This article was downloaded by: [University of Sherbrooke] On: 13 April 2015, At: 01:31 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nics20
Driving behaviours, traffic risk and road safety: comparative study between Malaysia and Singapore a
a
a
a
a
Saif ur Rehman Khan , Zainab Binti Khalifah , Yasin Munir , Talat Islam , Tahira Nazir & a
Hashim Khan a
Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia Published online: 30 Jun 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Saif ur Rehman Khan, Zainab Binti Khalifah, Yasin Munir, Talat Islam, Tahira Nazir & Hashim Khan (2014): Driving behaviours, traffic risk and road safety: comparative study between Malaysia and Singapore, International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, DOI: 10.1080/17457300.2014.925938 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2014.925938
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2014.925938
Driving behaviours, traffic risk and road safety: comparative study between Malaysia and Singapore Saif ur Rehman Khan*, Zainab Binti Khalifah, Yasin Munir, Talat Islam, Tahira Nazir and Hashim Khan Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
(Received 15 October 2013; accepted 5 May 2014) The present study aims to investigate differences in road safety attitude, driver behaviour and traffic risk perception between Malaysia and Singapore. A questionnaire-based survey was conducted among a sample of Singaporean (n D 187) and Malaysian (n D 313) road users. The data was analysed using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling applied to measure comparative fit indices of Malaysian and Singaporean respondents. The results show that the perceived traffic risk of Malaysian respondents is higher than Singaporean counterparts. Moreover, the structural equation modelling has confirmed perceived traffic risk performing the role of full mediation between perceived driving skills and perceived road safety for both the countries, while perceived traffic skills was found to perform the role of partial mediation between aggression and anxiety, on one hand, and road safety, on the other hand, in Malaysia and Singapore. In addition, in both countries, a weak correlation between perceived driving skills, aggression and anxiety with perceived road safety was found, while a strong correlation exists with traffic risk perception. The findings of this study have been discussed in terms of theoretical, practical and conceptual implications for both scholars and policy-makers to better understand the young drivers’ attitude and behaviour relationship towards road safety measures with a view to future research. Keywords: perceived driving skills; aggression; anxiety; road safety; traffic risk and cross-cultural comparison
Introduction Road traffic injury and fatality rates demonstrate significant variations with different income levels across countries (Nantulya & Reich, 2003; WHO, 2004). It is evident from international estimates of road traffic fatalities for 2002 that only about 10% of road traffic fatalities were observed in high-income countries, while the remaining 90% were found in low- and middle-income countries. The ratio of traffic road fatality in high-income countries was 12.60 per 100,000 inhabitants, while it was 20.20 per 100,000 inhabitants in low- or middle-income countries (WHO, 2004). However, the dilemma is that the high ratio of road traffic fatality has caused a serious health issue, particularly in middle-income or low-wage countries. Malaysia as a developing country is experiencing a remarkable expansion in population, road length and number of registered vehicles. Regardless of the thriving economic development, it is reported by the Royal Malaysian police (2010) that within the last decade the ratio of road accident causalities has increased by 56% with latest data recording 414,421 road accidents in 2010 and 6872 road fatalities, both alarming. The number of fatalities in Malaysia increased by 11% (i.e. 6200 in 2005 and 6872 in 2010), while minor and severe injuries decreased by 48% (i.e. 40,812 in 2005 and 21,397 in 2010), which indicates *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Ó 2014 Taylor & Francis
that the severity level of fatalities is decreasing in Malaysia, but still needs improvement (Tsui, 2009; WHO, 2009). In most of the Asian countries, police records regarding road accidents are considered adequate and satisfactory because they have noted the circumstances accordingly (Hashim & Rahim, 2009). However, Malaysia’s surveillance system needs improvement in that the circumstances of injuries must also be addressed (Tsui, 2009). Moreover, the Malaysian police are lacking in critical injury details of accidents which seriously constrains the scope of current research. On the other hand, the world report on road traffic injury prevention (2010) reported 5.1% road fatalities in Singapore per 100,000 persons which is comparatively less than Malaysia. Conversely, the infrastructure of Singapore’s road traffic is well developed for both soft and hard road users (e.g. bicyclists and motorised vehicles) by providing physical pavement separations. Singapore has a strict set of explicit traffic rules and regulations that are often enforced by higher authorities, campaigns and especially during driver training. Despite the diversity in Malaysian and Singaporean societies, in most cases they still have some cultural and road safety similarities, which motivates the current study to measure the traffic safety construct between the two countries.
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
2
S.R. Khan et al.
Traffic risk perception can be taken as an introspective connotation of the risk in various traffic situations (Deery, 1999). Earlier research has indicated this psychological construct as a vital predictor of drivers’ behaviour (e.g. Deery, 1999; Rundmo, 1999). Drivers mostly adopt protective traffic behaviours whenever they perceive high traffic risks (Deery, 1999). This supposition is very much aligned with risk decision theories like Rosenstocks’ (1974) health belief model and adoption of preventive measures of traffic safety (Weinstein, 1988). Examples include drivers reducing their speed in bad weather conditions (Edwards, 1999) or using seat belts in order to exhibit protective behaviour (¸S im¸s eko glu, 2010). Adverse weather conditions may also be seen as a demonstration of the drivers’ perception of high traffic risk. However, it should be kept in mind that mere precautionary driver measures, like maintaining larger safety margins and reduction of speed, are not an adequate payoff for the increased risk of accidents (Edwards, 1999; Rumar, Berggrund, Jernberg, & Ytterbo, 1976). Rumar et al. (1976) exemplified this by arguing that drivers in Nordic countries drive faster in the curves with studded tyres as compared to drivers with non-studded tyres. This notion can further be described as the self-paced nature of driving that permits the intensity of risk by converting the risk level from one domain to another when the risk level is decreased in that specific domain. This description supports the earlier motivational models of driving, for example, the driver behaviour’s risk homeostasis model (Wilde, 1982), which supports the argument that drivers tend to choose a non-zero level of risk that gives them a sense of comfort. Moreover, the driver behaviour fluctuates across countries with regard to their expectation of formal, informal and tacit rules that influence their behaviour. The entire range of factors of any specific country which influence the behaviour of drivers like the financial system, common cultural values, attitudes and talents are said to be a traffic culture (Levi€akangas, 1998). Traffic culture is a practical framework to identify the driver behaviour, as it is associated with the amount of € road fatalities and traffic accidents in a country (Ozkan, 2006). The traffic culture framework has also helped in the study of traffic risk perception by providing a comparison of traffic risk perception data from different countries. Most of the previous research that identified the factors of traffic risk perception was conducted on highincome and developed countries like the USA and Japan (Hayakawa, Fischbeck, & Fischhoff, 2000; Sivak, Soler, Tr€ankle, & Spagnhol, 1989). Only a few studies have been conducted to examine the traffic risk perception in low-income countries and its comparison with highincome countries. The findings of these studies showed a significantly higher traffic risk perception in sub-Saharan Africa as compared to a high-income country like Singapore (Lund & Rundmo, 2009; Nordfjærn, Jørgensen, &
Rundmo, 2011; Nordfjærn & Rundmo, 2009). Similarly, another study was conducted to examine traffic risk perception in Tanzania which concluded that people’s perception of traffic fatality risk is higher than the likelihood of statistical inferences about such accidents (Astrøm, Moshiro, Hemed, Heuch, & Kvale, 2006). Higher risk perception of traffic fatalities in low- and middle-income countries may be due to an overall unsafe and risky environment. This supposition is very likely and consistent with the risk-amplification framework (Sj€oberg, Moen, & Rundmo, 2004) and the risk-trade-off framework (Affeltranger & Thomasson, 2005) which suggests the idea that if risks are amplified in one domain, the probability of risk perception in other areas is also increased. Even with poor traffic safety records, most studies of traffic risk perception contribute to introducing traffic safety interventions in low- or middle-income countries more robustly. Traffic safety campaigns if customised to fit the home conditions in different countries might generate more efficient results. Traffic risk perception is not considered the only psychological construct that could be related to the variations in road traffic safety. Road safety attitudes may possibly be related to the driver behaviour and consequently may influence the risk of road traffic fatalities. In road traffic psychology, theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is considered the most frequently used attitude behaviour model. TPB recommends that attitudes are the key factors to predict one’s behavioural intentions (Ajzen, 1991). It is evident from the previous studies which applied the TPB model to measure the driver’s behaviour that attitudes are well-defined predictors of behavioural intentions of different driver behaviours, i.e. aggression and widespread violation of road traffic rules and regulations (Parker, Lajunen, & Stradling, 1998). The results indicated that the degree of relationship between driver behaviour and attitude might show discrepancies across low- and high-income countries. For instance, road safety attitudes envisaged the driver behaviour to a lower degree in Ghana as compared to Singapore (Lund & Rundmo, 2009). The same was found in other low- and middle-income countries like Tanzania and Uganda (Nordfjærn et al., 2011). Consequently, previous findings indicated that the attitudes in high-income countries are more strongly predictive of behaviour as compared to low-income countries. The weak rapport of driver attitudes and behaviour (in low-income countries) may possibly be due to weaker safety measures, as weak attitudes can hardly influence behaviour (Haddock & Maio, 2008). Sheeran, Norman, and Orbell (1999) also emphasised that attitude could possibly be a stronger indicator of behaviour than the other (predictor) variables in the TPB. For that reason, the current study focused on the relationship between attitude and behaviour.
