- Email: [email protected]
Approaches to understanding young driver risk taking
Journal of Safety Research - Traffic Records Forum proceedings 36 (2005) 497 – 499 www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr
www.nsc.org
Traffic Records Forum Proceedings Paper
Approaches to understanding young driver risk taking Nancy Rhodes, David Brown *, Aimee Edison UAB Injury Control Research Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA Available online 17 November 2005
Keywords: Youth risk taking; Youth alcohol involvement; Young drivers’ behavior; Risky behavior; Youth attitudes
1. Problem/study overview In 2003 there were 42,643 persons killed and 2,889,000 persons injured in traffic crashes, which are the leading cause of death for persons of every age from 4 through 33 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 2005). Understanding the factors contributing to crash risk in young drivers has been articulated as a priority for research by the CDC (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2002). To gain a fuller understanding of risktaking in young drivers, an extensive analysis of a database containing all crashes reported by law enforcement officers in the state of Alabama during five years (1999 – 2003) was undertaken. The analysis focused on crashes resulting from risky driving behavior among 16– 20 year old drivers. This was followed by a series of four focus groups involving licensed drivers aged 16– 20, to take the first step toward understanding the attitudes and the social context of young drivers’ behavior.
2. Method An analysis was conducted of an archival database of Alabama crash data, using the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE – http//care.cs.ua.edu). To expose any irregularities that might give clues to critical attributes, over 1,000 output summaries were generated and examined. * Corresponding author. The University of Alabama, CARE Research and Development Laboratory, Box 870290, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0290, USA. Tel.: +1 334 514 7230; fax: +1 205 348 5044. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Brown).
These compared attributes of data subsets, for example: & Youth (16 – 20) risky driving vs. youth non-risky driving crashes, & Youth risky driving vs. older driver risky driving crashes, & Crashes involving one vs. those involving several passengers, & Ages within the 16 –20 subset, gender, time of day, etc. Comparisons were made within the 16 – 20 age range to determine if there were changes with maturity within the five year test subsets. Also, when particular attributes showed over-representation for the youth subset, further analysis was performed to determine the cause or source of that over-representation. As an initial step in further understanding the causes of youth risky driving, a series of focus groups was conducted with young drivers to explore their perceptions of risk and safety surrounding driving behavior. Participants were recruited from the Birmingham, Alabama metro area, and were balanced by gender and race (67% white, 33% African American) to reflect the general population in the area. The total of 38 respondents was divided into four groups, two groups in the 16 – 17 age classification, and two in the 18– 20 age classification.
3. Results of risky driving data analysis Often the effects of risk-taking and inexperience cannot be easily differentiated. Some data indicated that as the skill level increases, so does the inclination to take risks, especially among males, thus inferring an inverse correla-
0022-4375/$ - see front matter D 2005 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2005.10.012
498
N. Rhodes et al. / Journal of Safety Research - Traffic Records Forum proceedings 36 (2005) 497 – 499
tion between risk taking and experience within the age group under consideration (16 – 20). We viewed the problem from the point of view of risk-taking because this would seem to be a factor that is more amenable to countermeasure development than inexperience. We further qualified the risk taking analysis to exclude DUI. There were two reasons for this: (a) DUI crashes are under-represented in the 16 – 20 age group, and (b) the countermeasures for DUI are being studied in a separate parallel study, and they are clearly different from those that involve non-DUI risk-taking. The data demonstrated clearly that mechanisms other than alcohol consumption are causing problems for our youngest (age 16 –19) drivers, who were dramatically under-represented in DUI crash causation. Thus, the results for the analysis of risk taking should be interpreted in light of the fact that DUI crashes were filtered out of both sides of all comparisons. The following typical scenarios inferred from the data emphasize the differences found between male and female risk-taking drivers in this age group: Male. A 16– 20 year old male driving an older model pickup truck with some friends at night on a weekend on a two-lane county road without restraints gets in a hurry and drives over the speed limit, encounters a down grade and, not realizing his speed, loses control, runs off the road and hits a tree, resulting in a relatively high probability of injury or death to at least one of the passengers. Female. A 16 –20 year old female driving a relatively new 4-door sedan taking her friends home after school on an undivided four-lane (state or Federal) road in a shopping or business district with proper restraints fastened gets distracted by her friends and fails to yield the right of way at a stop sign (or as likely, a traffic signal), sees an approaching vehicle too late to stop, but swerves (either right or left) and crashes on an angle into the other vehicle, resulting in injury or death to at least one of the passengers in the two involved vehicles.
4. Results of focus groups on risky driving Overall, the youngest drivers had relatively few crash experiences to relate, although several had already had crashes. Driving for most of the youngest drivers was largely restricted to getting to and from school and work, and running errands or driving siblings. Although the youngest drivers were not able to articulate social pressures to drive recklessly, they were aware of incidents in which people they knew had ‘‘shown off’’ or had raced in their cars. Interestingly, reports of highly reckless behaviors in the group were often met with laughter among the group members. So, although they denied awareness of peer influences on driving behavior, they provided a type of social approval of reports of risky behavior by showing amusement.
Echoing the results of the crash data analysis, the oldest drivers (18 –20 year olds) mentioned driving under the influence as a significant problem, while it was not mentioned by any of the younger drivers. Law enforcement issues were raised in many of the groups. For example, participants discussed seeing police officers drive unsafely. This appeared to have a powerful impact on some respondents who felt that they were setting a bad example. Although few respondents reported receiving traffic tickets, many reported being pulled over and receiving a warning from police officers. In addition, many of the participants who reported that they perceived they were the cause of crashes also reported that they had not been ticketed for any violation related to the crash. Participants appeared to believe that better enforcement of traffic laws would encourage them to drive more safely. At the conclusion of the focus group sessions, participants were asked to complete a brief questionnaire. They were asked to rate how risky they perceived a variety of driving behaviors to be, and how frequently they engaged in the behaviors.
5. Summary of conclusions The following is a summary of the combined results of the data analysis and the focus groups: & Crashes for drivers aged 16– 20 are over-represented during high-school rush hours, and students indicated that showing off and racing occurs during this time frame. However, drivers in this age group do not view this time as being at high risk. & The respondents rated the following behaviors as very risky: driving after drinking, driving while reading, driving while putting on makeup, driving without a seatbelt, and tailgating, demonstrating that they had a fair perception of what comprises risky behavior. & The 16– 20 age group in general did not see certain behaviors while driving as particularly risky, such as driving with multiple friends, listening to loud music, or eating while driving. It is questionable as to whether their recognition of these factors as being risky would lead to their curtailment. & Young drivers deny that peers influence them to drive unsafely, but they provided implicit social approval by laughing at reports of unsafe driving.
6. Impact on the traffic safety community: implications for countermeasures The results given above are preliminary (first year) to a five-year study that will ultimately develop and test risktaking countermeasures on young drivers. Risk-taking is
N. Rhodes et al. / Journal of Safety Research - Traffic Records Forum proceedings 36 (2005) 497 – 499
499
more problematic than DUI in the 16– 20 age group because movies and TV have conditioned our young people both to respect risk-takers and to act out risky behavior on the roadway. It is not enough to inform young people of what is risky and the consequences of risky behavior. While this may have a positive impact on a large portion of risk-averse young people, there is little doubt that these types of messages will do nothing more than inspire the more riskprone young people to further demonstrate their prowess. The subsequent phases of this research will take this into consideration.
Dr. Nancy Rhodes is a researcher for the Institute for Social Science Research at The University of Alabama. Dr. Rhodes received her undergraduate degree from the University of Vermont, and her Ph.D. from Texas A&M University. Her research focuses on understanding social norms that form the underpinnings of risky health-related behaviors, such as smoking and risky driving.
References
Aimee Edison is a doctoral student in the Colleges of Communication and Information Sciences and in Psychology at the University of Alabama. Aimee received her undergraduate degree in marketing from Texas Tech University, and her Master’s degree from The University of Alabama. She is currently involved in research examining how media are processed and how media elements are incorporated into social reality.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2002). Injury research agenda. Atlanta, GA’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]. (2005). Traffic safety facts, 2003. Washington, DC’ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
David B. Brown is Professor and Director of Development of the CARE Research and Development Laboratory at The University of Alabama. Dr. Brown obtained his undergraduate degree from Rutgers University, and his PhD from Texas Tech University. Dr. Brown designed and supervised the development of the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE), which won the NHTSA Administrator’s Public Service Award in 1995. Most recently he has been involved with the design of a system for documenting and analyzing terrorist activities sponsored by the USDHS.
www.nsc.org
Traffic Records Forum Proceedings Paper
Approaches to understanding young driver risk taking Nancy Rhodes, David Brown *, Aimee Edison UAB Injury Control Research Center, Birmingham, Alabama, USA University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, USA Available online 17 November 2005
Keywords: Youth risk taking; Youth alcohol involvement; Young drivers’ behavior; Risky behavior; Youth attitudes
1. Problem/study overview In 2003 there were 42,643 persons killed and 2,889,000 persons injured in traffic crashes, which are the leading cause of death for persons of every age from 4 through 33 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 2005). Understanding the factors contributing to crash risk in young drivers has been articulated as a priority for research by the CDC (National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, 2002). To gain a fuller understanding of risktaking in young drivers, an extensive analysis of a database containing all crashes reported by law enforcement officers in the state of Alabama during five years (1999 – 2003) was undertaken. The analysis focused on crashes resulting from risky driving behavior among 16– 20 year old drivers. This was followed by a series of four focus groups involving licensed drivers aged 16– 20, to take the first step toward understanding the attitudes and the social context of young drivers’ behavior.
2. Method An analysis was conducted of an archival database of Alabama crash data, using the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE – http//care.cs.ua.edu). To expose any irregularities that might give clues to critical attributes, over 1,000 output summaries were generated and examined. * Corresponding author. The University of Alabama, CARE Research and Development Laboratory, Box 870290, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0290, USA. Tel.: +1 334 514 7230; fax: +1 205 348 5044. E-mail address: [email protected] (D. Brown).
These compared attributes of data subsets, for example: & Youth (16 – 20) risky driving vs. youth non-risky driving crashes, & Youth risky driving vs. older driver risky driving crashes, & Crashes involving one vs. those involving several passengers, & Ages within the 16 –20 subset, gender, time of day, etc. Comparisons were made within the 16 – 20 age range to determine if there were changes with maturity within the five year test subsets. Also, when particular attributes showed over-representation for the youth subset, further analysis was performed to determine the cause or source of that over-representation. As an initial step in further understanding the causes of youth risky driving, a series of focus groups was conducted with young drivers to explore their perceptions of risk and safety surrounding driving behavior. Participants were recruited from the Birmingham, Alabama metro area, and were balanced by gender and race (67% white, 33% African American) to reflect the general population in the area. The total of 38 respondents was divided into four groups, two groups in the 16 – 17 age classification, and two in the 18– 20 age classification.
3. Results of risky driving data analysis Often the effects of risk-taking and inexperience cannot be easily differentiated. Some data indicated that as the skill level increases, so does the inclination to take risks, especially among males, thus inferring an inverse correla-
0022-4375/$ - see front matter D 2005 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jsr.2005.10.012
498
N. Rhodes et al. / Journal of Safety Research - Traffic Records Forum proceedings 36 (2005) 497 – 499
tion between risk taking and experience within the age group under consideration (16 – 20). We viewed the problem from the point of view of risk-taking because this would seem to be a factor that is more amenable to countermeasure development than inexperience. We further qualified the risk taking analysis to exclude DUI. There were two reasons for this: (a) DUI crashes are under-represented in the 16 – 20 age group, and (b) the countermeasures for DUI are being studied in a separate parallel study, and they are clearly different from those that involve non-DUI risk-taking. The data demonstrated clearly that mechanisms other than alcohol consumption are causing problems for our youngest (age 16 –19) drivers, who were dramatically under-represented in DUI crash causation. Thus, the results for the analysis of risk taking should be interpreted in light of the fact that DUI crashes were filtered out of both sides of all comparisons. The following typical scenarios inferred from the data emphasize the differences found between male and female risk-taking drivers in this age group: Male. A 16– 20 year old male driving an older model pickup truck with some friends at night on a weekend on a two-lane county road without restraints gets in a hurry and drives over the speed limit, encounters a down grade and, not realizing his speed, loses control, runs off the road and hits a tree, resulting in a relatively high probability of injury or death to at least one of the passengers. Female. A 16 –20 year old female driving a relatively new 4-door sedan taking her friends home after school on an undivided four-lane (state or Federal) road in a shopping or business district with proper restraints fastened gets distracted by her friends and fails to yield the right of way at a stop sign (or as likely, a traffic signal), sees an approaching vehicle too late to stop, but swerves (either right or left) and crashes on an angle into the other vehicle, resulting in injury or death to at least one of the passengers in the two involved vehicles.
