Survey --- Risk Perception and the Driving Environment

[TrafficSafety]

I am conducting a thesis study exploring drivers’ perception of road environments. Your responses would be greatly appreciated, and could contribute to improving our knowledge of traffic safety. The survey is intentionally brief, and should take no more than 10 minutes of your time. Participation is entirely voluntary.
Begin the survey by clicking the following link:

Survey Link: https://uni.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/ ... _CHL=email

Thank you for your participation!

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Done!

[wa-chiss]

Fin

[szh]

Done.

Z

[srellim234]

If the survey link was with almost anyone but Qualtrics I would have. I quit answering any survey through them in 2012 after some real credibility issues with them surfaced through the WGT website. Not with results, just with failure to deliver things like in-game credits they promised to people for taking their surveys. It went on with numerous surveys and for over 3 years before I quit doing them.

If you have an alternative way to take the survey I'll be happy to.

[Bubba1]

did it. I'd be interested with the poll results compared to the actual accident data.

[txchamps]

done

[centralcoaster33]

I didn't find much variety in all the intersection photos. Nor did I see anything I'd consider "traffic". Without comparing or contrasting anything, I don't see how the bland results could be useful for anything. So, of course, this makes me curious as to the point of the survey as well as the perceived result.

[TrafficSafety]

If the survey link was with almost anyone but Qualtrics I would have.

That does sound like a frustrating experience. Consider, however, that Qualtrics is a survey delivery service --- rarely does the Qualtrics organization or software have any relationship to those offering awards for survey responses.

I didn't find much variety in all the intersection photos. Nor did I see anything I'd consider "traffic". Without comparing or contrasting anything, I don't see how the bland results could be useful for anything. So, of course, this makes me curious as to the point of the survey as well as the perceived result.

Time of day, traffic, and weather are variables that this survey attempted to maintain a level of control. What does vary in the imagery (and the road intersections) are physical characteristics (such as signal/signage, lane counts, paint, on-street parking). At this time, we will withhold any further discussion to avoid biasing the results. Be assured that we look forward to releasing a full summary of the hypothesis, results, and interpretations to all of the communities that have participated in this work! Please be patient for this analysis.

If you are still curious, there are other studies that have compared identical road images with and without the addition of traffic hazards. If there are studies that address variations in seasonality or weather, they are scarce --- and this would provide a logical extension of this research in the future.

Thank you for your welcoming responses NICO club!

[Ace2cool]

I'm looking forward to the responses, as I have a bit of a different perspective. I actually work crashes in my town and have to determine what happened and what are contributing factors to the crash.

[TrafficSafety]

Several months ago we asked for your participation in a survey regarding traffic safety and risk perception. Today, we have returned to share a summary of the thesis, and the key results.

Supplements:
Link to Figures
Link to References
Link to Selected Intersection Case Studies

Introduction:
We are consciously, or cognitively, aware that driving poses great risks to ourselves and others, with consequences ranging from property damage, to injury and death. However, once we actually take the wheel, we are more likely reliant on our affective perceptions - our emotions, intuitions, and experiences - to guide our risk perception. Although practice and experience can improve our perception and our responses, the misperception of risk can aggravate the development of a hazardous situation.

To increase our understanding of risk perception in the automotive environment, this study was designed to record participants’ perceptions of road risk from roadway geometrics visible in still photography (controlling for variables such as time of day, weather, and traffic). These records enabled a comparative analysis between the perception of risk, and the underlying crash histories of photographed road sites.


Literature:
Our perception of risk has been shown to be highly subjective (Slovic, 1992). Even within an individual, there is often a striking divergence between our cognitive, or calculated, estimations of risk and our affective perception of risk (Loewenstein, Weber, Hsee, & Welch, 2001; Kahneman, 2011). We tackle tens, if not hundreds, of small risk decisions everyday without much thought, suggesting that our affective perceptions are predominant (Keller, Siegrist, & Gutscher, 2006). Additional limitations can increase our reliance on our affective perception, such as having limited decision-making time (Slovic & Peters, 2006), a lack of complete knowledge (Kuklinski, Metlay, & Kay, 1982), or from experiencing cognitive overload (Brookhuis & De Waard, 2010). This understanding of risk perception is critical for driver safety.