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
Previously researchers have conducted a comparative study between low-, middle- and high-income level countries of Africa, Europe and Asia (e.g. Lund & Rundmo, 2009; Nordfjærn et al., 2011; Nordfjærn & Rundmo, 2009), but how traffic risk perception, road safety attitudes and driver behaviour vary between Malaysians and Singaporeans still needs to be examined. It was expected that Malaysian respondents would report higher traffic accident risk than Singaporean participants due to the higher accident figures and more hazardous traffic environment in Malaysia. Moreover, on the basis of previous work, it was expected that traffic risk perception would be related to driver behaviours and safety attitudes in both countries. Because of the higher accident figures in Malaysia compared to Singapore, Malaysian respondents were expected to report less safe attitudes and driver behaviours.
Method Sample A questionnaire-based survey was conducted on graduate and post-graduate students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and the National University of Singapore (NUS) on the basis of stratified sampling techniques. Approximately, 12,000 graduate and postgraduate students are enrolled in UTM, whereas a total of 10,250 graduate students are enrolled in NUS. A total of 450 copies of the questionnaire were distributed in UTM, out of which 313 were responded (response rate D 61%). On the other hand, out of 450 copies distributed in NUS, only 187 were responded (response rate D 42%). On the basis of demographics, the percentage of graduate and undergraduate respondents in Malaysia was 38% and 62%, while in Singapore statistics were 40% and 60%, respectively. Of the total, 87% of the Singaporean and 75% of the Malaysian respondents have a driving licence. On the basis of gender, the majority of the Malaysian respondents (61%) were male, while the majority of the Singaporean respondents (52.2%) were female. The frequency analysis showed that about 13% of the Malaysian participants reported involvement in a traffic accident where they were injured personally and 6% reported involvement in a traffic accident where others were injured. Among the Singaporean participants, 8% reported involvement in a traffic accident where they were personally injured and 7% reported involvement in a traffic accident where others were injured. Instrumentation The survey of young drivers (SYD) employed in the present study attempts to generate a profile containing details of the demographic situation of the licence holder, the licensing process and driving record. In order to gain
3
some psychological understanding of the driving behaviour of young people, some items from the Driving Behavior Inventory (Gulian, Matthews, Glendon, Davies, & Debney, 1989) and Driver Skill Inventory (Lajunen & Summala, 1995) were also incorporated. A questionnaire was primarily designed to evaluate the risk perception in driving for this study. The questionnaire consisted of 24 items which denoted driving situations (e.g. overspeeding, eating while driving and using mobiles while driving, etc.). Data analysis Two main phases are analysed in this study. In the first phase, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to verify the discriminant validity of five main measuring scales, perceived driving skills, perceived traffic risk, perceived road safety, perceived aggressive behaviours and perceived anxiety. In the second phase, structural equation modeling (SEM) and bootstrapping were conducted in order to test the reliability of fit of the anticipated model, along with an investigation into the hypothesised association among the variables of the model. The analysis was carried out using AMOS version 19. Confirmatory factor analysis According to Byrne (2010), it is important to examine the unidimensionality of the constructs before analysis. On the other hand, unidimensionality is aimed to calculate the reliability and factor loading of the variables and such models are more reliable (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Unidimensionality is calculated through exploratory factor analysis and CFA, but considering the need of the present study, confirmatory factor analyses were employed. Thus, both the countries’ responses were examined for the factor loading and composite reliability (Table 1). CFA was examined considering standard values introduced by Hair et al. (2006), i.e. the higher the value of the comparative fit index (CFI), the higher will be the model fit; the values of the normed fit index (NFI) and the nonnormed fit index (NNFI) should be equal to or greater than 0.90; the value of the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) should be less than or equal to 0.08, and the value of x26 df should be less than 3. In addition, some of the modifications were also made for both the countries to get best fits following the instructions of Byrne (2010) regarding standardised residuals and highly correlated error terms. The values of test adaptability for Malaysian respondents were found to be: x2 D 143.475, d6 f D 116, x26 df D 1.24, p D.04 NNFI D 0.935, NFI D 0.954, CFI D 0.966 and RMSEA D 0.035. Similarly, after modifications the values of test adaptability for Singaporean respondents were found to be: x2 D 120.003,
4
S.R. Khan et al.
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability. Malaysia FL
a
FL
Perceived traffic risk .82 PTR1 .89 PTR2 .86 PTR3 .82 PTR4 .91 PTR9 .83 Perceived driving skills PDS1 .87 .74 .79 PDS1 .92 PDS2 .79 PDS2 .84 PDS3 .85 PDS3 .89 PDS4 .93 PDS5 .88 Perceived aggressive behaviour PAB1 .84 .69 .78 PAB1 .91 PAB2 .79 PAB2 .78 PAB3 .86 PAB3 .83 Perceived anxiety PA1 .88 .78 .74 PA1 .79 PA2 .84 PA2 .81 PA3 .92 PA3 .86 Perceived road safety PRS1 .79 .67 .88 PRS2 .88 PRS2 .84 PRS3 .81 PRS4 .76 PRS4 .83 PRS5 .87 PRS5 .77 PTR1 PTR5 PTR6 PTR7 PTR8
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
CR
Singapore
.91 .88 .87 .92 .89
.79
CR
a
.78
.85
.78
.81
.71
.86
respectively) and Singapore (i.e. 2.98, 2.76, 2.42 and 2.49, respectively). Moreover, a high correlation between perceived aggressive behaviour and perceived anxiety was observed (r D .385, p < .01) regarding Malaysian respondents, while a high correlation between perceived driving skills and perceived aggressive behaviour was observed (r D .290, p < .01) among Singaporean respondents. Captivatingly, a non-significant relation of perceived driving skills with perceived anxiety and perceived road safety was observed for both Malaysian (r D .024 and .024, respectively) and Singaporean respondents (r D .011 and .071, respectively). However, these non-significant correlations are not unique as Roach et al. (1999) reported insignificant correlations of driving skills, aggression and anxiety with respect to road safety. Indeed, our findings are in line with much of the extant research. Structural equation modelling
.67
.91
.68
.79
Note: FL D factor loading, CR D composite reliability and a D Cronbach’s Alpha (see items in the Appendix 1).
d6 f D 116, x26 df D 1.03, p D .03 NNFI D 0.965, NFI D 0.971, CFI D 0.997 and RMSEA D 0.05. All the figures regarding model fitness were better than the stated values. Descriptive statistics and correlations Descriptive statistics and correlations regarding Malaysian and Singaporean respondents are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Mean score values for perceived driving skills, perceived traffic risk, perceived aggressive behaviours and perceived anxiety are less than the neutral values regarding Malaysia (i.e. 2.91, 2.86, 2.94 and 2.81,
SEM analysis is applied to determine whether the theoretical relationships specified at the conceptualisation phase are supported by the data or not (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000). Therefore, hypotheses are examined through investigating the path coefficients separately for Malaysia and Singapore. Path coefficients of the model for Malaysia are shown in Figure 1. The values of the model fit were well above the standard values, i.e. x2 D 158.70, d6 f D 116, x26 df D 1.37, p D 0.03, NNFI D 0.941, AGFI D 0.924, NFI D 0.932, CFI D 0.952 and RMSEA D 0.055. All the path coefficients among constructs were significant (t < 1.98), except for perceived driving skills and perceived road safety (path coefficient D .024, p > .05) . Path coefficients of the model for Singapore are shown in Figure 2. The values of the model fit were well above the standard values, i.e. x2 D 124.60, d6 f D 114, x26 df D 1.09, p D 0.13, NNFI D 0.953, AGFI D .934, NFI D 0.956, CFI D 0.967 and RMSEA D 0.065. All the path coefficients among constructs were significant (t < 1.98), except for perceived driving skills and perceived road safety (path coefficient D .067, p > .05). The path coefficient of both the models (i.e. Malaysian and Singaporean) identifies significant relationships, except between driving skills and road safety (i.e. path
Table 2. Mean, standard deviation and correlations regarding Malaysian respondents. Variables
Mean
SD
PDS
Perceived driving skills Perceived traffic risk Perceived aggressive behaviour Perceived anxiety Perceived road safety
2.91 2.86 2.94 2.81 3.58
.69 .53 .74 .72 .45
1 ¡.265 .302 .024 .024
Note: p < .01; p < .05; N D 313.
