Beck Kenneth H, Wang Min Qi, Mitchell Mary Moser
Department of Public and Community Health, University of Maryland, College Park, 20742, USA.
J Safety Res. 2006;37(2):159-65. doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2006.01.002. Epub 2006 May 2.
The purpose of this investigation was to identify beliefs, driving personality dispositions, and behaviors that distinguish self-defined aggressive drivers from non-aggressive drivers.
Telephone surveys were used to identify self-reported aggressive drivers (n=305) who were compared to non-aggressive drivers (n=1,715) concerning their beliefs, driving behaviors, and self-described driving dispositions.
Aggressive drivers, compared to non-aggressive drivers, were less concerned about speeding, aggressive driving, and cell phone use while driving, yet were more likely to have had an encounter with another aggressive driver. They were also more likely to report that they had driven when they knew they had too much to drink, yet they felt less likely that they would be stopped by the police.
Aggressive drivers display many dispositions that define them as high risk drivers and public information/motivational campaigns alone will likely be ineffective with this group of drivers. Strategies that combine visible enforcement with widespread publicity campaigns appear to be necessary.
本调查的目的是确定那些能将自我定义的攻击性驾驶者与非攻击性驾驶者区分开来的信念、主导性格倾向和行为。
通过电话调查来确定自我报告的攻击性驾驶者(n = 305),并将他们与非攻击性驾驶者(n = 1715)在信念、驾驶行为和自我描述的驾驶倾向方面进行比较。
与非攻击性驾驶者相比,攻击性驾驶者对超速、攻击性驾驶和开车时使用手机的担忧较少,但更有可能与另一名攻击性驾驶者发生冲突。他们也更有可能报告说,在知道自己饮酒过量时仍开车,但他们觉得自己被警察拦下的可能性较小。
攻击性驾驶者表现出许多将他们定义为高风险驾驶者的倾向,仅靠公共信息/宣传活动可能对这群驾驶者无效。将明显的执法措施与广泛的宣传活动相结合的策略似乎是必要的。