Procedia

Social and
Behavioral
Sciences

Procedia
- Social
and Behavioral
Sciences
33 (2012)
840 000000
844
Procedia
- Social
and Behavioral
Sciences
00 (2011)

www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

PSIWORLD 2011

Traffic risk behavior: a theoretical and empirical research

Crengua Oprea*
University of Piteti, Trgul din Vale nr. 1, Piteti, 110040, Romania

Abstract
Risk driving behavior is a dynamic and complex reality, as demonstrated by the increasing number of auto accidents
and various approaches that have attempted to explain the risk behavior of drivers in different ways. In this study we
propose to operationalize the concept of risk behavior in traffic, based on an analysis of literature and continuing with
content analysis of representations made by drivers. Risk behavior is associated both with contextual variables and
structural ones, involving a cost-benefit ratio.

PublishedbybyElsevier
Elsevier
B.V.
Selection
and/or peer-review
under responsibility
of PSIWORLD2011
2012
2011 Published
Ltd.
Selection
and peer-review
under responsibility
of PSIWORLD
2011
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
Keywords: risk behavior, content analysis, cost-benefit survey.

1. Introduction
Traffic accidents are the number one cause of death, more than 1.2 million people lose their lives
worldwide annually, and between 20 and 50 million are injured. Practically every six seconds a person
dies or is seriously injured following a traffic accident (UNO-WHO, 2009). In 2010, in Romania, there
were over 9225 serious accidents, in which 8477 people were seriously injured and 2377 lost their lives
(DPR, 2010). Traumas caused by road accidents are a major emotional, social and economic problem, not
only felt by the individual and his family but also by the society. Although the severity of the new rules
increased the Road Code, imposing sanctions more severe rules, Romania ranks second in Europe at the
number of accidents and the number of deaths from accidents; police inventoried the main causes mainly
due to the critical aspects of driver behavior (speeding, failure to use seat belts, driving due to fatigue or
alcohol etc).
Driving is a complex task (Groeger, Banks, 2007), producing road accidents with multiple
explanations, with a wide range of variables (Reimer, 2007). Normally, people drive carefully tailored to

Oprea Crengua. Tel.: +0-748-538-862; fax: +0-348-453-123..

E-mail address: crenguta.oprea@upit.ro.

1877-0428 2012 Published by Elsevier B.V. Selection and/or peer-review under responsibility of PSIWORLD2011
Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.01.240

Crengut
a Oprea
/ Procedia- Social
- Socialand
andBehavioral
BehavioralSciences
Sciences0033(2011)
(2012)000000
840 844
C.Oprea
/ Procedia

the traffic speed, so that they can meet the demands of the vehicle driving tasks, but there are situations
where driving is the control limit (Fuller, 2005) Throughout life are people who do not face any auto
accident, while others are punished often or very often for getting involved in collisions. Lately more and
more drivers are engaging in risky behaviors, either accidentally or with the intent to take risks, this
behavior becomes a tragic problem in contemporary society.
Specialized studies are rather surprising factors that are involved in such behavior and focuses less on
explaining the concept. Factors affecting the performance of the drivers that can generate a risk behavior
as feedback, leading to road accidents are quite numerous (Clarke et al 2005): quality / type of road
(Crundall, Underwood, 1998), state of spirit (Lee et al 2007), time of day (Lenne et al, 1997), weather
conditions (Edwards, 1998), age (Twisk, Stacey, 2007), driving experience (Crundall et al 1999), visual
attention (Ball et al, 1993), gender (Laapotti, Keskinen, 1998) or lifestyle (Chliaoutakis et al, 2005).
Although there are many factors that influence the behavior of a driver, every time it decides what
risks assumes and what risks avoids and thus each decision is taken separately. Risk taking behavior is a
trend that varies greatly, both among drivers and the same driver under different conditions (Wilde, 1994,
Summala, 1987).
A universally accepted definition of risk behavior in traffic is that this is the behavior most likely to
produce a car accident or injury in an accident (CCMTA, 2006; Beirness and Simpson, 1997; Vezina,
2001). Environmentally high risk behaviours include drunk driving, speeding, failure to use seat belts or
warning lights. Specialized literature mentions last but not least that drivers who persist in hiring one or
more dangerous driving behaviors, risky and illegal, despite the sanctions, are likely to have a risk
behavior behind the wheel, creating a greater risk on the road. Specialized studies rather the surprising
factors that are involved in such behavior and focuses less on explaining the concept.
Any risk behavior research in the specific conditions of our country should take into account several
factors that led to the escalation of this type of behavior. Increased road congestion in recent years,
primarily under the structure of city streets has not changed and the modernization of national roads is
limited, plays an important role in the behavior of drivers and may explain, in part, that most of them
perceive a change in bad driving behavior. New cars, strong performance, driven mostly by young men
who want to take advantage of assets and of their car, offers the driver a growing force and, by identifying
with her own power and will derive such multiply driver. As we grow this critical autoexaltation, as it
will increase irritation when it will be repressed. (Anitei, 2003).
2. Methodology
In this paper we propose to operationalize the concept of risk behavior in traffic, based on an analysis
of literature and continuing with content analysis of representations made by drivers. Since the conceptual
frameworks of risk behavior study are very different, our approach is based on representations given by
the target-population of this reality. This strategy has the advantage that allows "exploration", both
methodologically and conceptually, the subject of new reality and can thus capture aspects of risk
behavior relevant to the target-population.
We conducted a questionnaire-based survey trough we have collected representations of risk behaviors
of drivers. The questionnaire was administered to all drivers of traffic that had the availability for a trial in
an action carried out in collaboration with the Traffic Police of Arge county and the Technology Faculty
of Mechanical Engineering of state universities in Romania. Respondents were from both urban and in
rural areas. The questionnaire is descriptive. Respondents were asked to send the completed questionnaire
by mail.

841

842

Crengut
/ Procedia
Social
and Behavioral
33 000000
(2012) 840 844
C.
Opreaa/ Oprea
Procedia
- Social-and
Behavioral
SciencesSciences
00 (2011)

2.1. Participants
The questionnaire was administered to a number of 486 people, 378 men (77.8%) and 108 women
(22.2%), with an average of 8 years automotive experience. Subjects ages are between 20 and 61 years
(M = 3.78, SD = 1.57) and are from both urban (64%) and in rural areas (36%).
2.2. Measures
The questionnaire contains a set of questions relevant to the period of holding the license, the number
of sanctions (fines, penalties, license suspension), machine type, brand and age of the frequency
management (with four categories of response: daily, weekly, occasionally, forced by
circumstances). The questionnaire is a semi-structured one, wanting to capture representations of road
users at risk of driving behavior (For you drivers risk behavior is?), the actual manifestation of this type
of behavior on the road (In last 12 months have you witnessed a traffic risk behavior? If so,give
examples:) and last but not least the factors determining this behavior.
3. Results
Analysis of representations collected from subjects revealed that a behavior captures critical aspects of
drivers. Thus, the distribution on the incidence of risk behaviors, expressed as a percentage, refers to
driving with excessive speed (68.9%), failure to use seat belts (44.9%), exceeding risky maneuvers in
traffic (61.3%), driving bumper to bumper (43.6%), driving under the influence of alcohol (64.4%), risky
overruns (61.3%), etc. All these statements are in agreement with the specialized literature (Stevenson,
1996). A new element identified at the drivers questioned is the fact that 56.8% consider that risk
behavior may be adopted in situations that require prompt limit, often risky, coming from those who seek
to avoid endangering. It is about how to solve, the decision of a person, a driver or groups of drivers, who,
through an appropriate strategy, avoid confrontation / direct collision. Basically, we can speak of the no
risk, no gain. Car control, control, how decision-making, reaction time are skills that save lives.
In the incidence of risky behaviors perceived by drivers, lack of education aimed assertions road
respondents (60.9%) and over-assessment skills of drivers, especially young people. 65.2% of those
surveyed believe that perceptions of drivers to be more skilled and less prone to accidents than their
colleagues in traffic can lead to lower precautionary and more dangerous driving behavior (White et al,
2011). Finally subjects were identified as determinants of risk behavior without police road crews
(44.2%), lack of tolerance on the part of road users (50.2%) and poor quality of roads (83 , 5%). No
differences were found associated with the membership of a particular gender, but were determined to
represent differences in traffic risk behavior according to age (p <0.05).
4. Conclusions
Driving has become an intrinsic part of life and human dynamics that the risky behavior behind the
wheel is a dynamic and complex reality, as demonstrated by the increasing number of automobile
accidents and have tried different approaches to explain risk behavior of drivers under its various aspects.
Semantic analysis, the logic of subjective representation of risk behavior are caught in traffic shows
that both components of this type of behavior, both rational and emotional. Rational composure is a
decision based on how to behave in traffic and risk assessment, while the affective component refers to
the emotional reactions that generate risk behavior in traffic.