PTR 1 .321 .118 .162
PAB
PA
PRS
1 .385 ¡.238
1 ¡.232
1
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
5
Table 3. Mean, standard deviation and correlations regarding Singaporean respondents. Variables
Mean
SD
PDS
Perceived driving skills Perceived traffic risk Perceived aggressive behaviour Perceived anxiety Perceived road safety
2.98 2.76 2.42 2.49 3.85
.62 .51 .73 .71 .48
1 ¡.239 .290 .011 .071
PTR 1 .266 .234 .186
PAB
PA
PRS
1 ¡.201
1
1 .252 ¡.184
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
Note: p < .01; p < .05; n D 187.
coefficient D .024 and .067; p > .05, respectively). However, this relation was found as significant through traffic skills. This means that the perceived traffic risk plays the role of full mediation between driving skills and road safety for Malaysian (direct path D .024, p > .05, indirect path D .040, p < .001) and Singaporean (direct path D .067, p > .05, indirect path D .038, p < .001) respondents. Furthermore, traffic risk was found to perform the role of partial mediation between aggression and anxiety, on one hand, and road safety, on the other hand, for both the countries as their direct and indirect paths were found significant.
This study presented a comparison between Singapore and Malaysia regarding risk perception, road traffic, driver behaviours and road safety attitudes. Traffic risk perception among Singaporean road users is of lower degree than the Malaysian participants. The previous findings are also in line with the current findings which showed lower perception of traffic risk in high-income countries than in low-income countries (Lund & Rundmo, 2009; Nordfjærn et al., 2011). In Malaysia, traffic risk perception is noticeably higher, exhibiting a less safe traffic system. In lowincome countries, there are high rates of fatalities and traffic accidents due to a lower level of obedience to traffic rules, lack of well-defined traffic regulations in addition to problems with the quality of vehicles and roads (Astrøm et al., 2006). Moreover, if we compare Malaysia with
Singapore, we find higher traffic accident rates, road traffic injuries and fatalities in Malaysia compared to Singapore where such injuries and traffic fatalities are much lower (world report on road traffic injury prevention, 2010). Malaysian respondents showed willingness to take risks in the capacity of drivers, pedestrians, passengers and cyclists on a higher level than the respondents of Singapore and these findings are also consistent with the previous findings which showed greater willingness to assume risks in countries where income is low than in those with higher income (Lund & Rundmo, 2009; Nordfjærn et al., 2011). Traffic offences lack punishment in Malaysia, resulting in a very low deterrence level and a low level of law enforcement which contribute to explaining the current findings. In Singapore, compared to Malaysia, the police corps are more active at work, strictly implementing the traffic regulations in order to control the vehicle speeds within the allowed limits. Moreover, Singaporean highways are commonly observed with automatic installations for speed traps. Risky behaviour patterns of the drivers are reflected by the higher rates of willingness to assume traffic risks in Malaysia, in direct violation of traffic rules and regulations. This shows that Malaysia has low traffic safety practices. Higher willingness to take risks by the road users in Malaysia is more likely to affect traffic safety negatively, thereby explaining the higher rate of traffic risk perception. Malaysian respondents reported higher rates of
Figure 1. Structural model for Malaysia.
Figure 2. Structural model for Singapore.
Discussion
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
6
S.R. Khan et al.
drinking when driving, while Singaporean respondents reflected safer attitudes about it. This shows that the relationship between behaviours and attitudes about drinking and driving is asymmetric for Malaysia and Singapore. There is strict drinking and driving traffic regulations in Singapore and it is likely that Singapore would have fewer incidents with drinking and driving. Christophersen et al. (2002) have noted a declining trend of drinking while driving in Singapore. In contrast, despite traffic regulations aiming to restrict drinking and driving in Malaysia, these regulations are rarely enforced. Thus, a low willingness or capacity to enforce road traffic regulations could be one reason for a higher frequency of drinking when driving among Malaysian respondents. A similar asymmetric relationship between attitudes and behaviour was found related to speeding between Malaysia and Singapore. Malaysian respondents reported less safe attitudes towards speeding, while they also reported less frequent speeding than Singaporean respondents. Different wording of the items used for measuring road safety attitudes and behaviours might be one of the reasons explaining this asymmetric relationship. Items that measured attitudes towards speeding were mostly formulated into statements such as ‘I tend to overtake other vehicles whenever possible’. Since there is a low obedience to traffic rules and higher risk taking among Malaysian drivers, it is understandable that they reported less safe speeding attitudes, which are measured with such items. Previous research explained the misalignment between driver attitudes and speeding behaviour by a speeding inconsistency whereby drivers believe that speeding is wrong and dangerous, yet they regularly exceed the speed limits (Fleiter & Watson, 2006). The present findings add support to a speeding inconsistency. Also, differences in the number and quality of the traffic regulations and frequencies of enforcement related to speeding could explain the differences in the reported frequency of speeding between the two countries. It is evident that Malaysian respondents reported less frequent speeding because they are subject to fewer traffic regulations related to speeding than Singaporean counterparts. The results showed that road safety attitudes and anxiety behaviour had significant, but weak correlations with the traffic risk perception dimensions in the Malaysian data. These results could suggest that traffic risk perception may not be a more relevant psychological construct for road safety attitudes and behaviours in Malaysia. However, in the Singaporean data, the road safety attitudes and behaviours had significant correlations with traffic risk perception. Generally, the correlations indicated that as the traffic risk perception of the Singaporean respondents increased, they reported safer attitudes and behaviours regarding various traffic behaviours, such as speeding, and drinking and driving. Health behaviour models such as the health belief model
(Rosenstock, 1974) and precaution adoption process (Weinstein, 1988) proposed that as the perceived risk related to a health threat increases, people engage in more precautionary behaviours. Thus, the present findings related to the relationship between traffic risk perception, driver attitudes and behaviours among Singaporean respondents can be explained based on the assumptions of these theories. However, because traffic risk perception solely was a relevant construct for driver attitudes and behaviours in the Singaporean data, the cross-cultural applicability of the above-mentioned social-cognitive risk decision theories is questionable. It is possible that in lowor middle-income countries, where people are exposed to various and more immediate health threats (e.g. poverty, disease) than traffic accidents, traffic risk perception has a low influence on road users’ attitudes and behaviours. On the other hand, in high-income countries, where health threats are minimised as a result of well-developed health care systems, traffic risk perception could be more likely to influence the decisions of drivers. An additional factor explaining the weak relationship of traffic risk perception with driver behaviour and attitudes in low-income countries could be differences in how people manage traffic risk in high-income and middle-income countries. It is likely that people manage traffic risk differently due to different traffic cultures in lowor middle-income and high-income countries. Although people in Malaysia may perceive the traffic risk to be higher, rather than managing this risk by obeying the traffic rules, they may try to reduce the risk by conforming to the informal traffic norms. Such conformity is not necessarily in line with safe driver attitudes and behaviours. However, in Singapore where formal traffic regulations are accepted and widely applied, people are more likely to manage the traffic risk by establishing safer driver attitudes and behaviours. Hence, this can explain why traffic risk perception is more relevant to driver attitudes and behaviour in Singapore. Although general traffic risk perception of the respondents was higher in Malaysia, traffic risk perception did not appear as a relevant construct for road safety attitudes and behaviours. Thus, altering traffic risk perception of drivers in order to improve traffic safety might not work equally successfully in all countries. Improving traffic regulations, enforcements, and infrastructure in Malaysia seems to be more of a priority for the improvement of the overall traffic safety level. Regarding driver behaviour, speeding and reckless driving are the only behavioural dimensions that are correlated with the frequency of traffic accidents. Implications and recommendation The findings of the present study are very helpful for public as well as law enforcing agencies. It will be useful to discuss how driving in Malaysia and Singapore could be
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion improved through engagement of public sectors and communities. As traffic risk perception of Singaporean drivers is significantly lower than those in Malaysia, we propose that the following countermeasures are worth to be considered. First, the governments of Singapore and Malaysia both should prioritise strategies to enhance traffic risk perception through education in public school systems and targeted advertisements by introducing a compulsory subject like sociology at primary and secondary levels. Second, private sector organisations such as NGOs could become partners of government to broadcast the importance of traffic risk perception to public (Summala, 1996). Third, state governments should organise specific days in a year to celebrate traffic safety day at state levels by giving some awards to some transportation firms and individuals for their constructive roles and implementation of specific measures in road safety. Fourth, the traffic police department should maintain a proper record of each driver’s penalty and it should be passed on to the local police station. The local police station should also be instructed to convey this record to the organisation where the person is serving or to the community where the person is living. Mattox, an American psychologist, who has been given the opportunity to address in the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), conducted a review of more than 54 studies and said that ‘is that preventative measures like driver education, curfews and rising the drinking age are not enough to change bad driving behaviours without also including the threat of getting a ticket or losing your license’. Fifth, the government should also make it compulsory for all citizens who have a driving licence to obtain a clearance certificate if they intend to apply for jobs (public or private sector), getting contracts or becoming witness in a judicial court or making agreement with listed firms. This enforcement is very important to shift the perception of drivers to the spirits of good driving behaviours. Finally, it is noticed that Malaysian drivers have a propensity to take risks albeit they have a higher level of traffic risk perception. As risk-taking profiles of Malaysia are difficult to be altered in a short term, we recommend that public sectors (i.e. governments) should focus on strengthening the enforcement of rules of laws in addition to implementing the above five measures. For example, installation of speed trap machines could be an effective measure to curb the risk taken by Malaysian drivers. With the enforcement of all the above measures and regulations, drivers would evaluate the outcome of the risktaking behaviour and thus enhance traffic safety. This approach has been highly successful in north European countries (Elvik, 1997). It may also prove effective in reducing the prevalence of risky road traffic behaviour in other countries. This can be seen from the Singapore context where the enforcement of rules of laws is associated with a lower degree of risk-taking behaviour.
