Although business drivers might hesitate to admit it, many will attribute human-like qualities to their car, known as anthropomorphising. This could be as simple as treating it as male or female or even giving it a name. So, if some people treat their car more like a person, does this influence the way in which they drive?

In 2007 researchers from Colorado State University conducted a study to analyse if drivers were giving their cars human characteristics, and whether this tendency was associated with different driving behaviours. They asked each participant whether their car was male or female and if their car had a name. Additionally, they asked each participant to complete a questionnaire in which they reported their own personality characteristics. Participants were also asked to imagine their car’s “personality” and to complete another questionnaire giving those details.

Nearly half of the participants reported that they assigned a sex to their car, with 28% reporting that their car was female and 20% reporting that their car was male. The researchers found significant differences in behaviour traits between those who gave their car a sex and those who did not. People who classified their car as either male or female reported having higher levels of driving aggression than those who did not but surprisingly there was no difference in driving behaviour between people with ‘male cars’ and those with ‘female cars’.

When it came to naming their cars, just over a quarter of the participants admitted they did. In contrast to those who assigned a sex to their car, there were no differences in driving behaviour between those who named their car and those who didn’t. The researchers also looked at whether the type of name that was given to a car was associated with the owner’s driving behaviour. Car names were classified as either aggressive (e.g. Rambo) or non-aggressive (e.g. Tigger), but still there was no difference in driving behaviour between these drivers.

Possibly the most interesting aspect of the study was the findings relating to the driver’s and the car’s own personalities. The researchers examined five personality traits: agreeableness, extraversion, conscientiousness, openness and neuroticism.

Firstly, there were correlations between the driver’s and the car’s personalities but they were relatively small. This is important, as it means that drivers were not simply projecting their own personality onto their car. If this were the case, the two personality measures would be perfectly correlated. The small correlations suggest that drivers perceive their cars as having their own personalities, with distinct and independent traits.

For both the driver’s and the car’s personality, the traits of extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness are the best predictors of aggressive driving. Driving is more aggressive if people are highly extraverted or score low on agreeableness or conscientiousness. However, the most important aspect of the analysis examined whether the driver’s or the car’s personality was the best predictor of aggressive behaviour.

Amazingly, for some aspects of driving behaviour, the car’s personality was a better predictor than the driver’s personality! If a car was viewed as not having a very agreeable or conscientious personality, the driver tended to express their anger through their use of the vehicle, for example flashing their lights or driving too close to another car. Drivers of cars with low agreeableness also reported higher levels of aggressiveness on a number of scales, including being verbally and physically aggressive whilst driving.

What is particularly important in this study is that, in some cases, the personality that is attributed to a car by its driver seems to influence driving behaviour. So it may be that drivers are attempting to separate themselves from their aggressive driving behaviours by “blaming” the personality characteristics of the car that they are driving. This leaves us with the very interesting conclusion that we can reduce our aggressive driving by viewing our cars as less aggressive and extraverted, and instead as more agreeable and conscientious.

Dr Victoria Bourne MsC (Hons) PhD

Consultant to Driving Risk Management Limited

Over the past ten years a large number of online assessments have been developed to allow employers to quickly, easily and cheaply understand their employees driving behaviours and attitudes, including whether they are “risky drivers”. Whilst these assessments do provide a valuable source of information on employees’ driving behaviours, I suspect that the responses from employees might be influenced by social desirability.

Toward the end of the 1990’s a research team from the Traffic Research Unit in Finland developed a questionnaire to specifically measure social desirability in surveys of driving behaviour – the Driver Social Desirability Scale. The questionnaire included 25 items and was completed by more than four hundred participants from Finland and Australia.

From their analysis they identified two distinct aspects of driver social desirability. People scoring highly on the Driver Impression Management scale were more likely to lie about their actual driving behaviours, for example reporting that they would never exceed the speed limit or had driven through a traffic light turning red. People with high scores on the second scale, Driver Self-Deception, tended to overestimate their own driving beliefs. For example, they’re more likely to report being calm, confident and rational when driving.

While most people seek social desirability, some are more susceptible to it than others. Some people will give very honest (but possibly not very desirable) responses to driver assessments, whereas others are more likely to given socially desirable (but possibly not very honest) responses. Are there differences in driving behaviours and attitudes between these types of people?

An international team of researchers examined the relationship between social desirability, using the Driver Social Desirability Scale, and driving behaviours. They found that high scores on the social desirability scale were associated with fewer self-reported traffic collisions, but that they were not associated with the number of incidents recorded by the employing organisation. This means that people who seek social desirability, and want to be seen as good drivers, tend to report being safer drivers than the objective evidence suggests.

