Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety - Queensland, Institute for Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Victoria Park Rd, Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia.
Accid Anal Prev. 2012 Jan;44(1):154-9. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.12.003. Epub 2010 Dec 28.
Drivers are known to be optimistic about their risk of crash involvement, believing that they are less likely to be involved in a crash than other drivers. However, little comparative research has been conducted among other road users. In addition, optimism about crash risk is conceptualised as applying only to an individual's assessment of his or her personal risk of crash involvement. The possibility that the self-serving nature of optimism about safety might be generalised to the group-level as a cyclist or a pedestrian, i.e., becoming group-serving rather than self-serving, has been overlooked in relation to road safety. This study analysed a subset of data collected as part of a larger research project on the visibility of pedestrians, cyclists and road workers, focusing on a set of questionnaire items administered to 406 pedestrians, 838 cyclists and 622 drivers. The items related to safety in various scenarios involving drivers, pedestrians and cyclists, allowing predictions to be derived about group differences in agreement with items based on the assumption that the results would exhibit group-serving bias. Analysis of the responses indicated that specific hypotheses about group-serving interpretations of safety and responsibility were supported in 22 of the 26 comparisons. When the nine comparisons relevant to low lighting conditions were considered separately, seven were found to be supported. The findings of the research have implications for public education and for the likely acceptance of messages which are inconsistent with current assumptions and expectations of pedestrians and cyclists. They also suggest that research into group-serving interpretations of safety, even for temporary roles rather than enduring groups, could be fruitful. Further, there is an implication that gains in safety can be made by better educating road users about the limitations of their visibility and the ramifications of this for their own road safety, particularly in low light.
驾驶员通常对自己发生事故的风险持乐观态度,认为自己发生事故的可能性低于其他驾驶员。然而,针对其他道路使用者的比较研究相对较少。此外,对事故风险的乐观态度被概念化为仅适用于个人对自身事故风险的评估。在道路安全方面,人们忽视了这样一种可能性,即对安全的自利乐观态度可能会被推广到作为骑车人或行人的群体层面,即成为群体受益而不是个人受益。本研究分析了作为行人、骑车人和道路工人可见性大型研究项目的一部分收集的数据子集,重点是对 406 名行人、838 名骑车人和 622 名驾驶员进行的一组问卷调查。这些项目涉及涉及驾驶员、行人和骑车人的各种场景中的安全问题,从而可以根据假设得出群体之间的差异预测结果,即结果将表现出群体受益的偏差。对回应的分析表明,26 个比较中有 22 个支持了关于安全和责任的群体受益解释的具体假设。当单独考虑与低光照条件相关的九项比较时,发现其中有七项得到了支持。研究结果对公众教育以及对可能与行人及骑车人的当前假设和期望不一致的信息的接受程度产生了影响。它们还表明,即使对于临时角色而不是持久群体,对群体受益解释的研究也可能是富有成效的。此外,这意味着通过更好地教育道路使用者了解其可见性的局限性及其对自身道路安全的影响,特别是在低光条件下,道路安全可以得到改善。