Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

How accurately do the drivers perceive the hazardous degrees of different mountainous highway traffic risk factors?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Cognition, Technology & Work Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Because of the complex topography in mountainous areas, road traffic risk factors like sharp turns, continuous long downhills, multi-tunnel sections and dangerous roadside environment are very common. The objective of this study was to analyze how accurately do the drivers perceive hazardous degrees of the above four mountainous highway traffic risk factors by making a comparison between subjective risk and objective risk. The results of subjective/perceived risk were based on a self-completion questionnaire survey in a sample of the drivers. 12,866 cases of mountainous highway crashes in Yunnan from 2015 to 2017 were used to establish the “objective/statistical risk” for various risk factors. The results show that as far as differences in hazardous degrees between different mountainous highway traffic risk factors are concerned, the comparisons show high correlations between statistical risk and perceived risk. Both the relative values of statistical risk and perceived risk corresponding to “multi-tunnel sections” are the highest, and the two relative values corresponding to “continuous long downhills” are the lowest. The factors of age, gender, crash experience and the injuries in the crashes of the drivers are proved to have effects on the corresponding perceived risk according to the investigation results. The elderly over 65 years old have much less insufficient perception of the mountainous highway traffic risk factors compared with the objective risk they are facing. There are great differences in statistical and perceived risk between female and male drivers who are between 18 and 24 years old, and the differences in other age groups are not as great as this age group. Drivers recovered from injuries perceived much higher hazardous degrees of all the studied four mountainous highway traffic risk factors than the uninjured drivers in the crashes. The results of this research can provide references for the drivers to modify their driving behaviors to be more appropriate to the circumstances according to the risk they perceive during their driving on the mountainous highways.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • af Wåhlberg A (2012) Changes in driver acceleration behaviour over time: do drivers learn from collisions? Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 15:471–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alm C, Lindberg E (2000) Perceived risk, feelings of safety and worry associated with different travel modes. Pilot study. KFTS Meddelande 7:1–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersson H (2007) Willingness to pay for road safety and estimates of the risk of death: evidence from a Swedish contingent valuation study. Accid Anal Prev 39:853–865

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burdett B, Charlton S, Starkey N (2016) Not all minds wander equally: the influence of traits, states and road environment factors on self-reported minds wandering during everyday driving. Accid Anal Prev 95:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton S, Starkey N (2013) Driving on familiar roads: automaticity and inattention blindness. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 19:121–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charlton S, Starkey N, Perrone J, Isler R (2014) What’s the risk? A comparison of actual and perceived driving risk. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 25:50–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen B, Yuan W, Fu R, Guo Y (2009) Analysis of traffic accident characteristic on continuous long downgrade section. J Traffic Transp Eng 9(4):75–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho G, Rodriguez D, Khattak A (2009) The role of the built environment in explaining relationships between perceived and actual pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Accid Anal Prev 41(4):692–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colonna P, Berloco N (2011) Internal and external risk of the user in road safety and the necessity for a control process, XXIV P.I.R.R.C. World road congress—Proceedings (Mexico city, September 2011)

  • Colonna P, Intini P, Berloco N, Ranieri V (2016) The influence of memory on driving behavior: an on-road study. Saf Sci 82:456–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox J, Beanland V, Filtness A (2017) Risk and safety perception on urban and rural roads: effects of environmental features, driver age and risk sensitivity. Traffic Injury Prev 18(7):703–710

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deery H, Fildes B (1999) Young novice driver subtypes: relationship to high-risk behavior, traffic accident record, and simulator driving performance. Hum Factors 41:628–643

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elvik R, Bjørnskau T (2005) How accurately does the public perceive differences in transport risks? An exploratory analysis of scales representing perceived risk. Accid Anal Prev 37:1005–1011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fyhri A, Backer-Grøndahl A (2012) Personality and risk perception in transport. Accid Anal Prev 49:470–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holdridge J, Shankar V, Ulfarsson G (2005) The crash severity impacts of fixed roadside objects. J Saf Res 36(2):139–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intini P, Berloco N, Colonna P, Ranieri V, Ryeng E (2018) Exploring the relationships between drivers’ familiarity and two-lane rural road accidents. A multi-level study. Accid Anal Prev 111:280–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Intini P, Colonna P, Ryeng E (2019) Route familiarity road safety: a literature review and an identification proposal. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 62:651–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jalayer M, Zhou H (2016) Evaluating the safety risk of roadside features for rural two-lane roads using reliability analysis. Accid Anal Prev 93:101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Koppel S, Bohensky M, Langford J, Taranto D (2011) Older drivers, crashes and injuries. Traffic Injury Prev 12(5):459–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liao J, Shao C, Wu H, Wang F (2012) Operating speed prediction model for trucks on long steep downgrades. Trans Beijing Inst Technol 32(1):118–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma Z, Shao C, Zhang S (2009) Characteristics of traffic accidents in Chinese freeway tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 24(3):350–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannering F, Grodsky L (1995) Statistical analysis of motorcyclists’ perceived accident risk. Accid Anal Prev 27(1):21–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens M (2018) Does road familiarity play a role? Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 57:23–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martens M, Fox M (2007) Do familiarity and expectations change perception? Drivers ‘glances and response to changes. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 10(6):476–492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meng X, Zhang X, Zheng L (2012) Prediction of rear-end collision on mountainous expressway based on geometric alignment and traffic conditions. China J Highw Transp 25(4):113–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Molnar L, Eby D, Charlton J, Langford J, Koppel S, Marshall S, Man-SonHing M (2013) Driving avoidance by older adults: is it always self-regulation? Accid Anal Prev 57:96–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noland R (1995) Perceived risk and modal choice: risk compensation in transportation system. Accid Anal Prev 27(4):503–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oltedal S, Rundmo T (2006) The effects of personality and gender on risky driving behaviour and accident involvement. Saf Sci 44:621–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prajapatiai P, Tiwari G (2013) Study of relation between actual and perceived crash risk. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 104:1095–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu S, Rachedi N, Sallak M, Vanderhaegen F (2017) A quantitative model for the risk evaluation of driver-ADAS systems under uncertainty. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 167:184–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rajalin S, Summala H (1997) What surviving drivers learn from a fatal accident. Accid Anal Prev 29:277–283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes N, Pivik K (2011) Age and gender differences in risky driving: the roles of positive affect and risk perception. Accid Anal Prev 43(3):923–931

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundmo T (1994) Occupational accidents and objective risk on north sea offshore installations. Saf Sci 17:103–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rundmo T, Nordfjærn T, Roche-Cerasi I (2013) Objective and perceived risk estimates of travel modes in the Norwegian public. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 19:1664–1681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sasaki T, Nogawa T, Yamada K, Kojima T, Kanaya K (2019) Hazard perception of stroke drivers in a video-based Japanese hazard perception task. Traffic Injury Prev 20(3):264–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun Q, Xia J, He J, Foster J, Falkmer T, Lee H (2018) Towards unpacking older drivers’ visual-motor coordination: a gaze-based integrated driving assessment. Accid Anal Prev 113:85–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson J, Baldock M, Dutschke J (2018) Trends in the crash involvement of older drivers in Australia. Accid Anal Prev 117:262–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulleberg P, Rundmo T (2003) Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behavior among young drivers. Saf Sci 41:427–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Urlings J, van Beers M, Cuenen A, Brijis K, Brijis T, Jongen E (2018) The relation between reinforcement sensitivity and self-reported, simulated and on-road driving in older drivers. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav 56:466–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (2012) Cooperation and learning to increase the autonomy of ADAS. Cogn Technol Work 14(1):61–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F (2013) A dissonance management model for risk analysis. In: 12th IFAC/IFIP/IFORS/IEA symposium on analysis, design, and evaluation of human–machine systems, 11–15 August 2013, Las Vegas, USA, pp 395–401

  • Vanderhaegen F (2014) Dissonance engineering: a new challenge to analyse risky knowledge when using a system. Int J Comput Commun Control 9(6):776–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanderhaegen F, Carsten O (2017) Can dissonance engineering improve risk analysis of human-machine systems? Cogn Technol Work 19(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Pervez A, Wang Z et al (2018) Crash analysis of Chinese freeway tunnel groups using a five-zone analytic approach. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 82:358–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang K, Zhang W, Liu J et al (2019) Exploring the factors affecting myopic drivers’ driving skills and risk perception in nighttime driving. Cogn Technol Work 21(2):275–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watling C, Armstrong K, Smith S, Obst P (2016) Crash risk perception of sleepy driving and its comparisons with drink driving and speeding: which behavior is perceived as the riskiest? Traffic Injury Prev 17(4):400–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen H, Xue G (2019) Exploring the relationships between single-vehicle traffic accident and driver’s route familiarity on the mountainous highways. Cogn Technol Work 21:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu M, Huang X, Zhang C, Shao D (2016) Application of fuzzy synthesis evaluation to driving safety analysis of sharp curves on mountain expressways. China J Highw Transp 29(6):186–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue G, Hu L, Sun Y et al (2015) Analysis of the temperature thresholds of medium-sized truck’s drum brake system based on simulative continuous brake in the continuous long downhill. J Wuhan Univ Technol (Transp Sci Eng) 39(5):1069–1073

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang B, Liang K, Zhao X et al (2019) Psychological influences on drivers’ yielding behavior at the crosswalk of intersections. Cogn Technol Work 21:1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yanko M, Spalek T (2013) Route familiarity breeds inattention: a driving simulator study. Accid Anal Prev 57:80–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu R, Abdel-Aty M, Ahmed M (2013) Bayesian random effect models incorporating real-time weather and traffic data to investigate mountainous freeway hazardous factors. Accid Anal Prev 50:371–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu B, Chen Y, Bao S, Xu D (2018) Quantifying drivers’ visual perception to analyze accident-prone locations on two-lane mountain highways. Accid Anal Prev 119:122–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng Q, Gu W, Zhang X et al (2019) Analyzing freeway crash severity using a Bayesian spatial generalized ordered logit model with conditional autoregressive priors. Accid Anal Prev 127:87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao Y, Zhang S, Ma Z (2018) Analysis of traffic severity on highway tunnels using the partial proportion odds model. China J Highw Transp 31(9):159–166

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant no. 51578247).The author is very grateful to the authors of cited papers.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Civil Engineering and Transportation, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, 510000, Guangdong, China

    Gang Xue & Huiying Wen

Authors
  1. Gang Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huiying Wen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gang Xue.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xue, G., Wen, H. How accurately do the drivers perceive the hazardous degrees of different mountainous highway traffic risk factors?. Cogn Tech Work 23, 177–187 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-020-00623-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10111-020-00623-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation