A Dıfferent Model Wıthın Traffıc Safety: Risk Homeostasis Theory

Abstract

Despite many improvements, practices, and regulations to increase traffic safety and reduce traffic accidents, why are traffic accidents not decreasing? The answer to this question depends on how drivers perceive risks and regulate their driving behavior. Risk perception is an essential factor that affects drivers' evaluations while driving, and thus traffic safety. In this study, how drivers perceive risks, what factors affect their perceptions, and as a result, how drivers regulate their behaviors according to risks are examined through the Risk Homeostasis Theory. According to this theory, drivers adjust their driving behaviors to maximize their advantage and balance the risk by comparing the risks they perceive depending on the conditions with the risks they target. It is seen, as a result of the comparison, that any practice that reduces the perceived risk or increases the targeted risk leads risky behaviors to increase, and thus, the number of accidents remains relatively high. In this context, the study aims, including primary and current empirical research, to explain the effects of drivers' risk perceptions on their assessments and behaviors according to the Risk Homeostasis Theory in traffic and transportation psychology while driving and to provide information about alternative fields of study.

Keywords

• Trafik Güvenliği
• Risk Dengeleme Teorisi
• Risk Algısı
• Derleme

Trafik Güvenliği Kapsamında Farklı Bir Model: Risk Dengeleme Teorisi

Abstract

Trafik güvenliğini artırmak ve trafik kazalarını azaltmak için yapılan birçok iyileştirme, uygulama ve düzenlemeye rağmen trafikteki kazalar neden azalmıyor? Bu sorunun cevabı risklerin sürücüler tarafından nasıl algılandığına ve algılamalarına göre sürüş sırasındaki davranışlarını nasıl düzenlediklerine bağlı olarak değişmektedir. Risk algısı sürücülerin değerlendirmelerini ve dolayısıyla trafik güvenliğini etkiyen önemli bir faktördür. Bu çalışmada, risklerin sürücüler tarafından nasıl algılandığı, algılamalarını etkileyen faktörlerin neler olduğu ve bunun sonucunda sürücülerin davranışlarını risklere göre nasıl düzenledikleri Risk Dengeleme Teorisi temelinde incelenmektedir. Bu teoriye göre, sürücüler koşullara bağlı olarak algıladıkları riskleri, hedefledikleri riskler ile karşılaştırarak sürüş sırasındaki davranışlarını avantajlarını en üste çıkaracak şekilde düzenlemekte ve riski dengelemektedirler. Karşılaştırmanın sonucunu etkileyen, algılanan riskin azalmasını ya da hedeflenen riskin artmasını sağlayan her bir uygulamanın riskli davranışları artırdığı ve bu yüzden, kaza sayılarının anlamlı şekilde azalmadığı ifade edilmektedir. Bu kapsamda çalışman amacı, trafik ve ulaşım psikolojisi içerisinde Risk Dengeleme Teorisi’ne göre sürücülerin risk algılarının, değerlendirmelerine ve sürüş sırasındaki davranışlarına olan etkilerini temel ve güncel ampirik araştırmaları kapsayacak şekilde açıklamak ve alternatif çalışma alanlarıyla ilgili bilgi sağlamaktır.

Keywords

• Trafik Güvenliği
• Risk Dengeleme Teorisi
• Risk Algısı
• Derleme

References

1. Adams, J. G. U. (1988). Risk homeostasis and the purpose of safety regulation. Ergonomics, 31(4). 407-428. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140138808966688
2. Alexanderson, S. (1972). Some Data About Traffic and Traffic Accidents. Stockholm: The Swedish Road Safety Office.
3. Azık, D. ve Biçer, D. Ö. (2014). Emniyet kemeri kullanımı ve hız arasındaki iki yönlü ilişki: Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi’nde bir gözlemsel çalışma. Karayolu Trafik Güvenliği 5. Karayolu Trafik Güvenliği Sempozyumu ve Sergisi seçilmiş bildiriler I içinde (ss. 119-130). Ankara: İklim.
4. Ba, Y., Zhang, W., Chan, A. H., Zhang, T. ve Cheng, A. S. (2016). How drivers fail to avoid crashes: A risk-homeostasis/perception-response (RH/PR) framework evidenced by visual perception, electrodermal activity and behavioral responses. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology And Behaviour, 43, 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.09.025
5. Brémond, R., Dommes, A. ve Engel, L. (2018). Driving at night with a cataract: Risk homeostasis? Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 53(2), 61–73. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2017.12.009
6. Deery, H. A. (1999). Hazard and risk perception among young novice drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 30(4), 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(99)00018-3
7. Dula, C. S. ve Geller, E. S. (2003). Risky, aggressive, or emotional driving: addressing the need for consistent communication in research. Journal of Safety Research, 34(5), 559–566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2003.03.004
8. Elander, J., West, R. ve French, D. (1993). Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: an examination method and findings. Psychological Bulletin, 113(2), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.113.2.279

