Drivers’ Risk Perception and Risky Driving Behavior under Low Illumination Conditions: Modified Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ) and Driver Skill Inventory (DSI)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Most road crashes are caused by human factors. Risky behaviors and lack of driving skills are two human factors that contribute to crashes. Considering the existing evidence, risky driving behaviors and driving skills have been regarded as potential decisive factors explaining and preventing crashes. Nighttime accidents are relatively frequent and serious compared with daytime accidents. Therefore, it is important to focus on driving behaviors and skills to reduce traffic accidents and enhance safe driving in low illumination conditions. In this paper, we examined the relation between drivers’ risk perception and propensity for risky driving behavior and conducted a comparative analysis of the associations between risk perception, propensity for risky driving behavior, and other factors in the presence and absence of streetlights. Participants in Hefei city, China, were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire, the Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ), and the Driver Skill Inventory (DSI). Multiple linear regression analyses identified some predictors of driver behavior. The results indicated that both the DBQ and DSI are valuable instruments in traffic safety analysis in low illumination conditions and indicated that errors, lapses, and risk perception were significantly different between with and without streetlight conditions. Pearson’s correlation test found that elderly and experienced drivers had a lower likelihood of risky driving behaviors when driving in low illumination conditions, and crash involvement was positively related to risky driving behaviors. Regarding the relationship between study variables and driving skills, the research suggested that age, driving experience, and annual distance were positively associated with driving skills, while myopia, penalty points, and driving self-assessment were negatively related to driving skills. Furthermore, the differences across age groups in errors, lapses, violations, and risk perception in the presence of streetlights were remarkable, and the driving performance of drivers aged 45–55 years was superior to that of drivers in other age groups. Finally, multiple linear regression analyses showed that education background and crash involvement had a positive influence on error, whereas risk perception had a negative effect on errors; crash involvement had a positive influence, while risk perception had a negative effect on lapse; driving experience and crash involvement had a positive influence on violation; and age had a negative influence on it.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».