’ privacy paradox in the context of shared mobility. The study results showed that (a) the privacy paradox does exist in shared mobility among college students; (b) both perceived benefit and trust have a significant positive effect on near future disclosure intention, with trust being the prime motivator; (c) both privacy concern and perceived risk have significant negative effects on distant future disclosure intention, with privacy concern being the key ingredient; and (d) both near and distant future disclosure intentions have positive effects on privacy disclosure behaviour, with near future disclosure intention having a more significant influence. Further, to promote the healthy and sustainable development of China’s shared mobility industry, countermeasures and suggestions have been proposed for users, ride-sharing enterprises, and the government according to the research results.
Article
The human factor remains one of the key challenges in cybersecurity despite effective technical countermeasures in place. This study aims to determine what motivates individuals to seek information about social engineering by investigating the determinants of behavioral intention to follow the materials of a social engineering awareness campaign in Slovenia. A quantitative survey of individuals in Slovenia (N=542) aged 15 or older was administered with participants recruited through University of Maribor students. Data were collected on constructs related to the protection motivation theory (PMT) and the theory of planned behavior (TPB) as well as privacy concerns and perceived performance of authorities. The survey instrument was validated with a confirmatory factor analysis. Covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM) was used to determine relationships between constructs and analysis of differences between students and employed individuals. Results indicate perceived threat, subjective norm, attitude toward behavior and authorities performance are all significant predictors of behavioral intention. The associations between perceived threat and behavioral intention, and privacy concern and attitude towards behavior was not significant among employed individuals. Among students, trust in authorities was not a significant predictor of authorities performance. This study has several implications. The results of this study suggest that fear appeals may be effective in motivating individuals to seek information about social engineering attacks thus improving the effectiveness of awareness campaigns. They also offer some insights into how to improve messaging towards the target populations. Messaging emphasizing perceived threat may directly increase information seeking intention while messaging emphasizing coping with social engineering may do so indirectly through attitude towards behavior. This study also indicates that messaging should be tailored to the target population (e.g., messaging emphasizing perceived threat may be much less effective for employed individuals than students).
Article
Full-text available
As early as 1948, defensive driving was accurately defined. Defensive driving was first promoted among professional drivers, and defensive driving training is still an important part of the regular training of professional drivers. The level of defensive driving is one of the standards for professional drivers (such as bus drivers). However, there is still a lack of quantitative evaluation methods for the defensive driving level of bus drivers. To fill this gap, the main purpose of this study was to compile a scale for assessing the defensive driving level of bus drivers, and to explore the influencing factors of the defensive driving behavior intention in bus drivers. Based on the definition of defensive driving, a defensive driving scale was compiled. Furthermore, a defensive driving intention scale was designed based on the theory of planned behavior and protective motivation theory to determine the factors affecting the defensive driving intention. A questionnaire survey was conducted among 312 bus drivers in a Chinese city. The results showed that the bus drivers generally reported a high defensive driving level and behavior intention. In addition, the results of the integrated model showed that attitude (β = 0.18) and utility susceptibility (β = 0.69) were positively correlated with behavior intention, while the response cost (β = − 0.18) was negatively correlated with behavior intention.
Chapter
Augmented reality head-up display (AR-HUD) presents a more natural way to process images with breakthroughs in optics. The technology also become the primary development trend of automobile human-machine interface (HMI). However, too much virtual information might interfere with drivers’ attention to their surroundings and affect their driving judgments. To effectively manage the complexity of vehicle information systems while further improving driving safety, this study aims to establish the information architecture of two driver groups (beginner drivers and skilled drivers) in different road environments. We developed a priority classification model and recruited 60 university students to participate in a card sorting experiment based on the criteria of beginner and skilled drivers. The cluster analysis findings were used to determine the AR-HUD information's grouping structure and hierarchical connection for the two driving user groups. Additionally, we investigated the impact of common road types and driving experience on the diversity of information architecture. The findings of this study constructed a user-centered information architecture and provided a theoretical foundation and role for the automobile industry in managing AR-HUD information and interface design.
Article
Full-text available
Interactions between pedestrians and drivers are an important traffic safety issue. Psycho-social factors such as thoughts, perceptions and attitudes toward other people can be reliable predictors of riskier or safer behaviors among road users. The aim of this study was to assess how frequently participants perceive that drivers perform safe and risky road behaviors through drivers’ self-reported behavior and pedestrians and other drivers’ external perceptions. The results show that pedestrians assess the road behaviors of drivers in a seriously negative way. Meanwhile, drivers perceive their own behaviors as more appropriate than those performed by the rest of drivers. Women attribute more favorable assessments to other users’ road behavior. Similarly, older drivers do the same, and consider themselves “safer” users. On the contrary, younger drivers report a higher frequency of self-rated unsafe behaviors. The study highlights the importance of working on the awareness of self-rated road behaviors. Road safety interventions and programs in Spain must consider the differences related to gender and age.