9. Emniyet Genel Müdürlüğü. (2022). Aylık kaza raporları. Erişim Tarihi: 11.11.2022, http://trafik.gov.tr/istatistikler37.
10. Evans, L. (1986). Comments on Wilde's notes on "Risk homeostasis theory and traffic accident data." Risk Analysis, 6(1), 103–107. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1986.tb00198.x
11. Evans, L. (1996a). The dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. American Journal of Public Health, 86(6), 784–786. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.86.6.784
12. Evans, L. (1996b). Safety-belt effectiveness: the influence of crash severity and selective recruitment. Accident; analysis and prevention, 28(4), 423–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(96)00006-1
13. Fuller, R. (1984). A conceptualization of driving behaviour as threat avoidance. Ergonomics, 27(11), 1139- 1155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140138408963596
14. Fuller, R. (2005). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37(3), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2004.11.003
15. Harano, R. M. ve Hubert, D. E. (1974). An evaluation of California's" good driver" incentive program. Sacramento, CA: Department of Motor Vehicles, (NTIS No. PB-235032/AS)
16. Hauer, E. ve Gårder, P. (1986). Research into the validity of the traffic conflicts technique. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18(6), 471–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(86)90020-5
17. Heino, A., van der Molen, H. ve Wilde, G. J. S. (1996). Differences in risk experience between sensation avoiders and sensation seekers. Personality and Individual Differences, 20(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(95)00152-V
18. Hoyes, T. W. ve Glendon, A. I. (1993). Risk homeostasis: issues for future research. Safety Science, 16(1), 19-33.
19. Inagaki, T. (2008). Smart collaborations between humans and machines with mutual understanding. Annual Reviews in Control, 32(2), 253–261. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.arcontrol.2008.07.003
20. Jackson, J. S. H. ve Blackman, R. (1994). A driving-simulator test of Wilde's risk homeostasis theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 950–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.950
21. Janssen, W. (1994). Seat-belt wearing and driving behavior: An instrumented-vehicle study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26(2), 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(94)90095-7
22. Kita, E., Luria, G., Pindek, S., Albert, G. ve Lotan, T. (2022). The use of risk homeostasis theory to reduce smartphone use during low-speed driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 168, 106596. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106596
23. Liban, C. B., Vingilis, E. R. ve Blefgen, H. (1987). The Canadian drinking–driving countermeasure experience. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 19(3), 159–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(87)90001-7
24. Lund, A. K. ve Zador, P. (1984). Mandatory belt use and driver risk taking. Risk Analysis, 4(1). 41-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1984.tb00130.x
25. Lund, A. K. ve Williams, A. F. (1985). A review of the literature evaluating the Defensive Driving Course. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 17(6), 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(85)90040-5
26. Lund, A. K. ve Ferguson, S. A. (1995). Driver fatalities in 1985-1993 cars with airbags. The Journal of trauma, 38(4), 469–475. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-199504000-00001
27. Lyu, N., Duan, Z., Ma, C. ve Wu, C. (2021). Safety margins–a novel approach from risk homeostasis theory for evaluating the impact of advanced driver assistance systems on driving behavior in near-crash events. Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 25(1), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2020.1795846
28. McKenna, F. P. (1990). In defence of conventional safety measures: A reply to G. J. S. Wilde. Journal of Occupational Accidents, 11(3), 171-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-6349(90)90027-S
29. Nȁȁtȁnen, R. ve Summala, H. (1976). Road User Behavior and Traffic Accidents. North-Holland/American Elsevier: Amsterdam/New York
30. O'Neill, B.ve Williams, A. (1998). Risk homeostasis hypothesis: A rebuttal. Injury Prevention, 4(2), 92-93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ip.4.2.92
31. Orr, L. (1982). Goals, risk and choices. Risk Analysis, 2, 239-242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01387.x
32. Oviedo-Trespalacios, O., Haque, M. M., King, M. ve Washington, S. (2017). Effects of road infrastructure and traffic complexity in speed adaptation behaviour of distracted drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 101, 67-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.01.018
33. Peltzman, S. (1975). The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation. Journal of Political Economy, 83(4), 677–725. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1830396
34. Peterson, S., Hoffer, G. ve Millner, E. (1995). Are drivers of air-bag-equipped cars more aggressive? A test of the offsetting behavior hypothesis. The Journal of Law and Economics, 38(2), 251-264. https://doi.org/10.1086/467331
35. Ranney, T. A. (1994). Models of driving behavior: A review of their evolution. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26(6), 733–750. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(94)90051-5
36. Robertson, L. S. (1992). Injury Epidemiology. Oxford University Press, USA.
37. Sagberg, F., Fosser, S. ve Saetermo, I. A. (1997). An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29(3), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-4575(96)00083-8
38. Simonet, S. ve Wilde, G. J. (1997). Risk: perception, acceptance and homeostasis. Applied Psychology, 46(3): 235-252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01228.x
39. Slovic, P. ve Fischhoff, B. (1982). Targeting risks. Risk Analysis, 2(4), 227-234. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01385.x
40. Slovic P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science (New York, N.Y.), 236(4799), 280–285. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3563507
41. Streff, F. M. ve Geller, E. S. (1988). An experimental test of risk compensation: Between-subject versus within-subject analyses. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 20(4), 277–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(88)90055-3
42. Theeuwes, J., Alferdinck, J. W. ve Perel, M. (2002). Relation between glare and driving performance. Human factors, 44(1), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1518/0018720024494775
43. Tränkle, U. ve Gelau, C. (1992). Maximization of subjective expected utility or risk control? Experimental tests of risk homeostasis theory. Ergonomics, 35(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139208967794
44. Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu. (2022). Karayolu trafik kaza istatistikleri, 2021. Erişim Tarihi: 11.11.2022, https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Karayolu-Trafik-Kaza-Istatistikleri-2021-45658
45. Unrau, D.D. (2004). Driver response to rainfall on the Gardiner Expressway. (Unpublished Master’s thesis). University of Western Ontario, Waterloo.
46. Wilde, G. J. S. (1982). The theory of risk homeostasis: implications for safety and health. Risk Analysis, 2(4), 209-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1982.tb01384.x
47. Wilde, G. J. S. (1988). Risk homeostasis theory and traffic accidents: propositions, deductions and discussion of dissension in recent reactions. Ergonomics, 31(4), 441-468. DOI: 10.1080/00140138808966691
48. Wilde, G. J. S. ve Simonet, S. L. (1996). Economic fuctuations and the traffic accident rate in Switzerland: a longitudinal perspective. Berne: Swiss Council for Accident Prevention. Erişim Tarihi: 31.01.2023, https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/6068312/economic-fluctuations-and-the-traffic-accident-rate-in-switzerland-
49. Wilde, G. J. S. (1998). Risk homeostasis theory: an overview. Injury prevention, 4(2), 89-91. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.4.2.89
50. Wilde, G. J. S. (2002). Does risk homeostasis theory have implications for road safety? British Medical Journal, 324(7346), 1149–1152.
51. Wilde, G. J. S. (2013). Homeostasis drives behavioural adaptation. Behavioural adaptation and road safety: Theory, evidence and action. C. Rudin-Brown ve S. Jamson (Ed.), Behavioural adaptation and road safety: Theory, evidence and action içinde (ss. 61-86). Boca Raton: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/b14931
52. Williams, A. F., Wells, J. K. ve Lund, A. K. (1990). Seat belt use in cars with air bags. American Journal of Public Health, 80(12), 1514–1516. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.80.12.1514
53. World Health Organization. (‎2021)‎. World health statistics 2021: monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals. World Health Organization. Erişim Tarihi: 11.11.2022, https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/342703.
54. Zein, S. R. ve Navin, F. P. D. (2003). Improving Traffic Safety: A New Systems Approach. Transportation Research Record, 1830(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3141/1830-01