7
Limitations The present study has some limitations that should be considered when the results are interpreted. Different data collection procedures were considered necessary in the two countries. In Singapore, most of the data were collected using a population registry; however, in Malaysia, this method of data collection is not a convenient methodological approach for a number of reasons, such as the difficulty in obtaining a target respondents’ list of inhabitants from the population registry system. Johor is among the most developed cities of Malaysia. However, it also has a high population density and internal immigration ratio. Therefore, respondents from Johor are likely to be fairly representative of the general Malaysian population characteristics. Although the ratio of students to non-students was similar in both countries, there were some differences in response rates between Singapore and Malaysia. Thus, different response rates between Malaysia and Singapore might be considered as a limitation of the study. Meanwhile, previous studies comparing the accuracy of surveys with low and high response rates showed that differences in response rates are not a major threat for the accuracy of the surveys (Holbrook, Krosnick, & Pfent, 2007; Keeter, Kennedy, Dimock, Best, & Craighill, 2006).
Conclusion Results show that it is indispensable to enhance the traffic risk perception among Singapore road users through the engagement of public and private sectors to instill genuine traffic risk perception with the application of the abovementioned five measures. By contrast, the risk-taking behaviour of Malaysian road drivers should be curbed via enforcement of the six regulations (as stated above). It is hoped that the results and suggested measures will spur further projects and that action will be taken to improve the situation for all road users in developing and developed countries of the world.
References Affeltranger, B., & Thomasson, F. (2005). Accidents and poverty in the developing world: A review of current research and thinking. Karlstad: Swedish Rescue Services Agency. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 211. Astrøm, A.N., Moshiro, C., Hemed, Y., Heuch, I., & Kvale, G. (2006). Perceived susceptibility to and perceived causes of road traffic injuries in an urban and rural area of Tanzania. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38, 54 62. Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Christophersen, A., Skurtveit, S., & Morland, J. (2002). Rearrest rates among Norwegian drugged drivers compared within drunken drivers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 66, 85 92.
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
8
S.R. Khan et al.
Deery, H.A. (1999). Hazard and risk perception among young novice drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 30, 225 236. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J.A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: Sage Publications. Edwards, J.B. (1999). Speed adjustment of motorway commuter traffic to inclement weather. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 2(1), 1 14. Elvik, R. (1997). Effects on accidents of automatic speed enforcement in Singapore. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1595, 14 19. Fleiter, J., & Watson, B.C. (2006). The speed paradox: The misalignment between driver attitudes and speeding behaviour. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 17(2), 23 30. Gulian, E., Matthews, G., Glendon, A.I., Davies, D.R., & Debney, L.M. (1989). Dimensions of driver stress. Ergonomics, 32, 585 602. Haddock, G., & Maio, G.E. (2008). Attitudes: Content, structure and functions. In M. Hewstone, W. Stroebe, & K. Jonas (Eds.), Introduction to social psychology: A European perspective (pp. 112 134). Oxford: Blackwell. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hashim, H.H., & Syed Mohamed Rahim, S.A. (2009). The construction of road accident analysis and database system in Malaysia. 4th IRTAD Conference (pp. 236 237). Seoul: IRTAD. Hayakawa, H., Fischbeck, P.S., & Fischhoff, B. (2000). Automobile risk perceptions and insurance-purchasing decisions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 51 67. Holbrook, A.L., Krosnick, J.A., & Pfent, A. (2007). The causes and consequences of response rates in surveys by the news media and government contractor survey research firms. In James M. Lepkowski, N.C. Tucker, J.M. Brick, E. de Leeuw, L. Japec, P.J. Lavrakas, M.W. Link, & R.L. Sangster (Eds.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (pp. 499 678). New York, NY: Wiley. Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 759 779. Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safety motive dimensions in drivers’ selfassessments. Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 307 318. Levi€akangas, P. (1998). Accident risk of foreign drivers The case of Russian drivers in South-Eastern Finland. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30, 245 254. Lund, I.O., & Rundmo, T. (2009). Cross-cultural comparisons of traffic safety, risk perceptions, attitudes and behaviour. Safety Science, 47, 547 553. Nantulya, V.M., & Reich, M.R. (2003). Equity dimensions of road traffic injuries in low and middle-income countries. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 10, 13 20. Nordfjærn, T., Jørgensen, S.H., & Rundmo, T. (2011). A crosscultural comparison of road traffic risk perceptions, attitudes towards traffic safety and driver behaviour. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 657 684. Nordfjærn, T., & Rundmo, T. (2009). Perceptions of traffic risk in an industrialised and developing country. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 12, 91 98.
€ Ozkan, T. (2006). The regional differences between countries in traffic safety: A cross-cultural study and Malaysian case (PhD diss.). University of Helsinki. Parker, D., Lajunen, T., & Stradling, S. (1998). Attitudinal predictor of interpersonally aggressive violations on the road. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1, 11 24. Roach, M.A., Orsmand, G.I., & Barratt, M.S. (1999). Mothers and fathers of children with Down syndromes: parental stress and involvement in childcare. American journal of mental retardation, 104, 422 436. Rosenstock, I.M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2, 328 335. Rumar, K., Berggrund, U., Jernberg, P., & Ytterbo, U. (1976). Driver reaction to a technical safety measure: Studded tires. Human Factors, 18(5), 443 454. Rundmo, T. (1999). Perceived risk, health and consumer behaviour. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 187 200. Sheeran, P., Norman, P., & Orbell, S. (1999). Evidence that intentions based on attitudes better predict behavior than intentions based on subjective norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 403 406. € (2010). Effects of snowfall on seat belt use. S¸ im¸s eko glu, O. Paper presented at the 27th International Conference of Applied Psychology, July 11 16, Melbourne, Australia. Sivak, M., Soler, J., Tr€ankle, U., & Spagnhol, J.M. (1989). Cross-cultural differences in driver risk-perception. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 21, 355 362. Sj€ oberg, L., Moen, B.E., & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm. Trondheim: Rotunde Publications. Summala, H. (1996). Accident risk and driver behavior. Safety Science, 22, 103 117. Tsui, K.L., So, F.L., Sze, N.N., Wong, S.C., & Leung, T.F. (2009). Misclassification of injury severity among road casualties in police reports. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41(1), 84 89. Weinstein, N.D. (1988). The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology, 7, 355 386. WHO (World Health Organization). (2004). World report on road traffic injury prevention: Summary. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/ publications/road_traffic/world_ report/chapter2.pdf WHO (World Health Organization). 2009. Global status report on road safety: time for action. Geneva, Switzerland. Wilde, J.S.G. (1982). The theory of risk homeostasis: Implications for safety and health. Risk Analysis, 2, 209 225.
Appendix 1 Questionnaire Perceived traffic risk PTR1: The degree of risk in driving with one hand on the wheel6 on single road PTR2: Driving at a speed above 110 km6 h in an interurban road PTR3: Driving at a speed of 100 km6 h in an interurban road PTR4: Driving while having an important conversation on the phone without a speaker
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
PTR5: Accelerating when approaching a flickering green light at junction PTR6: Driving a steep descent in a high gear PTR7: Driving a vehicle with too low air pressure on a dry road PTR8: Overtaking a slow vehicle from the left, when impossible to bypass from the right PTR9: Challenged-driving aimed at testing your driving abilities Perceived driving skills PDS1: I feel uneasy while driving in a strange city PDS2: I feel uneasy while driving on a slippery road PDS3: I feel uneasy while changing lane in heavy traffic PDS4: I feel uneasy while driving in the dark PDS5: I am careful in overtaking
9
Perceived aggressive behaviors PAB1: I tend to overtake other vehicles whenever possible PAB2: I am always ready to react to other driver’s unexpected maneuvers6 drills PAB3: When irritated I drive aggressively Perceived anxiety PA1: I feel uneasy to drive in bad weather PA2: Driving usually makes me feel frustrated PA3: I am more tensed on new than familiar roads Perceived road safety PRS1: I drive carefully PRS2: I pay attention to other road-users PRS3: I conform to speed limits with traffic rules I try to avoid unnecessary risks I follow the traffic lights carefully
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nics20
Driving behaviours, traffic risk and road safety: comparative study between Malaysia and Singapore a
a
a
a
a
Saif ur Rehman Khan , Zainab Binti Khalifah , Yasin Munir , Talat Islam , Tahira Nazir & a
Hashim Khan a
Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia Published online: 30 Jun 2014.
Click for updates To cite this article: Saif ur Rehman Khan, Zainab Binti Khalifah, Yasin Munir, Talat Islam, Tahira Nazir & Hashim Khan (2014): Driving behaviours, traffic risk and road safety: comparative study between Malaysia and Singapore, International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, DOI: 10.1080/17457300.2014.925938 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2014.925938
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2014.925938
Driving behaviours, traffic risk and road safety: comparative study between Malaysia and Singapore Saif ur Rehman Khan*, Zainab Binti Khalifah, Yasin Munir, Talat Islam, Tahira Nazir and Hashim Khan Faculty of Management, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, UTM Skudai, Johor, Malaysia
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
(Received 15 October 2013; accepted 5 May 2014) The present study aims to investigate differences in road safety attitude, driver behaviour and traffic risk perception between Malaysia and Singapore. A questionnaire-based survey was conducted among a sample of Singaporean (n D 187) and Malaysian (n D 313) road users. The data was analysed using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling applied to measure comparative fit indices of Malaysian and Singaporean respondents. The results show that the perceived traffic risk of Malaysian respondents is higher than Singaporean counterparts. Moreover, the structural equation modelling has confirmed perceived traffic risk performing the role of full mediation between perceived driving skills and perceived road safety for both the countries, while perceived traffic skills was found to perform the role of partial mediation between aggression and anxiety, on one hand, and road safety, on the other hand, in Malaysia and Singapore. In addition, in both countries, a weak correlation between perceived driving skills, aggression and anxiety with perceived road safety was found, while a strong correlation exists with traffic risk perception. The findings of this study have been discussed in terms of theoretical, practical and conceptual implications for both scholars and policy-makers to better understand the young drivers’ attitude and behaviour relationship towards road safety measures with a view to future research. Keywords: perceived driving skills; aggression; anxiety; road safety; traffic risk and cross-cultural comparison
Introduction Road traffic injury and fatality rates demonstrate significant variations with different income levels across countries (Nantulya & Reich, 2003; WHO, 2004). It is evident from international estimates of road traffic fatalities for 2002 that only about 10% of road traffic fatalities were observed in high-income countries, while the remaining 90% were found in low- and middle-income countries. The ratio of traffic road fatality in high-income countries was 12.60 per 100,000 inhabitants, while it was 20.20 per 100,000 inhabitants in low- or middle-income countries (WHO, 2004). However, the dilemma is that the high ratio of road traffic fatality has caused a serious health issue, particularly in middle-income or low-wage countries. Malaysia as a developing country is experiencing a remarkable expansion in population, road length and number of registered vehicles. Regardless of the thriving economic development, it is reported by the Royal Malaysian police (2010) that within the last decade the ratio of road accident causalities has increased by 56% with latest data recording 414,421 road accidents in 2010 and 6872 road fatalities, both alarming. The number of fatalities in Malaysia increased by 11% (i.e. 6200 in 2005 and 6872 in 2010), while minor and severe injuries decreased by 48% (i.e. 40,812 in 2005 and 21,397 in 2010), which indicates *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] Ó 2014 Taylor & Francis
that the severity level of fatalities is decreasing in Malaysia, but still needs improvement (Tsui, 2009; WHO, 2009). In most of the Asian countries, police records regarding road accidents are considered adequate and satisfactory because they have noted the circumstances accordingly (Hashim & Rahim, 2009). However, Malaysia’s surveillance system needs improvement in that the circumstances of injuries must also be addressed (Tsui, 2009). Moreover, the Malaysian police are lacking in critical injury details of accidents which seriously constrains the scope of current research. On the other hand, the world report on road traffic injury prevention (2010) reported 5.1% road fatalities in Singapore per 100,000 persons which is comparatively less than Malaysia. Conversely, the infrastructure of Singapore’s road traffic is well developed for both soft and hard road users (e.g. bicyclists and motorised vehicles) by providing physical pavement separations. Singapore has a strict set of explicit traffic rules and regulations that are often enforced by higher authorities, campaigns and especially during driver training. Despite the diversity in Malaysian and Singaporean societies, in most cases they still have some cultural and road safety similarities, which motivates the current study to measure the traffic safety construct between the two countries.
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
2
S.R. Khan et al.
Traffic risk perception can be taken as an introspective connotation of the risk in various traffic situations (Deery, 1999). Earlier research has indicated this psychological construct as a vital predictor of drivers’ behaviour (e.g. Deery, 1999; Rundmo, 1999). Drivers mostly adopt protective traffic behaviours whenever they perceive high traffic risks (Deery, 1999). This supposition is very much aligned with risk decision theories like Rosenstocks’ (1974) health belief model and adoption of preventive measures of traffic safety (Weinstein, 1988). Examples include drivers reducing their speed in bad weather conditions (Edwards, 1999) or using seat belts in order to exhibit protective behaviour (¸S im¸s eko glu, 2010). Adverse weather conditions may also be seen as a demonstration of the drivers’ perception of high traffic risk. However, it should be kept in mind that mere precautionary driver measures, like maintaining larger safety margins and reduction of speed, are not an adequate payoff for the increased risk of accidents (Edwards, 1999; Rumar, Berggrund, Jernberg, & Ytterbo, 1976). Rumar et al. (1976) exemplified this by arguing that drivers in Nordic countries drive faster in the curves with studded tyres as compared to drivers with non-studded tyres. This notion can further be described as the self-paced nature of driving that permits the intensity of risk by converting the risk level from one domain to another when the risk level is decreased in that specific domain. This description supports the earlier motivational models of driving, for example, the driver behaviour’s risk homeostasis model (Wilde, 1982), which supports the argument that drivers tend to choose a non-zero level of risk that gives them a sense of comfort. Moreover, the driver behaviour fluctuates across countries with regard to their expectation of formal, informal and tacit rules that influence their behaviour. The entire range of factors of any specific country which influence the behaviour of drivers like the financial system, common cultural values, attitudes and talents are said to be a traffic culture (Levi€akangas, 1998). Traffic culture is a practical framework to identify the driver behaviour, as it is associated with the amount of € road fatalities and traffic accidents in a country (Ozkan, 2006). The traffic culture framework has also helped in the study of traffic risk perception by providing a comparison of traffic risk perception data from different countries. Most of the previous research that identified the factors of traffic risk perception was conducted on highincome and developed countries like the USA and Japan (Hayakawa, Fischbeck, & Fischhoff, 2000; Sivak, Soler, Tr€ankle, & Spagnhol, 1989). Only a few studies have been conducted to examine the traffic risk perception in low-income countries and its comparison with highincome countries. The findings of these studies showed a significantly higher traffic risk perception in sub-Saharan Africa as compared to a high-income country like Singapore (Lund & Rundmo, 2009; Nordfjærn, Jørgensen, &
Rundmo, 2011; Nordfjærn & Rundmo, 2009). Similarly, another study was conducted to examine traffic risk perception in Tanzania which concluded that people’s perception of traffic fatality risk is higher than the likelihood of statistical inferences about such accidents (Astrøm, Moshiro, Hemed, Heuch, & Kvale, 2006). Higher risk perception of traffic fatalities in low- and middle-income countries may be due to an overall unsafe and risky environment. This supposition is very likely and consistent with the risk-amplification framework (Sj€oberg, Moen, & Rundmo, 2004) and the risk-trade-off framework (Affeltranger & Thomasson, 2005) which suggests the idea that if risks are amplified in one domain, the probability of risk perception in other areas is also increased. Even with poor traffic safety records, most studies of traffic risk perception contribute to introducing traffic safety interventions in low- or middle-income countries more robustly. Traffic safety campaigns if customised to fit the home conditions in different countries might generate more efficient results. Traffic risk perception is not considered the only psychological construct that could be related to the variations in road traffic safety. Road safety attitudes may possibly be related to the driver behaviour and consequently may influence the risk of road traffic fatalities. In road traffic psychology, theory of planned behaviour (TPB) is considered the most frequently used attitude behaviour model. TPB recommends that attitudes are the key factors to predict one’s behavioural intentions (Ajzen, 1991). It is evident from the previous studies which applied the TPB model to measure the driver’s behaviour that attitudes are well-defined predictors of behavioural intentions of different driver behaviours, i.e. aggression and widespread violation of road traffic rules and regulations (Parker, Lajunen, & Stradling, 1998). The results indicated that the degree of relationship between driver behaviour and attitude might show discrepancies across low- and high-income countries. For instance, road safety attitudes envisaged the driver behaviour to a lower degree in Ghana as compared to Singapore (Lund & Rundmo, 2009). The same was found in other low- and middle-income countries like Tanzania and Uganda (Nordfjærn et al., 2011). Consequently, previous findings indicated that the attitudes in high-income countries are more strongly predictive of behaviour as compared to low-income countries. The weak rapport of driver attitudes and behaviour (in low-income countries) may possibly be due to weaker safety measures, as weak attitudes can hardly influence behaviour (Haddock & Maio, 2008). Sheeran, Norman, and Orbell (1999) also emphasised that attitude could possibly be a stronger indicator of behaviour than the other (predictor) variables in the TPB. For that reason, the current study focused on the relationship between attitude and behaviour.