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents a review on relevant studies and reports related to older drivers’ behavior and stress. Questionnaires, simulators, and on-road/in-vehicle systems are used to collect driving data in most studies. In addition, research either directly compares older drivers and the other drivers or considers participants according to various age groups. Nevertheless, the definition of ‘older driver’ varies not only across studies but also across different government reports. Although questionnaire surveys are widely used to affordably obtain massive data in a short time, they lack objectivity. In contrast, biomedical information can increase the reliability of a driving stress assessment when collected in environments such as driving simulators and on-road experiments. Various studies determined that driving behavior and stress remain stable regardless of age, whereas others reported degradation of driving abilities and increased driving stress among older drivers. Instead of age, many researchers recommended considering other influencing factors, such as gender, living area, and driving experience. To mitigate bias in findings, this literature review suggests a hybrid method by applying surveys and collecting on-road/in-vehicle data.
Article
Full-text available
Drivers are at high crash risk when they begin independent driving, with liability decreasing steeply over the first three months. Their behavioural development, and other changes underlying improved safety are not well understood. We adopted an innovative longitudinal qualitative design, with thirteen newly qualified drivers completing a total of 36 semi-structured interviews, one, two and three months after acquiring a full UK driving license. The interviews probed high-risk factors for new drivers, as well as allowing space for generating novel road safety issues. Analysis adopted a dual deductive and inductive interpretative thematic approach, identifying three super-ordinate themes: (1) Improvements in car control skills and situation awareness; (2) A reduction in the thrill of taking risks when driving against a background of generally increasing driving speed; (3) Early concerns about their social status in the eyes of other road users during the early stages of driving, which may put pressure on them to drive faster than they felt comfortable with. The study provides important new leads towards understanding how novice driving becomes safer over the first few months of driving, including how well-studied concepts of driving skill and style may change during development of independent driving, and a focus on the less rigorously studied concept of social status.
Article
Research concerning dangerous driving behavior has often favored studying inter-individual differences at the expense of intra-individual ones (especially when verifying its associations with personality factors). Using a 7 weeks diary approach, we aimed at exploring the intraindividual variation of dangerous driving behavior (Errors, Violations and Aggressive driving). Also, we verified if our outcomes could be predicted by both situational variables (weekly km, felt traffic pressure and traffic mood) and dispositional ones (Big-Five personality factors, age and gender). Our findings revealed that Violations, Verbal & Physical aggression and Vehicle aggression had similar intra- to inter-individual variation ratios, with approximately 45% of variance at the intra-individual level. In contrast, Errors had only about 30% of variance at the intra-individual level. Traffic mood was the only significant intra-individual predictor, negatively correlating with all outcomes. Excepting Agreeableness, all personality factors were related to at least one dangerous driving behavior (especially consistent for the association between Extraversion and Aggressive driving). Also, women reported lower levels than men on all outcomes but Errors. Overall, this study raises some questions about the assumed stability of driving behavior, while at the same time confirming several relational patterns between personality factors and dangerous driving.
Article
The so-called ‘fatal five’ behaviours (drink and drug driving, distraction and inattention, speeding, fatigue, and failure to wear a seat belt) are known to be the major behavioural contributory factors to road trauma. However, little is known about the factors that lead to drivers engaging in each behaviour. This article presents the findings from a study which collected and analysed data on the factors that lead to drivers engaging in each behaviour. The study involved a survey of drivers' perceptions of the causes of each behaviour and a subject matter expert workshop to gain the views of road safety experts. The results were mapped onto a systems ergonomics model of the road transport system in Queensland, Australia, to show where in the system the factors reside. In addition to well-known factors relating to drivers' knowledge, experience and personality, additional factors at the higher levels of the road transport system related to road safety policy, transport system design, road rules and regulations, and societal issues were identified. It is concluded that the fatal five behaviours have a web of interacting contributory factors underpinning them and are systems problems rather than driver-centric problems. The implications for road safety interventions are discussed.