Online assessments of driver behaviour have many advantages. It’s easy, quick and cheap to assess the driving behaviours and attitudes of a large number of employees. It’s then possible to identify individuals who report more driving errors or violations or who are riskier drivers and then arrange further training for them. However, it’s important to bear in mind the possible effects of social desirability, which means that some people who might benefit from additional training are not identified.

Many of the recently developed self-report measures include items to test for social desirability. However, simply asking people how good they are at driving is not necessarily the most accurate way of finding out how good they really are. Having an awareness of social desirability when looking at self-report assessments will help a manager to have a better understanding of a driver’s attitudes and behaviours, which should then feed into the development of driver training and other interventions.

Dr Victoria Bourne (BA Hons, DPhil)

Counsultant to Driving Risk Management

So, how much do the organisational climate and employer attitudes influence the driving behaviours of employees? A number of psychological studies have examined this relationship. So, can different approaches to driver training, and health and safety implementation, actually lead to employees driving in a safer way?

Recently, a review of driving safety at work was conducted by Australian researchers Sharon Newnam and Barry Watson, in the light of evidence showing that driving incidents are the most common reason of injury and death in the workplace. One aspect they considered was the organisational procedures, which was found to have three key components:

• holding a crash reporting database
• procuring/maintaining vehicles
• the recruitment and training of drivers.

Newnam and Watson concluded that the interventions instigated and implemented by senior management were essential to successfully increase safe driving behaviours. They also suggested that employees report safer driving behaviours when they have supervisors and fleet managers who encourage safety-related discussions and interventions. This shows the importance of adopting an organisational climate that is driving safety-aware at all levels, from the company directors right through to the company drivers themselves.

A research group in Finland, headed by Bahar Oz, asked 230 professional drivers to complete two questionnaires. One asked about their own driving behaviours and the other asked about the organisational culture of the company they work for. They found that the organisation’s culture divided into two key aspects: work orientation and employee consideration. Each aspect was differently associated with employee driving behaviour.

People who worked for companies with high work orientation scores, companies that actively promote the effective running of a company, were likely to report fewer intentional driving violations and more positive driving behaviours. In contrast, people working for companies that have high levels of employee consideration reported higher levels of unintentional driving errors, but lower levels of intentional driving violations. This finding is both interesting and important, as it highlights that companies which are openly considerate of their employees’ needs are likely to be rewarded by safer employee driving behaviours, and consequently less associated time and financial loss.

Research conducted at Cranfield University in the UK has also shown that driver training can increase safe driving behaviours. They compared the driving behaviours of drivers who had received professional training with those who had not. In a driving simulator they found that those who had received that training had better lane positioning, slower driving speeds and generally safer driving behaviours.

The research clearly shows that a company’s attitude to driving for work can change or influence an employee’s driving behaviours. In order to create the most advantageous organisational climate, companies need to pay particular attention to showing consideration to their employees and the training they provide. Such a climate leads to employees driving in a safer way, whereby they have fewer traffic incidents and violations. This in turn leads to savings for the company and better health and well being for the employee. In these difficult financial times many companies are searching for ways to save money so investing in driver safety is likely to provide long term benefits financially.

Dr Victoria Bourne (BA Hons, DPhil)

Counsultant to Driving Risk Management  

While this is obviously an important issue for companies to consider, being involved in a vehicle collision may also have serious consequences for the employee involved in the crash. Not only is there a risk of physical injury, but there can also be negative psychological effects after being involved in a collision, which are far less discussed and acknowledged.

One study, conducted by Jennifer Lucas and published in the Transportation Research Journal in 2003, gave a range of psychological questionnaires to 124 drivers, 42 of whom had been involved in at least one motor vehicle collision within the past five years.

Drivers who had been involved in a collision reported significantly greater fear of personal safety, worries about driving and being more stressed when driving. There were also some sex differences in the psychological consequences of being involved in a motor vehicle collision. Women were significantly more likely to report an increased fear of personal safety when driving than men. However, men and women reported very similar levels of worries and stresses about driving.

Studies such as the one conducted by Lucas show that being involved in a motor vehicle collision can have negative psychological consequences, but for some people these consequences are more severe and can develop into a clinical psychological condition.

A key distinction when considering the psychological consequences of being involved in a collision is the difference between early and late psychological trauma. Early psychological traumas occur immediately after the incident, but tend to be relatively short lived. In contrast late psychological trauma can be longer lasting.

After being involved in an incident people are often described as being in “shock”. This is an early reaction to being involved in a traumatic event and it is more accurately called an acute stress reaction. This response usually occurs within a few minutes of the traumatic experience and people may report feeling “fuzzy headed”, having anxiety and depression, as well as fear. They may even withdraw from situations that remind them about the event. Typically this acute stress reaction lasts for a few days and the individual suffers no further negative psychological consequences.

A more severe and serious response to being involved in a collision is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Many research papers have investigated PTSD following vehicle collisions, and while some find that up to 50% of individuals involved in a collision develop PTSD, most studies report a figure closer to 10-15%.

The key distinction between PTSD and an acute stress reaction is that PTSD occurs for longer than one month after the incident. In fact, the symptoms may not even emerge until up to six months after the traumatic experience.

Typically individuals who have PTSD report frequent nightmares and flashbacks, where they have vivid memories of the incident, to the point where they feel like they are reliving the traumatic experience. They are also likely to avoid being in situations that remind them of the incident, so they may avoid having to drive altogether. According to the current clinical diagnosis criteria, if these negative consequences last for longer than a month, and impact on the person’s personal, social or professional life, it is possible that the individual may be diagnosed with clinical PTSD.

Not everyone develops PTSD, so why might some people be more likely to develop PTSD after a vehicle collision? A recent study conducted at the University of Lyon in France found that people were more likely to develop PTSD if they either suffered an injury which was still causing pain six months later or if they felt that they were not responsible for the incident in the first place.

One of the most frequently used treatments for PTSD is cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and research has examined how effective this method of treatment might be for people experiencing PTSD following a motor vehicle collision.

Gayle Beck and colleagues from the University of Memphis compared the severity of PTSD symptoms in individuals who had been diagnosed with PTSD after being involved in a collision. Half of the participants in the study received group CBT, whereas the other half received no CBT. For those in the treatment group, after three months only 12% still met the criteria for clinical PTSD. In comparison, 69% of those in the no treatment group still met the clinical criteria.

All organisations that employ people who drive as part of their job have a legal responsibility towards their safety. Most companies adopt policies focussed on reducing the risk of vehicle collisions. Whilst this is an essential aspect of road safety, perhaps companies could also consider implementing policies to help employees who are involved in vehicle collisions return to work in full psychological health as soon as possible.

This would not only avoid financial losses for the company, but would also reduce stress and anxiety for employees.

Dr Victoria Bourne (BA Hons, DPhil)

Consultant to Driving Risk Management ltd

A great deal of research has examined how our driving changes when additional safety features are introduced. One of the first researchers to suggest this pattern of driving behaviour was Gerald Wilde in the 1980′s, who proposed the ‘risk homoeostasis’ theory, more commonly referred to as “risk compensation”.

According to this hypothesis, each driver has a certain level of risk that they are willing to take when driving and this level is maintained regardless of how many safety features the vehicle has. Essentially, if someone is prepared to drive in a risky manner, they will increase the riskiness of their driving when they are in a vehicle with many safety features.

Since then, research has examined how people adjust their driving behaviours in response to a wide range of different safety devices.

In a series of studies throughout the 1990’s Fridulv Sagberg and colleagues from the Institute of Transport Economics examined how driving behaviours change when safety devices are introduced. In one study they considered how the use of ABS and airbags influenced the driving behaviours of taxi drivers. One of the key differences they found was that seatbelt usage decreased and drivers tended to adopt close following behaviours when the taxi was fitted with ABS.  In another study the research group found that improved street lighting was associated with faster driving speeds and reduced concentration.

One interesting development of the risk compensation hypothesis is that drivers adapt their behaviours differently for different safety devices. An example would be ABS, a dynamic device designed to reduce the risk of a collision occurring, as opposed to non dynamic devices designed to reduce the risk of injury, such as airbags.

Sagberg suggested that people are far more likely to engage in risk compensation behaviours when driving a vehicle with collision avoidance mechanisms, so increasing the riskiness of their driving. In contrast, no compensation or change in the riskiness of their driving seems to occur when driving a vehicle with injury-reducing devices. This seems to suggest that people are willing to risk having a crash, but not to be injured as a result.

One important point to remember about risk compensation behaviours is that they are not a conscious decision. People do not decide to drive in a riskier manner just because they have air bags and ABS brakes. Instead, people unconsciously adjust their acceptable levels of risk according to the safety features of the vehicle they are driving.

To improve safety and reduce risk when driving it is important to understand how driving styles might adjust according to the vehicle being driven. Regardless of how many safety features might be installed, the most important and effective source of safety is the driver. Awareness of the risks that you take when driving and techniques that can be adopted to reduce risk taking is still clearly the best way to avoid a collision.

Dr Victoria Bourne  (BA Hons, DPhil)

Consultant to Driving Risk Management Limited

Although these statistics may be alarming, it’s also important to note that the number of incidents and fatalities within this age group has halved over the past 10-15 years. This means that these incidents are preventable and avoidable, probably through a mixture of improved safety features in cars and an improved understanding of how people learn to drive, which in turn leads to more effective training.

So how are the driving behaviours of novice drivers different to the driving behaviours of experienced drivers and how can their skills be developed and improved to avoid risks?

A recent study, conducted by a team of researchers at the University of Rome, examined driving behaviours in novice drivers. They asked more than a thousand drivers aged 18-23 years old to complete a number of different questionnaires which asked about driving habits, attitudes towards driving and personality traits. They then analysed these questionnaire responses to identify different groups of novice drivers and found that there were three different “types” of new drivers:

Risky drivers
About 34% of drivers were categorised as ‘risky’, were more likely to be males and tended to spend more time driving each week. They were also more likely to have negative attitudes towards driving rules, so they were more likely to believe that speeding or drink driving are acceptable. Risky drivers also reported more driving problems in terms of violations, lapses and errors; however they were only slightly more likely to have been involved in an incident or to have been given a ticket.

Worried drivers
Around 28% of novice drivers were worried drivers, with a higher proportion likely to be females. These drivers have the highest scores on traffic risk perception tests, tend to view speeding and drink driving negatively and are less likely to make driving errors. Worried drivers also have lower levels of driving anger, but higher levels of driving anxiety than risky drivers.

Careful drivers
The third type of novice driver is the careful driver. These make up about 38% of novice drivers and are equally likely to be male or female. Careful drivers are significantly less prone to driving errors than both risky and worried drivers, and they are less likely to have been involved in a crash. However, careful drivers also spend significantly less time driving. They also have lower levels of driving anger than both risky and worried drivers and lower levels of anxiety than worried drivers, but higher levels of anxiety than risky drivers.

A consistent finding across all three types of new driver is that they have strong emotional responses to driving, whether that’s high levels of anger or high levels of anxiety. On the basis of this finding, the researchers suggested that the most effective training for new drivers will involve guidance on how to deal and cope with these emotional responses. Both anger and anxiety can increase the chances of driving errors which can result in an incident.

One important point to remember is that a “new” driver isn’t necessarily a “bad” driver. Drivers of all ages and with wide ranging levels of experience benefit from ongoing training to develop and improve their driving skills, knowledge and behaviour. With new drivers, they may just need a slightly different kind of support and training. By identifying the kind of new driver that they are, and the areas in which they can be supported and provided with appropriate training, anyone has the potential to be a safe and effective driver.

Dr Victoria Bourne  (BA Hons, DPhil)

Consultant to Driving Risk Management Limited

Yes! It is a victory for male drivers everywhere! But is it that simple? Were insurance companies justified in over-charging men for all these years? If men and women were to both take driver risk assessments, who would come off better?
It must have angered male drivers that they have to pay more than the fairer sex due to the stereotype of the boy racer. Unfortunately, official figures back up the insurance companies’ concerns.

Insurance is all about risk and unfortunately young men are a much greater liability. In 2009, 13% of drivers reported in accidents were young males (17-24 years old). In comparison, women of the same age bracket were involved in just 8%. This evidence suggests that male drivers would benefit from a driver risk assessment.

So is it discrimination if young men are a genuine risk? Would it be unfair for insurance companies to charge more for home insurance if you lived in a bad neighbourhood? No, again it’s all about risk.

It is a topic that can be argued long into the night, but unless we are all willing to pay a flat rate for insurance and pay the same as worse drivers, then perhaps the gender difference is fully justified.

+++

Driving Risk Management offer in-vehicle Driver Risk Assessment.

Driver development involves teaching the driver how to be more fuel efficient. Reports show that 10%-15% savings can be achieved through eco-driving.

But if that’s not enough, you could also look into changing the vehicle itself to something more fuel-efficient. It seems as if 2011 is set to be the year of the Electric Car, with every car manufacturer releasing or planning to release a hybrid or fully electric model over the next 12 months. We take a closer look at some of the emerging market leaders of the year so far.

The Chevrolet Volt: Making headlines in the U.S., the Chevrolet Volt has already been crowned 2011 Green Car of the Year at the LA Auto Show only a few months after its release.  Thanks to this and an increase in public demand, General Motors are planning on putting significant investment into the model.