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
Previously researchers have conducted a comparative study between low-, middle- and high-income level countries of Africa, Europe and Asia (e.g. Lund & Rundmo, 2009; Nordfjærn et al., 2011; Nordfjærn & Rundmo, 2009), but how traffic risk perception, road safety attitudes and driver behaviour vary between Malaysians and Singaporeans still needs to be examined. It was expected that Malaysian respondents would report higher traffic accident risk than Singaporean participants due to the higher accident figures and more hazardous traffic environment in Malaysia. Moreover, on the basis of previous work, it was expected that traffic risk perception would be related to driver behaviours and safety attitudes in both countries. Because of the higher accident figures in Malaysia compared to Singapore, Malaysian respondents were expected to report less safe attitudes and driver behaviours.
Method Sample A questionnaire-based survey was conducted on graduate and post-graduate students at Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) and the National University of Singapore (NUS) on the basis of stratified sampling techniques. Approximately, 12,000 graduate and postgraduate students are enrolled in UTM, whereas a total of 10,250 graduate students are enrolled in NUS. A total of 450 copies of the questionnaire were distributed in UTM, out of which 313 were responded (response rate D 61%). On the other hand, out of 450 copies distributed in NUS, only 187 were responded (response rate D 42%). On the basis of demographics, the percentage of graduate and undergraduate respondents in Malaysia was 38% and 62%, while in Singapore statistics were 40% and 60%, respectively. Of the total, 87% of the Singaporean and 75% of the Malaysian respondents have a driving licence. On the basis of gender, the majority of the Malaysian respondents (61%) were male, while the majority of the Singaporean respondents (52.2%) were female. The frequency analysis showed that about 13% of the Malaysian participants reported involvement in a traffic accident where they were injured personally and 6% reported involvement in a traffic accident where others were injured. Among the Singaporean participants, 8% reported involvement in a traffic accident where they were personally injured and 7% reported involvement in a traffic accident where others were injured. Instrumentation The survey of young drivers (SYD) employed in the present study attempts to generate a profile containing details of the demographic situation of the licence holder, the licensing process and driving record. In order to gain
3
some psychological understanding of the driving behaviour of young people, some items from the Driving Behavior Inventory (Gulian, Matthews, Glendon, Davies, & Debney, 1989) and Driver Skill Inventory (Lajunen & Summala, 1995) were also incorporated. A questionnaire was primarily designed to evaluate the risk perception in driving for this study. The questionnaire consisted of 24 items which denoted driving situations (e.g. overspeeding, eating while driving and using mobiles while driving, etc.). Data analysis Two main phases are analysed in this study. In the first phase, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to verify the discriminant validity of five main measuring scales, perceived driving skills, perceived traffic risk, perceived road safety, perceived aggressive behaviours and perceived anxiety. In the second phase, structural equation modeling (SEM) and bootstrapping were conducted in order to test the reliability of fit of the anticipated model, along with an investigation into the hypothesised association among the variables of the model. The analysis was carried out using AMOS version 19. Confirmatory factor analysis According to Byrne (2010), it is important to examine the unidimensionality of the constructs before analysis. On the other hand, unidimensionality is aimed to calculate the reliability and factor loading of the variables and such models are more reliable (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). Unidimensionality is calculated through exploratory factor analysis and CFA, but considering the need of the present study, confirmatory factor analyses were employed. Thus, both the countries’ responses were examined for the factor loading and composite reliability (Table 1). CFA was examined considering standard values introduced by Hair et al. (2006), i.e. the higher the value of the comparative fit index (CFI), the higher will be the model fit; the values of the normed fit index (NFI) and the nonnormed fit index (NNFI) should be equal to or greater than 0.90; the value of the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) should be less than or equal to 0.08, and the value of x26 df should be less than 3. In addition, some of the modifications were also made for both the countries to get best fits following the instructions of Byrne (2010) regarding standardised residuals and highly correlated error terms. The values of test adaptability for Malaysian respondents were found to be: x2 D 143.475, d6 f D 116, x26 df D 1.24, p D.04 NNFI D 0.935, NFI D 0.954, CFI D 0.966 and RMSEA D 0.035. Similarly, after modifications the values of test adaptability for Singaporean respondents were found to be: x2 D 120.003,
4
S.R. Khan et al.
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis and reliability. Malaysia FL
a
FL
Perceived traffic risk .82 PTR1 .89 PTR2 .86 PTR3 .82 PTR4 .91 PTR9 .83 Perceived driving skills PDS1 .87 .74 .79 PDS1 .92 PDS2 .79 PDS2 .84 PDS3 .85 PDS3 .89 PDS4 .93 PDS5 .88 Perceived aggressive behaviour PAB1 .84 .69 .78 PAB1 .91 PAB2 .79 PAB2 .78 PAB3 .86 PAB3 .83 Perceived anxiety PA1 .88 .78 .74 PA1 .79 PA2 .84 PA2 .81 PA3 .92 PA3 .86 Perceived road safety PRS1 .79 .67 .88 PRS2 .88 PRS2 .84 PRS3 .81 PRS4 .76 PRS4 .83 PRS5 .87 PRS5 .77 PTR1 PTR5 PTR6 PTR7 PTR8
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
CR
Singapore
.91 .88 .87 .92 .89
.79
CR
a
.78
.85
.78
.81
.71
.86
respectively) and Singapore (i.e. 2.98, 2.76, 2.42 and 2.49, respectively). Moreover, a high correlation between perceived aggressive behaviour and perceived anxiety was observed (r D .385, p < .01) regarding Malaysian respondents, while a high correlation between perceived driving skills and perceived aggressive behaviour was observed (r D .290, p < .01) among Singaporean respondents. Captivatingly, a non-significant relation of perceived driving skills with perceived anxiety and perceived road safety was observed for both Malaysian (r D .024 and .024, respectively) and Singaporean respondents (r D .011 and .071, respectively). However, these non-significant correlations are not unique as Roach et al. (1999) reported insignificant correlations of driving skills, aggression and anxiety with respect to road safety. Indeed, our findings are in line with much of the extant research. Structural equation modelling
.67
.91
.68
.79
Note: FL D factor loading, CR D composite reliability and a D Cronbach’s Alpha (see items in the Appendix 1).
d6 f D 116, x26 df D 1.03, p D .03 NNFI D 0.965, NFI D 0.971, CFI D 0.997 and RMSEA D 0.05. All the figures regarding model fitness were better than the stated values. Descriptive statistics and correlations Descriptive statistics and correlations regarding Malaysian and Singaporean respondents are shown in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Mean score values for perceived driving skills, perceived traffic risk, perceived aggressive behaviours and perceived anxiety are less than the neutral values regarding Malaysia (i.e. 2.91, 2.86, 2.94 and 2.81,
SEM analysis is applied to determine whether the theoretical relationships specified at the conceptualisation phase are supported by the data or not (Diamantopoulos & Siguaw, 2000). Therefore, hypotheses are examined through investigating the path coefficients separately for Malaysia and Singapore. Path coefficients of the model for Malaysia are shown in Figure 1. The values of the model fit were well above the standard values, i.e. x2 D 158.70, d6 f D 116, x26 df D 1.37, p D 0.03, NNFI D 0.941, AGFI D 0.924, NFI D 0.932, CFI D 0.952 and RMSEA D 0.055. All the path coefficients among constructs were significant (t < 1.98), except for perceived driving skills and perceived road safety (path coefficient D .024, p > .05) . Path coefficients of the model for Singapore are shown in Figure 2. The values of the model fit were well above the standard values, i.e. x2 D 124.60, d6 f D 114, x26 df D 1.09, p D 0.13, NNFI D 0.953, AGFI D .934, NFI D 0.956, CFI D 0.967 and RMSEA D 0.065. All the path coefficients among constructs were significant (t < 1.98), except for perceived driving skills and perceived road safety (path coefficient D .067, p > .05). The path coefficient of both the models (i.e. Malaysian and Singaporean) identifies significant relationships, except between driving skills and road safety (i.e. path
Table 2. Mean, standard deviation and correlations regarding Malaysian respondents. Variables
Mean
SD
PDS
Perceived driving skills Perceived traffic risk Perceived aggressive behaviour Perceived anxiety Perceived road safety
2.91 2.86 2.94 2.81 3.58
.69 .53 .74 .72 .45
1 ¡.265 .302 .024 .024
Note: p < .01; p < .05; N D 313.