4. Results of focus groups on risky driving Overall, the youngest drivers had relatively few crash experiences to relate, although several had already had crashes. Driving for most of the youngest drivers was largely restricted to getting to and from school and work, and running errands or driving siblings. Although the youngest drivers were not able to articulate social pressures to drive recklessly, they were aware of incidents in which people they knew had ‘‘shown off’’ or had raced in their cars. Interestingly, reports of highly reckless behaviors in the group were often met with laughter among the group members. So, although they denied awareness of peer influences on driving behavior, they provided a type of social approval of reports of risky behavior by showing amusement.
Echoing the results of the crash data analysis, the oldest drivers (18 –20 year olds) mentioned driving under the influence as a significant problem, while it was not mentioned by any of the younger drivers. Law enforcement issues were raised in many of the groups. For example, participants discussed seeing police officers drive unsafely. This appeared to have a powerful impact on some respondents who felt that they were setting a bad example. Although few respondents reported receiving traffic tickets, many reported being pulled over and receiving a warning from police officers. In addition, many of the participants who reported that they perceived they were the cause of crashes also reported that they had not been ticketed for any violation related to the crash. Participants appeared to believe that better enforcement of traffic laws would encourage them to drive more safely. At the conclusion of the focus group sessions, participants were asked to complete a brief questionnaire. They were asked to rate how risky they perceived a variety of driving behaviors to be, and how frequently they engaged in the behaviors.
5. Summary of conclusions The following is a summary of the combined results of the data analysis and the focus groups: & Crashes for drivers aged 16– 20 are over-represented during high-school rush hours, and students indicated that showing off and racing occurs during this time frame. However, drivers in this age group do not view this time as being at high risk. & The respondents rated the following behaviors as very risky: driving after drinking, driving while reading, driving while putting on makeup, driving without a seatbelt, and tailgating, demonstrating that they had a fair perception of what comprises risky behavior. & The 16– 20 age group in general did not see certain behaviors while driving as particularly risky, such as driving with multiple friends, listening to loud music, or eating while driving. It is questionable as to whether their recognition of these factors as being risky would lead to their curtailment. & Young drivers deny that peers influence them to drive unsafely, but they provided implicit social approval by laughing at reports of unsafe driving.
6. Impact on the traffic safety community: implications for countermeasures The results given above are preliminary (first year) to a five-year study that will ultimately develop and test risktaking countermeasures on young drivers. Risk-taking is
N. Rhodes et al. / Journal of Safety Research - Traffic Records Forum proceedings 36 (2005) 497 – 499
499
more problematic than DUI in the 16– 20 age group because movies and TV have conditioned our young people both to respect risk-takers and to act out risky behavior on the roadway. It is not enough to inform young people of what is risky and the consequences of risky behavior. While this may have a positive impact on a large portion of risk-averse young people, there is little doubt that these types of messages will do nothing more than inspire the more riskprone young people to further demonstrate their prowess. The subsequent phases of this research will take this into consideration.
Dr. Nancy Rhodes is a researcher for the Institute for Social Science Research at The University of Alabama. Dr. Rhodes received her undergraduate degree from the University of Vermont, and her Ph.D. from Texas A&M University. Her research focuses on understanding social norms that form the underpinnings of risky health-related behaviors, such as smoking and risky driving.
References
Aimee Edison is a doctoral student in the Colleges of Communication and Information Sciences and in Psychology at the University of Alabama. Aimee received her undergraduate degree in marketing from Texas Tech University, and her Master’s degree from The University of Alabama. She is currently involved in research examining how media are processed and how media elements are incorporated into social reality.
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. (2002). Injury research agenda. Atlanta, GA’ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]. (2005). Traffic safety facts, 2003. Washington, DC’ U.S. Department of Transportation, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
David B. Brown is Professor and Director of Development of the CARE Research and Development Laboratory at The University of Alabama. Dr. Brown obtained his undergraduate degree from Rutgers University, and his PhD from Texas Tech University. Dr. Brown designed and supervised the development of the Critical Analysis Reporting Environment (CARE), which won the NHTSA Administrator’s Public Service Award in 1995. Most recently he has been involved with the design of a system for documenting and analyzing terrorist activities sponsored by the USDHS.