Search

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this investigation was to compare the results of a web-based and a telephone interview survey measuring driver concerns about a variety of traffic safety issues, their beliefs, and specific driving behaviors. METHOD: State-wide, annual random digit-dial telephone surveys and web-based surveys were conducted in Maryland. A total of 1,700 drivers were surveyed by telephone and 6,806 took a web survey. RESULTS: Telephone respondents were more likely to be female and older. Web respondents were more likely to be white and not Latino/Hispanic. After controlling for demographic differences, telephone survey respondents were more likely to be concerned about traffic safety. They were more likely to believe that sobriety checkpoints reduce drunk driving (OR=2.18, 95% CI 1.94, 2.45), they would be ticketed for not wearing a seat belt (OR=1.26, 95% CI 1.12, 1.43), and they would be stopped by the police if they drove after drinking too much (OR=1.17, 95% CI 1.03, 1.32). They were less likely to report a variety of risky behaviors including using a cell phone while driving (OR=.54, 95% CI .48, .61) and driving 10+ mph over the speed limit (OR=.81, 95% CI .72, .91), but were more likely to report having been ticketed for a moving violation in the last month (OR=2.22, 95% CI 1.70, 2.90). Suggestions are offered for overcoming potential sources of sampling bias. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Web-based surveys produce substantially different results than random-digit-dial telephone surveys, when used for public assessments of traffic safety concerns and behaviors. Language: en

Introduction The purpose of this investigation was to identify risky driving behaviors and dispositions that distinguish drivers who use a cell phone while operating a motor vehicle from non-cell phone using drivers. Method Annual telephone surveys were used to identify drivers who reported using a cell phone while driving in the last month (n = 1803) and were compared to those who said they did not use cell phones while driving (n = 1578). Results Cell phone using drivers were more likely to report driving while drowsy, going 20 mph over the speed limit, driving aggressively, running a stop sign or red light, and driving after having had several drinks. They were also more likely to have had a prior history of citation and crash involvement than non-cell phone using drivers. Cell phone using drivers also reported they were less careful and more in a hurry when they drive than non-cell phone using drivers. Conclusion Cell phone using drivers report engaging in many behaviors that place them at risk for a traffic crash, independent of the specific driving impairments that cell phone usage may produce. Strategies that combine coordinated and sustained enforcement activities along with widespread public awareness campaigns hold promise as effective countermeasures for these drivers, who resemble aggressive drivers in many respects.

Introduction The purpose of this investigation was to identify beliefs, driving personality dispositions, and behaviors that distinguish self-defined aggressive drivers from non-aggressive drivers. Method Telephone surveys were used to identify self-reported aggressive drivers (n = 305) who were compared to non-aggressive drivers (n = 1,715) concerning their beliefs, driving behaviors, and self-described driving dispositions. Results Aggressive drivers, compared to non-aggressive drivers, were less concerned about speeding, aggressive driving, and cell phone use while driving, yet were more likely to have had an encounter with another aggressive driver. They were also more likely to report that they had driven when they knew they had too much to drink, yet they felt less likely that they would be stopped by the police. Conclusion Aggressive drivers display many dispositions that define them as high risk drivers and public information/motivational campaigns alone will likely be ineffective with this group of drivers. Strategies that combine visible enforcement with widespread publicity campaigns appear to be necessary.

Introduction: With a growing interest in increasing parental involvement in teen driving, it is important to find out what parents are already doing. Method This study assessed the content, delivery, rigidity, and consequences of 143 driving rules reported by 24 parent-teen dyads. Results: Strengths included that driving rules covered the full range of concerns, especially night driving limits and passenger limits, and most parents and teens reported that violations would be followed by consequences, especially talk/warn or no driving. Weaknesses included that many rules were not very strict and only half showed parent-teen agreement on content. Conclusions: These findings suggest that teen driving rules are not clearly defined.