The term SEM conveys that the causal process being studied was represented by a series of structural equations. Based on Fig. 1, a preliminary model framework and factors resulted from the exploratory factor analysis, the refined risky riding behavior model is shown in Fig.
2 (dashed line indicates insignificant path).
FIGURE 2 Refined risky riding behavior model
Figure 2 shows that unawareness of traffic conditions is re-identified as a latent intermediate factor. Additionally, effectively using the personality trait factors leads to their reduction, and only those factors that are significantly related to risky riding behaviors are selected for the refined model.
Regarding the three personality traits, the analytical results show that sensation seeking negatively impacted sense of danger and strongly and positively influenced utility perception. This indicated that riders who are seeking excitement would perceive less danger of certain risky riding behaviors and enjoy greater utility from such behaviors. This may also reveal some sort of safety culture among the sensation seeking rider group. Meanwhile, complaisance positively influenced sense of danger and negatively affected utility perception, which largely reflect the beliefs of the general public. As for riders with impatience characteristics, they not only perceive greater danger but also enjoy utility gained from certain risky riding behaviors. One explanation for this result may be that impatient riders are more frequently exposed to dangerous situations. All above stated results meet our expectation.
Furthermore, the characteristics of sensation seeking and impatience, besides the indirect effects via sense of danger and utility perception constructs, significantly and
Wong, Chang, and Huang 11
positively affect attitudes towards unsafe riding, which confirms the hypothesis that riders who are impulsive or engage in seeking excitement have higher acceptance of unsafe riding (11). However, the complaisance construct does not directly affect attitude towards unsafe riding instead only exerting indirect effects via latent intermediate constructs.
It is human nature for riders to make decisions based on utility maximization. Risky behaviors are undertaken only if the perceived benefits exceed the perceived costs. Despite the influence of personality traits, confident riders tend to gain more utility from riding.
Clearly, it is difficult for riders with less confidence to enjoy risky riding. Additionally, it is notable that the sense of danger construct significantly and negatively impacts attitudes towards unsafe riding. Utility perception and sense of danger indirectly influence risky behavior via attitude towards unsafe riding. This analytical result suggests managerial implications for safety education.
Attitude is a key contributor to behavior. As expected, the result demonstrated that riders who tend to accept unsafe riding more frequently engage in risky riding behavior.
However, one interesting result relates to the construct of unawareness of traffic conditions, which appeared to strongly and negatively influence risky riding behavior. Consequently, riders who frequently neglected the traffic situation exhibit fewer risky riding behaviors.
Such riders can be considered nervous riders whose fear of experiencing an accident led them to fail to observe the surrounding traffic conditions. Consequently, such riders appear to have less risky riding behaviors. On the contrary, riders with a low sense of danger and high riding confidence tend to be those experienced and skillful riders who are both more aware of traffic conditions and engage in more risk taking. This suggests that those with risky riding habits pay more attention to the traffic in order to protect themselves.
CONCLUSIONS
Young riders were found to have high accident and mortality rate. Recently, behavioral analysis has attracted the attention of researchers leading to valuable information being uncovered (2)(10)(11). In this research, the refined framework based on Ulleberg and Rundmo (10) and Hoyes et al (11) was developed for analyzing the nature of risky riding behavior in young motorcyclists. As expected, the results demonstrated that personality traits are indirectly related with risky behavior. This study also confirmed the risk homeostasis theory.
Decisions to engage in risky riding behavior result from the interaction between risk (represented by sense of danger) and gain (represented by utility perception). Most research and safety improvement plans focus on risk reduction. However, for some rider groups, accident prevention plans should also include strategies on the perceived utility of risky riding behaviors. The research results clearly indicate that riders without risky riding behaviors can also cause problems. A large portion of the riding group is not sensation
Wong, Chang, and Huang 12
seeking ones. Although these riders are not risky riders, they can be inexperienced, nervous, or even unfamiliar with traffic culture. Instead, risky riders are not all related to those young inexperienced riders, and unlike inexperienced riders they tend to be skillful, confident, and knowledgeable of modern traffic rules. Each group of riders may have their own specific decision making characteristics. Strategies such as education, enforcement, and engineering should consider the risky behaviors of young riders. This information can yield insights not only for safety education but also for future ITS safety development.
Most of the measurements presented in this study are only applicable to general scenarios and thus do not reflect real world traffic situations and may make it difficult for participants to imagine the scenario precisely. Setting more specific scenarios may enable the extraction of more interesting and detailed features. Furthermore, considering the heterogeneous characteristics of young riders (25)(26), further research on risky riding behavior in different groups of young riders may further enhance understanding of the nature of accidents.
REFERENCE
1. Clarke, D.D., P. Ward, and W. Truman. Voluntary risk taking and skill deficits in young driver accidents in the UK. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol.37, Iss.3, 2005, pp.
523–529.
2. Machin, M.A. and K.S. Sankey. Relationships between young drivers' personality characteristics, risk perceptions, and driving behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, Iss. 2, 2008, pp. 541-547.
3. Waylen, A.E. and F.P. McKenna. Risky attitudes towards road use in pre-drivers.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 40, Iss. 3, 2008, pp. 905-911.
4. Tseng, P.-Y, Y.-S. Huang, and S.-Y Jiang. Analysis of Accident Risks by Driver Age.
Paper presented at the International Conference of Traffic Safety and Enforcement, 2001, Seprtember, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
5. Clarke, D.D., R. Forsyth, and R. Wright. Machine Learning in Road Accident Research：Decision Trees Describing Road Accidents During Cross Flow Turns.
Ergonomics, Vol. 41, Iss. 7, 1998, pp. 1060-1079.
6. Clarke, D.D., R. Forsyth, and R. Wright. Junction Road Accidents during Cross-flow Turns: a Sequence Analysis of Police Files. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 30, Iss. 2, 1999, pp. 223-234.
7. Wong, J.-T. and Y.-S. Chung, Rough set approach for accident chains exploration.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 39, Iss. 3, 2007, pp.629-637.
8. Wong, J.-T., and Y.-S. Chung. A rule comparison approach for identifying causal factors of accident severity. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2008. (Accepted for publication)
Wong, Chang, and Huang 13
9. Dahlen, E.R., R.C. Martin, K. Ragan, and M.M. Kuhlman. Driving anger, sensation seeking, impulsiveness,and boredom proneness in the prediction of unsafe driving.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol.37, 2005, pp. 371–348.
10. Ulleberg, P. and T. Rundmo. Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behavior among young drivers. Safety Science, Vol.41, 2003, pp. 427-443.
11. Hoyes, T.W., N.A. Stanton, and R.G. Taylor. Risk homeostasis theory: A study of intrinsic compensation Safety Science, Vol.22, 1996, pp. 77-86.
12. Chang, H.-L., and T.-H. Yeh. Risk Factors to Driver Fatalities in Single-vehicle Crashes:
Comparisons between Non-motorcycle Drivers and Motorcyclists. Journal of Transportation Engineering, Vol. 132, No.3, 2006, pp. 227-236.
13. Chang, H.-L., and T.-H. Yeh. Motorcyclist Accident Involvement by Age, Gender, and Risky Behaviors in Taipei, Taiwan Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 10, Iss. 2, 2007, pp. 109-122.
14. Lin, M.-R., S.-H. Chang, L. Pai, and P.M. Keyl. A longitudinal study of risk factors for motorcycle crashes among junior college students in Taiwan. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 35, Iss. 2, 2003, pp. 243-252.
15. McCrae, R.R. and P.T. Costa. Trait explanations in personality psychology. European Journal of Personality, Vol. 9, 1995, pp. 231–252.
16. Oltedal, S. and T. Rundmo. The effects of personality and gender on risky driving behavior and accident involvement. Safety Science, Vol. 44, 2006, pp. 621-628.
17. Schwebel, D.C., J. Severson, K.K. Ball, and M. Rizzo. Individual difference factors in risky driving: The roles of anger/hostility, conscientiousness, and sensation-seeking.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 38, 2006, pp. 801-810.
18. Ulleberg, P. Personality subtypes of young drivers. Relationship to risk-taking preferences, accident involvement, and response to a traffic safety campaign.
Transportation research Part F, Vol. 4, 2001, pp. 279-297
19. Deffenbacher J.L., E.R. Oetting, and R.S. Lynch. Development of a driver anger scale.
Psychological Reports, Vol.74, 1994, pp. 83-91.
20. Sullman, M.J.M. Anger amongst New Zealand drivers. Transportation research Part F, Vol. 9, 2006, pp. 173-184.
21. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and the Human Decision Process, Vol. 50, 1991, pp. 179-211.
22. Iversen H. Risk-taking attitudes and risky driving behavior. Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 7, 2004, pp. 135-150.
23. Engstrom, I., N.P. Gregersen, K. Hernetkoski, E. Keskinen, and A. Nyberg. Young novice drivers, driver education and training, VTI report, 491A, 2003
24. Endsley, M.R. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic-systems. Human Factor, Vol. 37, Iss. 1, 1995, pp. 32-64.
Wong, Chang, and Huang 14
25. Chliaoutakis, J.E., C. Darviri, and P.T. Demakakos. The impact of young drivers’
lifestyle on their road traffic accident risk in greater Athens area. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 31, 1999, pp. 771-780.
26. Gregersen, N.P. and H.Y. Berg. Lifestyle and accidents among young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 26, 1994, pp. 297-303.