Article
Fatigued driving is one of the major contributors to road crashes around the world. To explore factors affecting fatigued driving behaviour from the perspective of social psychology, a questionnaire was designed based on the theory of planned behaviour. A sample of 214 drivers was examined. Drivers with poor sleep quality or a history of fatigue all showed a greater tendency to continue driving while fatigued, to have a more positive attitude towards driving while fatigued, and to perceive a higher level of control while driving fatigued. Furthermore, hierarchical multiple regression analysis showed overall support for the predictive utility of the theory of planned behaviour, accounting for 30.4% of the variance of fatigued driving behaviour after controlling for demographic variables. Overall, the results suggest that subjective norms, perceived behavioural control and intention have significant effects on self-reported continued driving while fatigued. Hence, a multiple-strategy approach should be utilized in addressing this issue.
Article
The present study investigated how young drivers assess speed-enforcement warning messages and how these messages affect their motivation to reduce speed. Stemming from deterrence theory (Gibbs, 1985; Homel, 1988) the factors of “celerity”, “certainty”, and “severity” of the sanction were explored as a function of type of speed enforcement (automatic radars vs. police officers) and knowledge of enforcement location (known vs. unknown). Coping factors (e.g., self-efficacy, response cost) from protection motivation theory (PMT; Rogers, 1983) were also considered as critical variables of compliance. Participants (245 students, 51% men) had to choose their speed behavior in a mental simulation of a driving episode on a freeway. As expected, the intention to speed was lower when speed-enforcement warning messages were announced than in the control situation. Threat-certainty ratings were higher when automatic radars were announced, but speeding intentions did not vary according to the automatic versus human type of speed enforcement. Furthermore, automatic radars were perceived as easier to cope with in a maladaptive way (i.e., self-efficacy for avoiding a sanction and adapting speed as a function of speed-enforcement location). An unknown speed-enforcement location was one way of decreasing both women’s and men’s speed. Men calculated a cost-benefit balance to avoid slowing down when they knew the enforcement location. Concerning the predictors of speeding intentions and motivations to reduce speed, self-efficacy ratings for reducing one’s speed proved to be the best PMT predictor.
Article
In an effort to increase understanding of risky driving among young drivers, with a special focus on the influence of affect, the study examined the contribution of the factors in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), in addition to affect induction and personal variables (relevance of driving to self-esteem, sensation seeking), to the willingness of young drivers to take risks on the road. The sample consisted of 500 male and female drivers aged 18–22 (M = 18.94, SD = 0.77) who were randomly divided into four affect conditions: relaxed positive affect; aroused positive affect; negative affect; and neutral affect.
Article
This article explores the effects of perceived green value, perceived green usefulness, perceived pleasure to use, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control on green loyalty to a public bike system. The mediators between perceived green value and green loyalty and a moderator of general attitude toward protecting the natural environment are also discussed. The aim of this research was to understand how to establish green loyalty via the other dimensions based on the sustainable modified technology acceptance model (modified TAM), the theory of planned behavior (TPB), and a moderator. The findings reveal that perceived pleasure to use and subjective norms have the strongest power to influence loyalty for both users and non-users. The implications of this finding are that fun in people's lives has a strong influence on sustainable continuous use of public bikes, and that subjective norms are more effective for non-users. In addition, environmental attitude has stronger moderating effects for non-users than for users on perceived green usefulness, perceived pleasure and subjective norms. Therefore, governmental policies should promote the attitude of protecting the natural environment, perceptions of pleasure, and subjective norms so as to increase green loyalty to public bike-sharing.
Article
This paper aims to investigate the dimensionality of drivers' behaviors and analyze the motives of competitive driving behavior. Data are collected from a self- reported questionnaire completed by 225 drivers on the internet. Principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are used to analyze the underlying factor structure. Four latent factors are derived, including speed advantage, space occupation, contention over the right- of- way, and space advantage. Structural equation modeling is established to explain the correlation between drivers' attitude and driving behavior based on Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). Results indicate that competitive driving behavior could be predicted by the combination of attitudes, subjective norm, control of perceived behavior, and social environment through the medium of behavior intention. A high correlation between the dimensions of social environment and intention is observed. This is an effective way to rectify the competitive driving behavior.
Article
The driver takes leading part in the complex model of "human-vehicle-road-environment". The driving behavior has the characteristics of randomness, impulsivity and autonomy etc. which make it difficult to study the driver's driving behavior directly. Monitoring vehicle attitude is an important element of proactive safety management of public transport vehicles. This paper constructs a data acquisition system by using an InvenSense's 6-Axis inertial measurement unit (IMU) as the center of this system, which can sense the vehicle attitude information to make up for the lack of driver senses, and then builds fuzzy synthetical evaluation model which is combined with ISO 2631-1:1997/Amd 1:2010 standard. Finally, prediction of the driver's driving behavior in transient term has been established with Elman neural network method.