PTR 1 .321 .118 .162
PAB
PA
PRS
1 .385 ¡.238
1 ¡.232
1
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
5
Table 3. Mean, standard deviation and correlations regarding Singaporean respondents. Variables
Mean
SD
PDS
Perceived driving skills Perceived traffic risk Perceived aggressive behaviour Perceived anxiety Perceived road safety
2.98 2.76 2.42 2.49 3.85
.62 .51 .73 .71 .48
1 ¡.239 .290 .011 .071
PTR 1 .266 .234 .186
PAB
PA
PRS
1 ¡.201
1
1 .252 ¡.184
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
Note: p < .01; p < .05; n D 187.
coefficient D .024 and .067; p > .05, respectively). However, this relation was found as significant through traffic skills. This means that the perceived traffic risk plays the role of full mediation between driving skills and road safety for Malaysian (direct path D .024, p > .05, indirect path D .040, p < .001) and Singaporean (direct path D .067, p > .05, indirect path D .038, p < .001) respondents. Furthermore, traffic risk was found to perform the role of partial mediation between aggression and anxiety, on one hand, and road safety, on the other hand, for both the countries as their direct and indirect paths were found significant.
This study presented a comparison between Singapore and Malaysia regarding risk perception, road traffic, driver behaviours and road safety attitudes. Traffic risk perception among Singaporean road users is of lower degree than the Malaysian participants. The previous findings are also in line with the current findings which showed lower perception of traffic risk in high-income countries than in low-income countries (Lund & Rundmo, 2009; Nordfjærn et al., 2011). In Malaysia, traffic risk perception is noticeably higher, exhibiting a less safe traffic system. In lowincome countries, there are high rates of fatalities and traffic accidents due to a lower level of obedience to traffic rules, lack of well-defined traffic regulations in addition to problems with the quality of vehicles and roads (Astrøm et al., 2006). Moreover, if we compare Malaysia with
Singapore, we find higher traffic accident rates, road traffic injuries and fatalities in Malaysia compared to Singapore where such injuries and traffic fatalities are much lower (world report on road traffic injury prevention, 2010). Malaysian respondents showed willingness to take risks in the capacity of drivers, pedestrians, passengers and cyclists on a higher level than the respondents of Singapore and these findings are also consistent with the previous findings which showed greater willingness to assume risks in countries where income is low than in those with higher income (Lund & Rundmo, 2009; Nordfjærn et al., 2011). Traffic offences lack punishment in Malaysia, resulting in a very low deterrence level and a low level of law enforcement which contribute to explaining the current findings. In Singapore, compared to Malaysia, the police corps are more active at work, strictly implementing the traffic regulations in order to control the vehicle speeds within the allowed limits. Moreover, Singaporean highways are commonly observed with automatic installations for speed traps. Risky behaviour patterns of the drivers are reflected by the higher rates of willingness to assume traffic risks in Malaysia, in direct violation of traffic rules and regulations. This shows that Malaysia has low traffic safety practices. Higher willingness to take risks by the road users in Malaysia is more likely to affect traffic safety negatively, thereby explaining the higher rate of traffic risk perception. Malaysian respondents reported higher rates of
Figure 1. Structural model for Malaysia.
Figure 2. Structural model for Singapore.
Discussion
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
6
S.R. Khan et al.
drinking when driving, while Singaporean respondents reflected safer attitudes about it. This shows that the relationship between behaviours and attitudes about drinking and driving is asymmetric for Malaysia and Singapore. There is strict drinking and driving traffic regulations in Singapore and it is likely that Singapore would have fewer incidents with drinking and driving. Christophersen et al. (2002) have noted a declining trend of drinking while driving in Singapore. In contrast, despite traffic regulations aiming to restrict drinking and driving in Malaysia, these regulations are rarely enforced. Thus, a low willingness or capacity to enforce road traffic regulations could be one reason for a higher frequency of drinking when driving among Malaysian respondents. A similar asymmetric relationship between attitudes and behaviour was found related to speeding between Malaysia and Singapore. Malaysian respondents reported less safe attitudes towards speeding, while they also reported less frequent speeding than Singaporean respondents. Different wording of the items used for measuring road safety attitudes and behaviours might be one of the reasons explaining this asymmetric relationship. Items that measured attitudes towards speeding were mostly formulated into statements such as ‘I tend to overtake other vehicles whenever possible’. Since there is a low obedience to traffic rules and higher risk taking among Malaysian drivers, it is understandable that they reported less safe speeding attitudes, which are measured with such items. Previous research explained the misalignment between driver attitudes and speeding behaviour by a speeding inconsistency whereby drivers believe that speeding is wrong and dangerous, yet they regularly exceed the speed limits (Fleiter & Watson, 2006). The present findings add support to a speeding inconsistency. Also, differences in the number and quality of the traffic regulations and frequencies of enforcement related to speeding could explain the differences in the reported frequency of speeding between the two countries. It is evident that Malaysian respondents reported less frequent speeding because they are subject to fewer traffic regulations related to speeding than Singaporean counterparts. The results showed that road safety attitudes and anxiety behaviour had significant, but weak correlations with the traffic risk perception dimensions in the Malaysian data. These results could suggest that traffic risk perception may not be a more relevant psychological construct for road safety attitudes and behaviours in Malaysia. However, in the Singaporean data, the road safety attitudes and behaviours had significant correlations with traffic risk perception. Generally, the correlations indicated that as the traffic risk perception of the Singaporean respondents increased, they reported safer attitudes and behaviours regarding various traffic behaviours, such as speeding, and drinking and driving. Health behaviour models such as the health belief model
(Rosenstock, 1974) and precaution adoption process (Weinstein, 1988) proposed that as the perceived risk related to a health threat increases, people engage in more precautionary behaviours. Thus, the present findings related to the relationship between traffic risk perception, driver attitudes and behaviours among Singaporean respondents can be explained based on the assumptions of these theories. However, because traffic risk perception solely was a relevant construct for driver attitudes and behaviours in the Singaporean data, the cross-cultural applicability of the above-mentioned social-cognitive risk decision theories is questionable. It is possible that in lowor middle-income countries, where people are exposed to various and more immediate health threats (e.g. poverty, disease) than traffic accidents, traffic risk perception has a low influence on road users’ attitudes and behaviours. On the other hand, in high-income countries, where health threats are minimised as a result of well-developed health care systems, traffic risk perception could be more likely to influence the decisions of drivers. An additional factor explaining the weak relationship of traffic risk perception with driver behaviour and attitudes in low-income countries could be differences in how people manage traffic risk in high-income and middle-income countries. It is likely that people manage traffic risk differently due to different traffic cultures in lowor middle-income and high-income countries. Although people in Malaysia may perceive the traffic risk to be higher, rather than managing this risk by obeying the traffic rules, they may try to reduce the risk by conforming to the informal traffic norms. Such conformity is not necessarily in line with safe driver attitudes and behaviours. However, in Singapore where formal traffic regulations are accepted and widely applied, people are more likely to manage the traffic risk by establishing safer driver attitudes and behaviours. Hence, this can explain why traffic risk perception is more relevant to driver attitudes and behaviour in Singapore. Although general traffic risk perception of the respondents was higher in Malaysia, traffic risk perception did not appear as a relevant construct for road safety attitudes and behaviours. Thus, altering traffic risk perception of drivers in order to improve traffic safety might not work equally successfully in all countries. Improving traffic regulations, enforcements, and infrastructure in Malaysia seems to be more of a priority for the improvement of the overall traffic safety level. Regarding driver behaviour, speeding and reckless driving are the only behavioural dimensions that are correlated with the frequency of traffic accidents. Implications and recommendation The findings of the present study are very helpful for public as well as law enforcing agencies. It will be useful to discuss how driving in Malaysia and Singapore could be
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion improved through engagement of public sectors and communities. As traffic risk perception of Singaporean drivers is significantly lower than those in Malaysia, we propose that the following countermeasures are worth to be considered. First, the governments of Singapore and Malaysia both should prioritise strategies to enhance traffic risk perception through education in public school systems and targeted advertisements by introducing a compulsory subject like sociology at primary and secondary levels. Second, private sector organisations such as NGOs could become partners of government to broadcast the importance of traffic risk perception to public (Summala, 1996). Third, state governments should organise specific days in a year to celebrate traffic safety day at state levels by giving some awards to some transportation firms and individuals for their constructive roles and implementation of specific measures in road safety. Fourth, the traffic police department should maintain a proper record of each driver’s penalty and it should be passed on to the local police station. The local police station should also be instructed to convey this record to the organisation where the person is serving or to the community where the person is living. Mattox, an American psychologist, who has been given the opportunity to address in the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association (APA), conducted a review of more than 54 studies and said that ‘is that preventative measures like driver education, curfews and rising the drinking age are not enough to change bad driving behaviours without also including the threat of getting a ticket or losing your license’. Fifth, the government should also make it compulsory for all citizens who have a driving licence to obtain a clearance certificate if they intend to apply for jobs (public or private sector), getting contracts or becoming witness in a judicial court or making agreement with listed firms. This enforcement is very important to shift the perception of drivers to the spirits of good driving behaviours. Finally, it is noticed that Malaysian drivers have a propensity to take risks albeit they have a higher level of traffic risk perception. As risk-taking profiles of Malaysia are difficult to be altered in a short term, we recommend that public sectors (i.e. governments) should focus on strengthening the enforcement of rules of laws in addition to implementing the above five measures. For example, installation of speed trap machines could be an effective measure to curb the risk taken by Malaysian drivers. With the enforcement of all the above measures and regulations, drivers would evaluate the outcome of the risktaking behaviour and thus enhance traffic safety. This approach has been highly successful in north European countries (Elvik, 1997). It may also prove effective in reducing the prevalence of risky road traffic behaviour in other countries. This can be seen from the Singapore context where the enforcement of rules of laws is associated with a lower degree of risk-taking behaviour.
