Bad behaviour or societal failure? Perceptions of the factors contributing to drivers' engagement in the fatal five driving behaviours
Introduction
The term ‘systems thinking’ describes a philosophy currently prevalent within safety science that provides expansive theories and methods to support accident analysis and prevention activities (e.g. Leveson, 2004; Perrow, 1984; Rasmussen, 1997). Whilst there are various tenets, contemporary models are underpinned by the notion that safety and accidents are emergent properties arising from non-linear interactions between multiple components across entire systems (e.g. Leveson, 2004). This creates a shared responsibility for accidents that spans actors at all levels of systems, up to and including the government.
In the last decade, the potential utility of applying systems thinking in road safety research and practice has been recognised (Larsson et al., 2010; Salmon and Lenné, 2009; Salmon et al., 2012). There is now a growing consensus that further reductions in trauma may be achieved by applying systems thinking approaches in road safety research and practice (Hughes et al., 2016; Larsson et al., 2010; Salmon and Lenné, 2015). This is becoming increasingly relevant given the recent plateau in fatality and injury reductions in many jurisdictions, as well as the fact that in many countries the road toll is increasing. In Australia, for example, from 2015 to 2016 the number of fatalities per 100,000 population increased by 6%. This trend appears to be continuing in 2017 (BITRE, 2017). Systems thinking proponents argue that existing approaches have reached a ceiling in terms of effectiveness and are now experiencing diminishing returns. This is in part due to the changing nature and increasing complexity of road transport systems (Hughes et al., 2016; Larsson et al., 2010; Salmon and Lenné, 2015).
The traditional road safety approach involves the “3 Es” of education, enforcement, and engineering. Examples of this approach can be seen in the interventions used to address the so-called ‘fatal five’ behaviours known to lead to crashes and road trauma: drug and drink driving, distraction and inattention, failure to wear a seat belt, speeding, and fatigue. Generally, interventions use education, enforcement, or engineering with the intention of improving road user knowledge and behaviour so that engagement in the fatal five behaviours is reduced. Critics of this approach have focussed on its reductionist basis, whereby the road transport system is artificially isolated from its broader environment (e.g. society), broken into smaller, discrete parts (e.g. road users, vehicles, and roads) and attempts are made to optimise these parts under the assumption that the system will perform better as a result. Many have also argued that there are contributory factors outside of the driver, vehicle and road infrastructure that cannot be addressed through the 3 Es (Hughes et al., 2016; Newnam and Goode, 2015; Salmon et al., 2012, 2016).
Systems thinking proponents argue that the behaviour of road users is impacted by many other factors and that there is a complex web of interacting factors that lead to drivers engaging in the fatal five behaviours (Salmon et al., 2016). Although some of these factors relate to the individual driver (e.g. personality, risk tolerance, complacency), others likely reside elsewhere in the road transport system (e.g. at the governance and regulatory level). As a result, education, enforcement and engineering will have some impact; however, systemic factors will not be dealt with and so drivers will continue to engage in undesirable behaviours, albeit perhaps to a slightly lesser extent. A final important element of systems thinking is that the behaviour of road users can be influenced by factors extrinsic to the road transport system itself. This suggests, for example, that broader societal issues may also be playing a key role in drivers' engagement in certain fatal five behaviours (e.g. drug and drink driving).
In response to calls for a better understanding of the factors that create road trauma, researchers have applied systems theory-based methods to investigate the causes of road trauma and to design new interventions (e.g. Cornelissen and Salmon, 2013; Hughes et al., 2016; Newnam and Goode, 2015; Newnam et al., 2017; Parnell et al., 2017; Salmon et al., 2016). The overriding philosophy is that the entire road transport system needs to be optimised, not just the individual components acting within it (e.g. road users, vehicles). Whilst initial crash studies have shed new light on the system-wide causes of road trauma, a criticism is that many have focussed only on a single crash event or on existing crash data only (e.g. Newnam and Goode, 2015; Newnam et al., 2017; Salmon et al., 2013). Notably, existing crash data systems have not been able to provide data on crash contributory factors outside of the road user, their vehicle, and the road environment. This has impacted the generalisability and validity of findings and has raised the requirement for further research utilising other data sources (Salmon and Lenné, 2015; Salmon et al., 2016).
This article describes a study designed to go beyond limited accident data and investigate the factors that influence drivers' engagement in the fatal five behaviours. The study involved the use of a driver survey and an expert workshop to gather data on drivers' and road safety experts' perceptions of the causes of the fatal five behaviours. The findings from both were then mapped onto a recently developed systems model of the road transport system in Queensland (Qld), Australia (Salmon et al., 2016). The aim was to identify: (a) what factors lead to drivers engaging in each of the fatal five behaviours; and, (b) where these factors reside in the road transport system. The intention was to identify areas of the road transport system outside of drivers, vehicles and the road environment that would benefit from interventions designed to reduce crashes associated with the fatal five behaviours.