The Nissan Leaf: Named the 2011 European Car of the Year, the Nissan Leaf has seen massive sales all around the world and has just arrived in the UK. With an all-electric, emission-free range of 100 miles, the Nissan Leaf is ideal for those looking to travel around the city in a clean and efficient manner.

The Smart for Two: SMART has also released an electric car to enormous fanfare. Like its petrol equivalent, the SMART ForTwo allows for easier parking, but now with the added bonus of being completely green.

The Toyota Prius: Thought strictly a hybrid, we couldn’t go without mentioning the model that is arguably responsible for transforming the market and increasing demands for greener cars. Constantly popular and ever in-demand, the Prius was and still is a market game-changer.

With fuel prices steadily going up, it is no surprise consumers are turning to electric models. Even major sedan manufacturers like BMW are noticing the trend and are producing greener models such as their electric, carbon fibre Megacity Vehicle, which is due for release next year.

+++

Driving risk management for Driver Development courses.

Some are obvious, such as making sure your vehicles have regular MOTs, ensuring that the tyres are fully inflated and making sure the vehicle carries as little weight as possible. However seeing as many companies that use fleets work in logistics, saving weight isn’t always an option. There are some rules though, that if followed, can facilitate fuel efficient driving and therefore greatly save costs.

Driving speed is an important factor. As you’d expect, the faster you drive, the more fuel you burn so if you want to save money on your fleet, get your drivers to maintain a moderate pace. One way of doing this is to have a fuel consumption read-out, which allows the drivers to identify bad habits as well as keep track of consumption.

Changing to higher gears when the traffic allows, as well as avoiding heavy congestion, also provides savings, but there are little changes that can also assist fuel efficient driving. These include:

• Not starting the engine until you’re ready to go
• Driving smoothly, accelerate gently, anticipate
• Cutting down on the air-con
• Turn off heaters, demisters, headlights
• Turning off the engine if you are stuck in a queue

 +++

For UK companies, Driving Risk Management offer a range of products and services to help you reduce your vehicle fleet running costs such as fuel efficient driving courses and high performance driving courses.

There are some obvious reasons why older adults might be more at risk of causing a crash; deteriorating eyesight and motor control are two factors that may contribute, but they by no means provide a complete explanation. Indeed, much of the increased risk can be explained in terms of the psychological changes and cognitive decline that occurs in later life.

Driving is a highly complex activity, requiring the driver to allocate their attention to a range of different tasks but attention is one aspect of cognitive processing that declines in later life. Researcher Liisa Hakamies-Blomqvist has suggested that this may be one of the main contributory factors.

She asked older and middle-aged drivers whether they were aware of the risk of a collision before it occurred. For the middle-aged drivers 74% were aware, but only 66% of the older adults were aware. It seems that older drivers may find it difficult to monitor and pay attention to all the different aspects of driving. They are therefore not likely to notice a potential danger and would be unable to attempt to avoid an incident.

The cognitive decline that many older adults experience may also contribute to increased driving risk. Professor Timothy Salthouse from the University of Virginia is one of the leading experts in cognitive ageing. He has suggested that one of the main consequences of cognitive ageing is a decrease in the speed with which information can be processed. This means that older adults may take longer to notice a potential hazard and to then respond to it. Salthouse has also suggested that older adults find it difficult to process multiple pieces of information at the same time. Consequently they may tend to concentrate on one aspect of driving at a time. Given how rapidly things occur when driving, it’s easy to imagine how challenging driving would be if you could only pay attention to one thing at a time and slowly process that information before moving on to process the next piece.

Although there are a number of reasons why drivers become more accident prone in old age, there are actually some aspects of driving in which older drivers are less risky. For instance, the elderly are far less likely to drive after consuming alcohol and are more likely to wear prescription glasses whilst driving. Also, older adults are more likely to drive in a generally cautious manner. They are also less likely to speed, however this might also become a risky behaviour if speed drops too low, as has occurred in a number of cases.

While it’s clear that elderly drivers may be more accident prone, we do not know exactly why this is the case, and there are likely to be multiple reasons that contribute to the increased accident risk. How might we reduce this risk? There appear to be two strategies, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. First, it may be possible to provide training to elderly drivers that can make them aware of the possible risks and to teach them techniques that help them to drive safely. Second, methods might be developed that allow the licensing authorities to identify elderly drivers that are more “at risk” of causing a collision. Such identification may then feed into decisions about renewing the driving licence of older adults.

Dr Victoria Bourne (BA Hons, DPhil)

 Consultant to Driving Risk Management Limited