As drivers, our affective perceptions of risk are vulnerable to potential bias. We often underestimate our own risk due to familiarity, overexposure, and complacency (Rundmo, Nordfjærn, Iversen, Oltedal, & Jørgensen, 2011), due to the perceived controllability of the task (McKenna, 1993), and due to the voluntariness of driving (Fischhoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, Read, & Combs, 1978; Starr, 1969). We often compound our underestimation of risk by overestimating our abilities (Wohleber & Matthews, 2016), and the capabilities of our vehicles (Svenson & Eriksson, 2017). Taken together, these biases may induce risk-taking behaviors, including engagement in secondary tasks such as eating or handling a cellphone (Li, Gkritza, & Albrecht, 2014).

Safer driving requires a conscious effort. Calls for increased law enforcement, safety engineering, and technological innovation often prove prohibitively expensive (Elvik, 1999). Even when such interventions are afforded, the results are often less than predicted (Peltzman, 1975; Wilde, 2001). Although the Peltzman Effect has garnered robust empirical support, it does not consider the many biases underlying our perception of risk, or our potential lack of knowledge of such risk. This research addresses this by evaluating correlations between drivers’ perceptions of risk at specific road sites and the crash histories of those sites.


Methods:
For brevity, we will omit the lengthy discussion of the geospatial analysis of statewide crash records. It suffices to say, there are subjectivities in the way such data are handled, however, this research followed best practices set forth by various states’ Department of Transportation. The result of these procedures was tabular data for every intersection in a small, but urban, Iowan city (Cedar Falls, Iowa). Intersections were ranked in different ways, including crash frequencies, average crash severity, crash rate, severity-rate, and a weighted measure of frequency and severity - the equivalent-property-damage-only, or EPDO-rate. The use of the rate calculation is especially important for estimating personal risk at roadway sites (Hauer, 1996).

We can also skim over the discussion of the survey -- many of you having been participants. To recap, the survey included very limited demographic data, including questions about miles driven per year, U.S. residency, and driver ability. There was also an eight-item Likert-response modeled after the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale (Fan et al., 2014). The bulk of the survey was comprised of 23 images with a response scale for perceived risk ranging from “Far Below Average” to “Far Above Average” with six selectable stops. The first 3 images were presented as a warmup, the remaining 20 images depicted 9 different intersections (2 perpendicular views for 8 intersections, 4 views for 1 intersection).


Results:
The survey link was clicked by 433 individuals, though only 300 participants completed the survey. Although this is a low completion rate (69.3%) for traditional survey methods, it is in line with expectations for a modern digital survey (Shatz, 2016). The highest completion rate among surveyed communities was from the readers of the NICOClub forums; the largest number of participants was recruited from Reddit’s r/motorcycles (the second largest number of participants was from ADVrider.com).

The question, “Please rate your driving ability” was used to replicate findings from the literature, and to assess the validity of survey responses. Of the 7 selectable responses, from “Far Below Average” to “Far Above Average”, the overwhelming majority of respondents chose the 6th stop (“Above Average”). Given an equal distribution, this would imply most respondents believe themselves to be better than 85% of other drivers, assuming a standard normal distribution, this would imply respondents believe themselves better than 97.7% of drivers. (See Figure 1)

Correlations between respondents’ perception of risk and the actual crash histories of survey image sites were statistically insignificant. Statistical insignificance should not be grounds for dismissing the results too hastily, however (Hauer, 2004). The correlation coefficients did demonstrate consistency. A positive correlation coefficient was found between perceptions of risk and crash frequency. Negative correlation coefficients were observed between perceptions and average severity, as well as for crash rate, severity rate, and EPDO-rate. (See Figure 2)


Discussion:
Our susceptibility to the “Above Average Effect” is just one small example of the biases that undermine our risk perception, and in turn impact our driving behaviors. Undoubtedly, some of the survey respondents are better than the average driver through their training, practice, and experience; however, this does not excuse us from becoming overconfident or complacent. Some of the best drivers in the world have met their end while at the wheel.

The (lack of) results from the correlations suggests that our estimates of risk are approximately random (See Figure 3). Despite the absence of traffic or weather in the still photography used, there are definitive “crash hotspots” in our road system; furthermore, single-vehicle accidents are not an uncommon occurrence at such hotspots.

The correlation coefficients suggest that our perception of risk increases when crash frequency increases; since higher crash frequencies usually follow higher-traffic, a simple explanation could be that we perceive larger, higher-traffic intersections to be more risky.

The consistency of the negative relationship associated with the crash-rate calculations suggests that we underestimate our risk in relation to traffic volume. We might perceive busier roads to be more dangerous (and also hear about more crashes on these roads), but we are often times safer on such roads than on the residential roads in our own neighborhoods.

Conclusion:
The goal of this research was to promote safer driving. Regardless of the results, there is a hope that, simply by having participated in or read about this research, that you will become a more conscious and conscientious driver. “Vision Zero” is not strictly the responsibility of the engineers, the law officers, or the emergency medical teams; it is the responsibility of Everyone (IaDOT, 2013).


* This work is Copyright by Dane Atkins, 2018.

[centralcoaster33]

I'm disappointed in the results.

People think they're better drivers than they are. People feel safer driving along open roads than driving along congested roads. People are more relaxed and less cautious when they are feeling safer. This study did not confirm that, but it was a part of the discussion? And the conclusion is simply a hope. A hope that by taking the study, those 300 people are now better drivers

Did I miss something?

[EdBwoy]

Well, the results and methodology boggle me too, but this is important:

The highest completion rate among surveyed communities was from the readers of the NICOClub forums

NICOclub is the place to be. If anyone asks, tell them I said it. If that doesn't carry enough weight, then tell them that this is according to independent research.

Thank you for the follow up.

[TrafficSafety]

I'm disappointed in the results.

So are we (sort of). The results are largely insignificant, and there isn't much surprising to say. We might say, these are "negative results" --- but negative results are important too!

People feel safer driving along open roads than driving along congested roads. People are more relaxed and less cautious when they are feeling safer.

Not necessarily "open roads" per se (there is a large distinction between urban and rural crash patterns and severities, which goes well beyond this discussion, though you might start here).

More specifically, what was observed was a positive correlation between risk perception and absolute crash frequency (naturally, the busiest, highest traffic roads have the highest crash frequencies). Respondent's generally perceived a higher risk at intersections which had higher traffic capacities.

The corollary to this observation is that respondent's perceived very low risk for intersections with lower traffic volume and low crash frequency (primarily residential connectors/feeders --- still moving thousands of cars per day). These types of roads have less crashes overall, but often a significantly higher crash rate (and crash rates are what we should be most interested in for our own personal risk).

These observations actually align well with other studies (with very different methods) which suggest that the majority of auto crashes occur 'close to home', and on residential backways.

The causal mechanisms and factors remain up for debate, although, as you suggest, complacency among driver's (especially close to home, and on low-traffic roads) is a leading hypothesis!

Hopefully this helps to clarify the what was observed and interpreted, and thank you for your interest!

[MinisterofDOOM]

So it seems like a possible conclusion here is that people become less alert when they're not anticipating risk? That's interesting.

I would be interested to see how a separate study relating people's self-perceived driving skill versus actual relative driving skill correlates with the data you collected (as well as the other studies whose findings aligned with yours) to see not only how accurate we are at judging our own skill, but how much variance there is situationally and whether a better-than-average driver becomes poorer-than-average in some conditions, or if it's consistent.

Aside from some very elderly people who are aware of physical limitations (eyesight, reaction times, motor control difficulties) I have never met a single person who believes they are a bad driver. Everyone thinks they're good. But clearly many, many people are not. Of course, if you think you're good at something but you really aren't, you're not likely to try to get any better. Especially when you believe everyone around you is worse at it than you. So there's a whole different set of variables as well.

Lots of complex stuff.

My personal opinion is that humans are awful at processing large quantities of unpredictable data. The more consistently traffic flows, the better we are at handling things effectively. But when things get inconsistent,we drop the ball bigtime. Some of us practice at handling these particular kinds of situations, and can become better-than-average. But most won't ever have the opportunity to achieve that degree of aptitude, and we're all on the road together. It's that unpredictability that kills everything, and when you combine that with the possible conclusion that people adjust their driving based on perceived risk, it's easy to see how one person in heavy traffic can cause MASSIVE disruptions.

Goes back to one of my big pet peeves: speed limits aren't just there to keep us from going dangerously fast. They also provide a level of predictability. People who defy that predictability (speeders or people driving significantly slower than the limit) contribute significant disruption which has major ripple effects (demonstrated in other studies of traffic flow and recovery from disruption).

Of course that's all theoretical extrapolation.

[EdBwoy]

speed limits aren't just there to keep us from going dangerously fast. They also provide a level of predictability.

Interesting observation.
It makes sense to me. That's why keeping with the flow is important, I think. For example, a nice long stretch of highway has a very conservative 55mph limit, but due to its openness & visibility, the majority of drivers go 70mph. Seems normal, seems OK and noone seems reckless although driving over the limit.

Then there's the other balance - breaking monotony. You want people to be consistent/uniform with each other, but not to get individually complacent. I believe it's a psychological/physiological phenomenon where a constant rate of travel with the same cars around you and relatively unchanging terrain will lull you - sometimes becoming less alert.

To that point you see people reacting very late and causing things like chain accidents while the situations were reasonably avoidable. And why it's easier to doze off whIle on the highway or stuck in traffic. Features that provide breaks like altitude changes, random curves in the road, rumble strips, etc help break that monotony.

As noted this is just theory as well. Thes are my observations and opinions on how I would design a network of roads.

[centralcoaster33]

I heard this at a car control clinic: "90% of drivers think they're in the top 10th percentile". That's the problem with not knowing what you don't know.

Safety perception is interesting. Actual safety would be nice. Unfortunately our government is offering the expensive attempt at a solution through technological advancement. The obvious and affordable solution being to train and certify drivers and to reprimand those out of order.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

Yes thanks for coming back to share the results. Glad we had the highest completion percentage

Out of curiosity, did this survey go out to all different types of forums, or mostly just automotive based ones? I would imagine us, as automotive enthusiasts, consider ourselves to be better drivers than your average Joe. Some or most of us probably are, but there's definitely some that are not.

[TrafficSafety]

So it seems like a possible conclusion here is that people become less alert when they're not anticipating risk? That's interesting.

It probably goes beyond, to be honest. "Attention" is an interesting psychological topic all its own. A big one for drivers is 'Inattentional Blindness" (psychologists are confident it exists, but we're not precisely sure why or how it works). This is suggested to contribute to SMIDSY ("Sorry Mate, I didn't see you"), also known as LBFTS ("Looked, but failed to see"). Defensive Drivers already know this --- driving requires our Full Attention!

I would be interested to see how a separate study relating people's self-perceived driving skill versus actual relative driving skill correlates with the data you collected (as well as the other studies whose findings aligned with yours) to see not only how accurate we are at judging our own skill, but how much variance there is situationally and whether a better-than-average driver becomes poorer-than-average in some conditions, or if it's consistent.

So, that's a big one. Not likely to be able to follow up with our sample, unfortunately; the respondent pool was completely anonymous. We reviewed the bibliography for you as well -- only one study included a physical driving test; the results were interesting. The researcher (Gregersen, 1995) sampled 58 learner drivers to rate their self-optimism towards their own skills. Then, the subjects were split into two groups -- one subjected to skid-pad training, one group subjected to classroom 'insight' training. Finally, the groups were surveyed again; the skid-pad trainers increased their skill-estimation significantly more than the classroom trainees.

Some reading for the Above-Average Effect in drivers:

DeJoy, D. M. (1989). The optimism bias and traffic accident risk perception. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 21(4), 333-340.

Gregersen, N. P. (1996). Young drivers' overestimation of their own skill—an experiment on the relation between training strategy and skill. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 28(2), 243-250.

Harré, N., Foster, S., & O'neill, M. (2005). Self‐enhancement, crash‐risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British Journal of Psychology, 96(2), 215-230.

McCormick, I. A., Walkey, F. H., & Green, D. E. (1986). Comparative perceptions of driver ability—a confirmation and expansion. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 18(3), 205-208.

Svenson, O. (1981). Are we all less risky and more skillful than our fellow drivers?. Acta psychologica, 47(2), 143-148.

Aside from some very elderly people who are aware of physical limitations (eyesight, reaction times, motor control difficulties) I have never met a single person who believes they are a bad driver. Everyone thinks they're good. But clearly many, many people are not. Of course, if you think you're good at something but you really aren't, you're not likely to try to get any better. Especially when you believe everyone around you is worse at it than you. So there's a whole different set of variables as well.

That’s Dunning-Kruger thinking there --- (you know made it when they name a theory after you).

