The relative impact of work-related stress, life stress and driving environment stress on driving outcomes

Previous research has shown the association between stress and crash involvement. The impact of stress on road safety may also be mediated by behaviours including cognitive lapses, errors, and intentional traffic violations. This study aimed to provide a further understanding of the impact that stress from different sources may have upon driving behaviour and road safety. It is asserted that both stress extraneous to the driving environment and stress directly elicited by driving must be considered part of a dynamic system that may have a negative impact on driving behaviours. Two hundred and forty-seven public sector employees from Queensland, Australia, completed self-report measures examining demographics, subjective work-related stress, daily hassles, and aspects of general mental health. Additionally, the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) and the Driver Stress Inventory (DSI) were administered. All participants drove for work purposes regularly, however the study did not specifically focus on full-time professional drivers. Confirmatory factor analysis of the predictor variables revealed three factors: DSI negative affect; DSI risk taking; and extraneous influences (daily hassles, work-related stress, and general mental health). Moderate intercorrelations were found between each of these factors confirming the ‘spillover’ effect. That is, driver stress is reciprocally related to stress in other domains including work and domestic life. Structural equation modelling (SEM) showed that the DSI negative affect factor influenced both lapses and errors, whereas the DSI risk-taking factor was the strongest influence on violations. The SEMs also confirmed that daily hassles extraneous to the driving environment may influence DBQ lapses and violations independently. Accordingly, interventions may be developed to increase driver awareness of the dangers of excessive emotional responses to both driving events and daily hassles (e.g. driving fast to ‘blow off steam’ after an argument). They may also train more effective strategies for self-regulation of emotion and coping when encountering stressful situations on the road.

Review of the under the limit drink driving rehabilitation program

The combination of alcohol and driving is a major health and economic burden to most communities in industrialised countries. The total cost of crashes for Australia in 1996 was estimated at approximately 15 billion dollars and the costs for fatal crashes were about 3 billion dollars (BTE, 2000). According to the Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development and Local Government (2009; BITRDLG) the overall cost of road fatality crashes for 2006 $3.87 billion, with a single fatal crash costing an estimated $2.67 million. A major contributing factor to crashes involving serious injury is alcohol intoxication while driving. It is a well documented fact that consumption of liquor impairs judgment of speed, distance and increases involvement in higher risk behaviours (Waller, Hansen, Stutts, & Popkin, 1986a; Waller et al., 1986b). Waller et al. (1986a; b) asserts that liquor impairs psychomotor function and therefore renders the driver impaired in a crisis situation. This impairment includes; vision (degraded), information processing (slowed), steering, and performing two tasks at once in congested traffic (Moskowitz & Burns, 1990). As BAC levels increase the risk of crashing and fatality increase exponentially (Department of Transport and Main Roads, 2009; DTMR). According to Compton et al. (2002) as cited in the Department of Transport and Main Roads (2009), crash risk based on probability, is five times higher when the BAC is 0.10 compared to a BAC of 0.00. The type of injury patterns sustained also tends to be more severe when liquor is involved, especially with injuries to the brain (Waller et al., 1986b). Single and Rohl (1997) reported that 30% of all fatal crashes in Australia where alcohol involvement was known were associated with Breadth Analysis Content (BAC) above the legal limit of 0.05gms/100ml. Alcohol related crashes therefore contributes to a third of the total cost of fatal crashes (i.e. $1 billion annually) and crashes where alcohol is involved are more likely to result in death or serious injury (ARRB Transport Research, 1999). It is a major concern that a drug capable of impairment such as is the most available and popular drug in Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2007; AIHW). According to the AIHW (2007) 89.9% of the approximately 25,000 Australians over the age of 14 surveyed had consumed at some point in time, and 82.9% had consumed liquor in the previous year. This study found that 12.1% of individuals admitted to driving a motor vehicle whilst intoxicated. In general males consumed more liquor in all age groups. In Queensland there were 21503 road crashes in 2001, involving 324 fatalities and the largest contributing factor was alcohol and or drugs (Road Traffic Report, 2001). 23438 road crashes in 2004, involving 289 fatalities and the largest contributing factor was alcohol and or drugs (DTMR, 2009). Although a number of measures such as random breath testing have been effective in reducing the road toll (Watson, Fraine & Mitchell, 1995) the recidivist drink driver remains a serious problem. These findings were later supported with research by Leal, King, and Lewis (2006). This Queensland study found that of the 24661 drink drivers intercepted in 2004, 3679 (14.9%) were recidivists with multiple drink driving convictions in the previous three years covered (Leal et al., 2006). The legal definition of the term “recidivist” is consistent with the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act (1995) and is assigned to individuals who have been charged with multiple drink driving offences in the previous five years. In Australia relatively little attention has been given to prevention programs that target high-risk repeat drink drivers. However, over the last ten years a rehabilitation program specifically designed to reduce recidivism among repeat drink drivers has been operating in Queensland. The program, formally known as the “Under the Limit” drink driving rehabilitation program (UTL) was designed and implemented by the research team at the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety in Queensland with funding from the Federal Office of Road Safety and the Institute of Criminology (see Sheehan, Schonfeld & Davey, 1995). By 2009 over 8500 drink-drivering offenders had been referred to the program (Australian Institute of Crime, 2009).