Section snippets
Road transport ‘systems’
A contribution of systems thinking-based road safety research has been to provide detailed models of road transport systems. These models depict road transport systems as a series of hierarchical levels comprising multiple interacting stakeholders (Parnell et al., 2017; Salmon et al., 2016; Young and Salmon, 2015). As well as road users, their vehicles their environment and widely known road safety stakeholders, these models also include various other actors and organisations involved in
Design
An online voluntary and anonymous survey study was used to gather data on drivers' perceptions of the factors that influence engagement in each of the fatal five behaviours. A convenience sampling approach was adopted. Formal approval for the study was granted by the University of the Sunshine Coast's research ethics committee.
Participants
Participants were 316 residents of Qld, Australia, who held a valid full driving licence. A summary of participants' gender, age, time spent living in Qld, and driving
Engagement in the fatal five behaviours
Participants' self-reported prevalence of engagement in each behaviour whilst driving is presented in Fig. 2.
The highest self-reported prevalence was for speeding, with just over three-quarters of participants reporting having previously driven above the speed limit (76.9%). Driving while fatigued or distracted/inattentive also had a high prevalence, with approximately two-thirds of participants reporting these behaviours (66.5% and 66.1%). Around a third of participants (32.3%) reported having
Study 2 - expert workshop
Six road safety experts took part in an expert workshop designed to identify factors across the road transport system that influence drivers' engagement in each of the eight behaviours. Potential workshop participants were invited based on their previous involvement in research involving the application of a systems thinking approach to one of the fatal five behaviours in the Australian context. A summary of the participants' experience in road safety research and practice is presented in Table
Discussion
This study was designed to investigate driver and road safety expert perceptions on the system-wide factors underpinning drivers' engagement in eight behaviours known to lead to fatal road crashes. Based on a survey of driver behaviour and an expert workshop, contributory factors were identified and mapped onto Salmon et al.’s (2016) Qld road transport system control structure.
Conclusion
This study has added to the growing consensus that road trauma is created by a web of interacting factors that span all levels of road transport systems. It is concluded that there are a range of diverse factors that potentially influence drivers' engagement in the fatal five behaviours known to play a direct causal role in road crashes. Whilst many of these factors reside within the road transport system, wider societal issues also have a key influence on driver behaviour. A consideration of
Acknowledgement
This research was funded through Paul Salmon's Australian Research Council Future Fellow grant (FT140100681). We would also like to acknowledge the two reviewers for their insightful and helpful comments on the original manuscript.
References (30)
- et al.
Efficacy of proxy definitions for identification of fatigue/sleep-related crashes: an Australian evaluation
Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
(2013) - et al.
Trends in reports of driving following illicit drug consumption among regular drug users in Australia, 2007–2013: has random roadside drug testing had a deterrent effect?
Accid. Anal. Prev.
(2017) - et al.
A comprehensive conceptual framework for road safety strategies
Accid. Anal. Prev.
(2016) Beyond ‘best practice’ road safety thinking and systems management – a case for culture change research
Saf. Sci.
(2010)- et al.
Impaired-driving recidivism among repeat offenders following an intensive court-based intervention
Accid. Anal. Prev.
(2006) - et al.
The need for a systems theory approach to road safety
Saf. Sci.
(2010) A new accident model for engineering safer systems
Saf. Sci.
(2004)- et al.
Driving under the influence of drugs: perceptions and attitudes of New Zealand drivers
Accid. Anal. Prev.
(2017) - et al.
Do not blame the driver: a systems analysis of the causes of road freight crashes
Accid. Anal. Prev.
(2015) - et al.
Reforming the road freight transportation system? An investigation of Coronial inquests in Australia
Accid. Anal. Prev.
(2017)
Age and gender comparisons of driving while sleepy: behaviours and risk perceptions
Transport. Res. F Traffic Psychol. Behav.
What's the law got to do with it? Legislation regarding in-vehicle technology use and its impact on driver distraction
Accid. Anal. Prev.
Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem
Saf. Sci.
Rasmussen's legacy in the great outdoors: a new incident reporting and learning system for led outdoor activities
Appl. Ergon.
Miles away or just around the corner: systems thinking in road safety research and practice
Accid. Anal. Prev.
Cited by (42)
The adoption and application of Intelligent Speed Assistance by private motorists: User and non-user perspectives
2023, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and BehaviourThe self-reported psychosocial and legal factors contributing to drink and drug driving
2023, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour