Drivers’ Risk Perception and Risky Driving Behavior under Low Illumination Conditions: Modified Driver Behavior Questionnaire (DBQ) and Driver Skill Inventory (DSI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".