Theory of driver behavior

Fuller, R, (2005). Towards a general theory of driver behavior. Acc. Anal. Prev., 37, 461-472. Gielen, A. C. and D. Sleet (2003). Application of Behavior-Change Theories and Methods to Injury Prevention. Epid. Rev., 25,65-76. 

Summala, H. (1985). Modeling driver behavior a pessimistic prediction In Human Behavior and Traffic Safety (L. Evans and R. C. Schwing, eds.). Plenum Press, New York. Summala, H. (1988). Risk control is not risk adjustment the zero-risk theory of driver behavior and its implications. Ergonomics, 31,491-506. 

Elliott, M.A. and C.J. Armitage, et al. (2003). Drivers compliance with speed limits An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 964-72. 

The best-known motivational model - and the one that has been most frequently challenged — is the risk homeostasis theory of driving behavior. The first formulation of this model was probably Taylor s (1964) risk-speed compensation model, which postulated that drivers adjust their speeds in accordance with the perceived risk. More recently the model has been expanded by Wilde (1998,2002) to include and account for a host of driver behaviors. Because of the controversy it has generated and the research that it has spurred, it will be described here in some detail. According to Wilde, we strive not to minimize risk (or maximize safety), but to reduce (or increase) it to a non-zero level with wdiich we feel comfortable. Because different driving situations have different levels of inherent dangers, we constantly strive to adjust our behavior to maintain a relatively constant risk level. The continuous adjustment process, similar to diat of a room thermostat, is displayed in Figure 3-12. 

Figure 3-12. A schematic representation of Wilde s risk homeostasis theory relating driver behavior to the gap between the driver target risk level and the perceived risk based on actual crash history at the site (Wilde, 1998 2002 with permission from BMJ Publishing Group, Ltd.).

Motivational factors. The theory of plaimed behavior (Ajzen, 1991. See also Chapter 3) would suggest that speeding - just like any other behavior - is the end product of intentions and the amount of behavioral control over their execution. But what is the relative impact of the different components on the speed we finally choose De Pelsmacker and Janssens (2007) attempted to answer that question by administering a questionnaire addressing the various components of the model to 333 Belgian drivers. A key measure in the questionnaire was the... 

From this assumed relationship between violations and crashes, it is only a small step to hypothesize that drivers who by their own admission commit many violations and unsafe driving actions should be over-involved in crashes. To test this. Reason and his associates (Reason, 1990 Reason et aL, 1990) developed die Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ), as a tool for validating the theory of planned behavior (see Chapters 3 and 8). A version of the questionnaire, modified for American drivers by Reimer et al. (2005), is reproduced in Table 9-2. It consists of statements that the driver responds to by giving a score ranging fixim 0 to 5, where 0 indicates that the person very rarely engages in this behavior and 5 indicates that the person engages in this behavior nearly all the time. There are three types of questions in the questionnaire, indicative of three types of driving-related inappropriate behaviors ... 

Considering driving while impaired, some studies have showed that car drivers and motorcyclists do not behave the same way. Indeed, motorcyclists have been found to drink and drive as often as car drivers but with lower BAC [WAT 92], Moreover, when drinking heavily, motorcyclists typically leave their motorcycle and use their car so as to feel safer a car is perceived as easier to drive, does not fall over and offers more protection [SYN 01]. Motorcyclists may thus be trying to compensate for the greater vulnerabiUty of their transport mode by more cautious behavior (theory of risk homeostasis, Wilde [WIL 82], Trimpop [TRI 94]). 

This simplified theory provides an understanding of some important features of linear magnetostrictive drivers of actuators, transducers, etc. It shows, for instance, that a driver may be limited either by the stress or by the field, and that the strain at resonance may be much larger than that of a static system and yet may require much less field. However, because of the assumptions on the field shape, the strain uniformity and so on, it is not possible to accurately predict the behavior of the device, especially its exact limits. So, without a good knowledge of these limits, it is difficult to use the full potential of the device. That is why a more accurate model is required and has been developed. 

How we perform the tasks at each level - what biases, constraints, desires, limits, and skills govern our behavior is the subject matter of the theories and models researchers have proposed to explain on-the-road behavior. Note that our behavior does not occur in a vacuum, but has environmental inputs . These include not only the visible and immediate inputs from the roadway, the traffic, the weather, and the lighting conditions, but also the less tangible environment consisting of traffic laws, norms of behavior, and culture that govern the way we drive. For example, it is the latter that are responsible for stereotypes of New York drivers , Italian drivers , Israeli drivers , and English drivers . 

---