Some of us practice at handling these particular kinds of situations, and can become better-than-average. But most won't ever have the opportunity to achieve that degree of aptitude, and we're all on the road together.

Practice can absolutely improve our perception (in addition to our skills). The goal is to make complex routines ‘automatic’ (So that you don’t have to think in order to do, this frees up your ‘Attention’ to be better spent towards perception). This is huge in the aviation/pilot world --- many recreational pilots spend hours just circling one airport practicing ‘pattern work’; they take-off and land ad nauseum.

------------------------------------------

Then there's the other balance - breaking monotony. You want people to be consistent/uniform with each other, but not to get individually complacent. I believe it's a psychological/physiological phenomenon where a constant rate of travel with the same cars around you and relatively unchanging terrain will lull you - sometimes becoming less alert.
…
Features that provide breaks like altitude changes, random curves in the road, rumble strips, etc help break that monotony.

Monotony, boredom, “cognitive underload”. Another facet of ‘Attention’. It’s definitely been documented; many new highway projects include intentional bends in the road to avoid multi-hour straightaways. (Highway 20 through Iowa is getting a 4-lane makeover, and the Department of Transportation has done this.) Only one reading for you on this one, unfortunately, though the research undoubtedly goes back much further if you dig.

Brookhuis, K. A., & De Waard, D. (2010). Monitoring drivers’ mental workload in driving simulators using physiological measures. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(3), 898-903.

------------------------------------------

I heard this at a car control clinic: "90% of drivers think they're in the top 10th percentile". That's the problem with not knowing what you don't know.

Our results were not quite that pessimistic, but close! (We can mention Dunning-Kruger here again!)

Safety perception is interesting. Actual safety would be nice. Unfortunately our government is offering the expensive attempt at a solution through technological advancement. The obvious and affordable solution being to train and certify drivers and to reprimand those out of order.

The old adage had been the 4 E’s: Engineering, Enforcement, Emergency Medical Service, and Education. Even so, it seems Education was always a low priority. Ever since Sweden adopted Vision Zero however, the United State’s various Department’s of Transportation have increasing adopted a fifth E: Everyone (of course, if this was sincere, Education would then be a priority). Unfortunately, this is largely lip-service. The Iowa Department of Transportation, for example, has a stated goal of reducing fatalities by 15% by 2020 (accepting over 300 fatalities per year, even then)--- that was published in 2013!

------------------------------------------

Out of curiosity, did this survey go out to all different types of forums, or mostly just automotive based ones?

Yes, the sample (n=300) also included bicyclists, commercial truck drivers, motorcyclists, pilots, and a general sample selection as well. We did look for distinctions between communities, however they were relatively insignificant (we also withheld that analysis to avoid any ‘sensitivities’).

These results, and more, will be publicly accessible once the thesis is bound and published (and should appear in a public digital repository).

------------------------------------------

Whew, hope that wasn't too rambling!

P.S. Apologies for not direct-linking the Source materials; 'science' is increasingly being moved behind a pay-wall. The abstracts are generally available, and beyond that, if you are truly interested, send a message and we'll see if we can share the rights, or point you toward an open-source copy.

[EdBwoy]

Thank you TrafficSafety. I am glad I participated in the survey and moreso this discussion. There is no limit in learning about things that keep us alive.


As someone who was raised in a different part of the world, I remember looking stupid at my motorcycle course when I took it in Missouri. At the end during feedback time, I raised my hand and showed my appreciation for the skills and knowledge being shared in the safety course (It was more than getting us to pass the driving portion of the test, truly invaluable). Then I asked why they don't do that for cars.

Everyone turned back and told me it was taught in high school Say what!? Looking at motorists on these roads, there is something seriously amiss. Something about the EDUCATION of proper road use needs to be tweaked. For EVERYONE??

[Ace2cool]

The highest completion rate among surveyed communities was from the readers of the NICOClub forums;

:

Also, I pretty well anticipated most of those! I've come to realize that wayyy more people have accidents at certain types of intersections because they're not anticipating it. It's like the old adage that you usually have a wreck within "x" miles of home. That's because of familiarity. There's a false sense of safety in certain situations that causes crashes. Our worst intersection is a simple two lane each direction crossing a one lane each direction, with a left turn lane at each direction with a sensible red light. Seems safe. By far the most crashes.

[centralcoaster33]

Good correlation on the close to home data Ace.