The development of an intervention to improve the safety of community care nurses while driving and a qualitative investigation of its preliminary effects

This paper details the development of, and perceived role and effectiveness of an innovative intervention designed to ultimately improve the safety of a group of community care (CC) nurses while driving. Recruiting participants from an Australian CC nursing car fleet, qualitative responses from a series of open-ended questions were obtained from drivers (n = 36), supervisors (n = 22), and managers (n = 6). The findings supported the effectiveness of the intervention in reducing self-reported speeding and promoting greater insight into one’s behaviour on the road. This research has important practical implications in that it highlights the value of developing an intervention based on a sound theoretical framework and which is aligned with the needs and beliefs of personnel within a particular organisation.

The CARRS-Q advanced driving simulator

Overview of the CARRS-Q Simulators • CARRS-Q has two simulators: The Advanced Driving Simulator and a simpler “Desktop” simulator • Both use the same research grade simulation software SCANeR, produced by French company OKTAL • The Advanced Driving Simulator can integrate three aspects of simulation: – driving simulator – traffic simulator (links to AIMSUN) – control simulator

Real-time evaluation of driver’s alertness on highways

Suburbanisation has been internationally a major phenomenon in the last decades. Suburb-to-suburb routes are nowadays the most widespread road journeys; and this resulted in an increment of distances travelled, particularly on faster suburban highways. The design of highways tends to over-simplify the driving task and this can result in decreased alertness. Driving behaviour is consequently impaired and drivers are then more likely to be involved in road crashes. This is particularly dangerous on highways where the speed limit is high. While effective countermeasures to this decrement in alertness do not currently exist, the development of in-vehicle sensors opens avenues for monitoring driving behaviour in real-time. The aim of this study is to evaluate in real-time the level of alertness of the driver through surrogate measures that can be collected from in-vehicle sensors. Slow EEG activity is used as a reference to evaluate driver's alertness. Data are collected in a driving simulator instrumented with an eye tracking system, a heart rate monitor and an electrodermal activity device (N=25 participants). Four different types of highways (driving scenario of 40 minutes each) are implemented through the variation of the road design (amount of curves and hills) and the roadside environment (amount of buildings and traffic). We show with Neural Networks that reduced alertness can be detected in real-time with an accuracy of 92% using lane positioning, steering wheel movement, head rotation, blink frequency, heart rate variability and skin conductance level. Such results show that it is possible to assess driver's alertness with surrogate measures. Such methodology could be used to warn drivers of their alertness level through the development of an in-vehicle device monitoring in real-time drivers' behaviour on highways, and therefore it could result in improved road safety.

How consistent are drivers in their driving? A driver training perspective

The value and effectiveness of driver training as a means of improving driver behaviour and road safety continues to fuel research and societal debates. Knowledge about what are the characteristics of safe driving that need to be learnt is extensive. Research has shown that young drivers are over represented in crash statistics. The encouraging fact is that novice drivers have shown improvement in road scanning pattern after training. This paper presents a driver behaviour study conducted on a closed circuit track. A group of experienced and novice drivers performed repeated multiple manoeuvres (i.e. turn, overtake and lane change) under identical conditions Variables related to the driver, vehicle and environment were recorded in a research vehicle equipped with multiple in-vehicle sensors such as GPS accelerometers, vision processing, eye tracker and laser scanner. Each group exhibited consistently a set of driving pattern characterising a particular group. Behaviour such as the indicator usage before lane change, following distance while performing a manoeuvre were among the consistent observed behaviour differentiating novice from experienced drivers. This paper will highlight the results of our study and emphasize the need for effective driver training programs focusing on young and novice drivers.