Crengut
a Oprea
/ Procedia- Social
- Socialand
andBehavioral
BehavioralSciences
Sciences0033(2011)
(2012)000000
840 844
C.Oprea
/ Procedia

Given the results of research, analysis based on the studies of risk behavior representations of drivers,
the concept of risky driving behavior can be defined as that resulting form of the decision to engage or not
in a course of action taking place simultaneously in two processing: the expected benefits are greater than
the risk consequences and negative effects are minimized in terms of severity and frequency of
appearance. Basically it is a deliberate decision, doing part of the decisions that lead to an automatic
behavior, extremely fast, such as changing gears when the engine noise increases.
Difficulties encountered during the course of our approach that have been linked to positive meanings
to that people attribute the term risky driving, associating it with a good feeling many times, generating
sensations, a phenomenon that should be avoided. Many of the traffic participants refused to give their
views on assertions questionnaires. Refusal was mainly due to fear that our research findings could lead
to road authorities, making it jeopardized in this way, the activity of driving, despite the assurance of
confidentiality.
We believe that the study in question has a number of limitations, mostly related to the fact that our
study population was restricted to the Arge county. In order to form a proper picture of the phenomenon
of risk behavior in traffic, the research should be extended to other Romanian geographical areas. On the
other hand, such research involves a number of persons belonging to the target population, something
which we have done so only partially.
Acknowledgements
The author of this paper would like to thank professor PHD Ion Tabacu, director of the Center for
Research Engineering Vehicle at the University of Pitesti, the team of researchers of this center, and
Arges county Traffic Police for their support for this study.
References
Aniei, M. (2003). Aspecte de ordin metodologic n studiul agresivitii la volan. Revista de Psihologie organizaional, Vol. III, nr.
1-2/2003, 27-39.
Ball, K., Owsley, C., Sloane, M. E., Roenker, D. L., & Bruni, J. R. (1993). Visual attention problems as a predictor of vehicle
crashes in older drivers. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 34(11), 3110-3123.
Beirness, D.J., Simpson, H.M. (1997). Study of the Profile of High-Risk Drivers. Ottawa, Ontario: Transport Canada. Road Safety
and Motor Vehicle Regulation (TP-13108).
Chliaoutakis, J. E., Koukouli, S., Lajunen, T., & Tzamalouka, G. (2005). Lifestyle traits as predictors of driving behaviour in urban
areas of Greece. Transportation Research Part F-Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(6), 413-428.
Clarke, D. D., Ward, P., & Truman, W. (2005). Voluntary risk taking and skill deficits in young driver accidents in the UK.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 37(3), 523-529.
Crundall, D. E., & Underwood, G. (1998). Effects of experience and processing demands on visual information acquisition in
drivers. Ergonomics, 41(4), 448-458.
Crundall, D., Underwood, G., & Chapman, P. (1999). Driving experience and the functional field of view. Perception, 28(9), 10751087.
Edwards, J. B. (1998). The relationship between road accident severity and recorded weather. Journal of Safety Research, 29(4),
249-262.
Groeger, J. A., & Banks, A. P. (2007). Anticipating the content and circumstances of skill transfer: Unrealistic expectations of driver
training and graduated licensing? Ergonomics, 50(8), 1250-1263.
Laapotti, S., & Keskinen, E. (1998). Differences in fatal loss-of-control accidents between young male and female drivers. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 30(4), 435-442.
Lee, Y. C., Lee, J. D., & Boyle, L. N. (2007). Visual attention in driving: The effects of cognitive load and visual disruption. Human
Factors, 49(4), 721-733.

843

844

Oprea / Procedia
Social
and Behavioral
33000000
(2012) 840 844
C.Crengut
Opreaa/ Procedia
- Social -and
Behavioral
SciencesSciences
00 (2011)

Lenn, M. G., Triggs, T. J., & Redman, J. R. (1997). Time of day variations in driving performance. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 29(4), 431-437.
Reimer, B., D'Ambrosio, L. A., & Coughlin, J. F. (2007). Secondary analysis of time of day on simulated driving performance.
Journal of Safety Research, 38(5), 563-570.
Stevenson, T. (1996). A review of driving and drivers studies., http://oagsds/rusb/main/ drivers/articles/ontario/1248398.htm.
Summala, H. (1987). Young Driver Accidents: Risk Taking or Failure of Skills? Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving, 3, 3-4, 79-91.
Twisk, D. A. M., & Stacey, C. (2007). Trends in young driver risk and countermeasures in European countries. Journal of Safety
Research, 38(2), 245-257.
Vezina, L. (2001). High-Risk Drivers: A Literature Review. Quebec, QC.: Socit de lassurance automobile du Qubec.
White, M. J., Cunningham, L., & Titchener, K. (2011) Young drivers optimism bias for accident risk and driving skill :
accountability and insight experience manipulations. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43(4), pp. 1309-1315.
Wilde, GJS (1985). Incentive Programmes: An Alternative Approach to Accident Reduction Among Young Drivers. In D.R.
Mayhew, H.M. Simpson, G.J.S. Wilde (1994). Target Risk. Toronto, Ontario: PDE Publications. Available on the Web at
http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/index.html.
*** Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA). (2006). High-Risk Driver (HRD) Task Force. Ottawa, ON:
CCMTA.
***Global status report on road safety. http://www.un.org/ar/roadsafety/pdf/roadsafetyreport.pdf.
***http://www.igpr.ro/DPR/dinamica_accidentelor_circulatie.htm.