7
Limitations The present study has some limitations that should be considered when the results are interpreted. Different data collection procedures were considered necessary in the two countries. In Singapore, most of the data were collected using a population registry; however, in Malaysia, this method of data collection is not a convenient methodological approach for a number of reasons, such as the difficulty in obtaining a target respondents’ list of inhabitants from the population registry system. Johor is among the most developed cities of Malaysia. However, it also has a high population density and internal immigration ratio. Therefore, respondents from Johor are likely to be fairly representative of the general Malaysian population characteristics. Although the ratio of students to non-students was similar in both countries, there were some differences in response rates between Singapore and Malaysia. Thus, different response rates between Malaysia and Singapore might be considered as a limitation of the study. Meanwhile, previous studies comparing the accuracy of surveys with low and high response rates showed that differences in response rates are not a major threat for the accuracy of the surveys (Holbrook, Krosnick, & Pfent, 2007; Keeter, Kennedy, Dimock, Best, & Craighill, 2006).
Conclusion Results show that it is indispensable to enhance the traffic risk perception among Singapore road users through the engagement of public and private sectors to instill genuine traffic risk perception with the application of the abovementioned five measures. By contrast, the risk-taking behaviour of Malaysian road drivers should be curbed via enforcement of the six regulations (as stated above). It is hoped that the results and suggested measures will spur further projects and that action will be taken to improve the situation for all road users in developing and developed countries of the world.
References Affeltranger, B., & Thomasson, F. (2005). Accidents and poverty in the developing world: A review of current research and thinking. Karlstad: Swedish Rescue Services Agency. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 211. Astrøm, A.N., Moshiro, C., Hemed, Y., Heuch, I., & Kvale, G. (2006). Perceived susceptibility to and perceived causes of road traffic injuries in an urban and rural area of Tanzania. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38, 54 62. Byrne, B.M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with Amos: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Christophersen, A., Skurtveit, S., & Morland, J. (2002). Rearrest rates among Norwegian drugged drivers compared within drunken drivers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 66, 85 92.
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
8
S.R. Khan et al.
Deery, H.A. (1999). Hazard and risk perception among young novice drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 30, 225 236. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J.A. (2000). Introducing LISREL. London: Sage Publications. Edwards, J.B. (1999). Speed adjustment of motorway commuter traffic to inclement weather. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 2(1), 1 14. Elvik, R. (1997). Effects on accidents of automatic speed enforcement in Singapore. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1595, 14 19. Fleiter, J., & Watson, B.C. (2006). The speed paradox: The misalignment between driver attitudes and speeding behaviour. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, 17(2), 23 30. Gulian, E., Matthews, G., Glendon, A.I., Davies, D.R., & Debney, L.M. (1989). Dimensions of driver stress. Ergonomics, 32, 585 602. Haddock, G., & Maio, G.E. (2008). Attitudes: Content, structure and functions. In M. Hewstone, W. Stroebe, & K. Jonas (Eds.), Introduction to social psychology: A European perspective (pp. 112 134). Oxford: Blackwell. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham, R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hashim, H.H., & Syed Mohamed Rahim, S.A. (2009). The construction of road accident analysis and database system in Malaysia. 4th IRTAD Conference (pp. 236 237). Seoul: IRTAD. Hayakawa, H., Fischbeck, P.S., & Fischhoff, B. (2000). Automobile risk perceptions and insurance-purchasing decisions in Japan and the United States. Journal of Risk Research, 3, 51 67. Holbrook, A.L., Krosnick, J.A., & Pfent, A. (2007). The causes and consequences of response rates in surveys by the news media and government contractor survey research firms. In James M. Lepkowski, N.C. Tucker, J.M. Brick, E. de Leeuw, L. Japec, P.J. Lavrakas, M.W. Link, & R.L. Sangster (Eds.), Advances in telephone survey methodology (pp. 499 678). New York, NY: Wiley. Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimock, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact of growing nonresponse on estimates from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70(5), 759 779. Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safety motive dimensions in drivers’ selfassessments. Personality and Individual Differences, 3, 307 318. Levi€akangas, P. (1998). Accident risk of foreign drivers The case of Russian drivers in South-Eastern Finland. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30, 245 254. Lund, I.O., & Rundmo, T. (2009). Cross-cultural comparisons of traffic safety, risk perceptions, attitudes and behaviour. Safety Science, 47, 547 553. Nantulya, V.M., & Reich, M.R. (2003). Equity dimensions of road traffic injuries in low and middle-income countries. Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 10, 13 20. Nordfjærn, T., Jørgensen, S.H., & Rundmo, T. (2011). A crosscultural comparison of road traffic risk perceptions, attitudes towards traffic safety and driver behaviour. Journal of Risk Research, 14, 657 684. Nordfjærn, T., & Rundmo, T. (2009). Perceptions of traffic risk in an industrialised and developing country. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 12, 91 98.
€ Ozkan, T. (2006). The regional differences between countries in traffic safety: A cross-cultural study and Malaysian case (PhD diss.). University of Helsinki. Parker, D., Lajunen, T., & Stradling, S. (1998). Attitudinal predictor of interpersonally aggressive violations on the road. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 1, 11 24. Roach, M.A., Orsmand, G.I., & Barratt, M.S. (1999). Mothers and fathers of children with Down syndromes: parental stress and involvement in childcare. American journal of mental retardation, 104, 422 436. Rosenstock, I.M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2, 328 335. Rumar, K., Berggrund, U., Jernberg, P., & Ytterbo, U. (1976). Driver reaction to a technical safety measure: Studded tires. Human Factors, 18(5), 443 454. Rundmo, T. (1999). Perceived risk, health and consumer behaviour. Journal of Risk Research, 2, 187 200. Sheeran, P., Norman, P., & Orbell, S. (1999). Evidence that intentions based on attitudes better predict behavior than intentions based on subjective norms. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 403 406. € (2010). Effects of snowfall on seat belt use. S¸ im¸s eko glu, O. Paper presented at the 27th International Conference of Applied Psychology, July 11 16, Melbourne, Australia. Sivak, M., Soler, J., Tr€ankle, U., & Spagnhol, J.M. (1989). Cross-cultural differences in driver risk-perception. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 21, 355 362. Sj€ oberg, L., Moen, B.E., & Rundmo, T. (2004). Explaining risk perception. An evaluation of the psychometric paradigm. Trondheim: Rotunde Publications. Summala, H. (1996). Accident risk and driver behavior. Safety Science, 22, 103 117. Tsui, K.L., So, F.L., Sze, N.N., Wong, S.C., & Leung, T.F. (2009). Misclassification of injury severity among road casualties in police reports. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41(1), 84 89. Weinstein, N.D. (1988). The precaution adoption process. Health Psychology, 7, 355 386. WHO (World Health Organization). (2004). World report on road traffic injury prevention: Summary. Retrieved January 15, 2011, from http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/ publications/road_traffic/world_ report/chapter2.pdf WHO (World Health Organization). 2009. Global status report on road safety: time for action. Geneva, Switzerland. Wilde, J.S.G. (1982). The theory of risk homeostasis: Implications for safety and health. Risk Analysis, 2, 209 225.
Appendix 1 Questionnaire Perceived traffic risk PTR1: The degree of risk in driving with one hand on the wheel6 on single road PTR2: Driving at a speed above 110 km6 h in an interurban road PTR3: Driving at a speed of 100 km6 h in an interurban road PTR4: Driving while having an important conversation on the phone without a speaker
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion
Downloaded by [University of Sherbrooke] at 01:31 13 April 2015
PTR5: Accelerating when approaching a flickering green light at junction PTR6: Driving a steep descent in a high gear PTR7: Driving a vehicle with too low air pressure on a dry road PTR8: Overtaking a slow vehicle from the left, when impossible to bypass from the right PTR9: Challenged-driving aimed at testing your driving abilities Perceived driving skills PDS1: I feel uneasy while driving in a strange city PDS2: I feel uneasy while driving on a slippery road PDS3: I feel uneasy while changing lane in heavy traffic PDS4: I feel uneasy while driving in the dark PDS5: I am careful in overtaking
9
Perceived aggressive behaviors PAB1: I tend to overtake other vehicles whenever possible PAB2: I am always ready to react to other driver’s unexpected maneuvers6 drills PAB3: When irritated I drive aggressively Perceived anxiety PA1: I feel uneasy to drive in bad weather PA2: Driving usually makes me feel frustrated PA3: I am more tensed on new than familiar roads Perceived road safety PRS1: I drive carefully PRS2: I pay attention to other road-users PRS3: I conform to speed limits with traffic rules I try to avoid unnecessary risks I follow the traffic lights carefully