Exploring the theoretical underpinnings of driving whilst influenced by illicit substances

An increasing number of studies are highlighting the alarming proportion of motorists that drive after having consumed illicit drugs. However presently, little attention has focused on the factors that may facilitate drug driving from a criminogenic paradigm. This study evaluated the contribution of deterrence, defiance, and deviance theories on intentions to drug drive to determine factors that might facilitate or reduce this behaviour. A total of 922 individuals completed a questionnaire that assessed frequency of drug use and a variety of perceptions on deterrence, defiance, and deviance constructs. The analysis showed that the defiance constructs (i.e., experiencing feelings of shame and believing in the legitimacy of sanctioning authority) and the deviance constructs (i.e., moral attachment to the norm and having a criminal conviction) were predictive of drug driving intentions. The facets of deterrence theory were not found to be significant predictors. Ultimately, this study illustrates that a range of behavioural and perceptual factors have the capacity to influence decisions to drug drive. As a result, there appears the need to extend the focus of research endeavours beyond legal sanctions to examine other factors that may be utilised to both understand the aetiology of drug driving as well as increase the possibility of compliance with the corresponding legislation.

Age and gender comparisons of driving while sleepy : behaviours and risk perceptions

To assist road safety professionals in developing effective strategies to combat the risk associated with driving while fatigued, a survey was administered to 1000 Australian drivers. Participants reported their past behaviours in regards to driving while sleepy and their perceptions of risk associated with driving fatigued as compared to speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol. Although participants appeared to be aware of the substantial risk associated with driving while sleepy, many drivers reported that they frequently drive when sleepy. Age and gender comparisons, revealed that risk taking behaviour in regards to driving while sleepy is occurring across all age groups and in both male and female drivers. Overall young to middle age drivers and male drivers reported the highest frequency of driving while sleepy and reported the lowest perceived personal risk in regards to driving while sleepy.

Self-reported driving difficulty by persons with Hemianopia and Quadrantanopia

Purpose: To compare self-reported driving difficulty by persons with hemianopic or quadrantanopic field loss with that reported by age-matched drivers with normal visual fields; and to examine how their self- reported driving difficulty compares to ratings of driving performance provided by a certified driving rehabilitation specialist(CDRS). Method: Participants were 17 persons with hemianopic field loss, 7 with quadrantanopic loss, and 24 age-matched controls with normal visual fields, all of whom had current drivers’ licenses. Information was collected via questionnaire regarding driving difficulties experienced in 21 typical driving situations grouped into 3 categories(involvement of peripheral vision, low visibility conditions, and independent mobility). On-road driving performance was evaluated by a CDRS using a standard assessment scale. Results: Drivers with hemianopic and quadrantanopic field loss expressed significantly more difficulty with driving maneuvers involving peripheral vision and independent mobility, compared to those with normal visual fields. Drivers with hemianopia and quadrantanopia who were rated as unsafe to drive based upon an on-road assessment by the CDRS were no more likely to report driving difficulty than those rated as safe. Conclusion: This study highlights aspects of driving that hemianopic or quadrantanopic persons find particularly problematic, thus suggesting areas that could be focused on driving rehabilitation. Some drivers with hemianopia or quadrantanopia may inappropriately view themselves as good drivers when in fact their driving performance is unsafe as judged by a driving professional.

The psychosocial factors influencing aggressive driving behaviour

Many drivers in highly motorised countries believe that aggressive driving is increasing. While the prevalence of the behaviour is difficult to reliably identify, the consequences of on-road aggression can be severe, with extreme cases resulting in property damage, injury and even death. This research program was undertaken to explore the nature of aggressive driving from within the framework of relevant psychological theory in order to enhance our understanding of the behaviour and to inform the development of relevant interventions. To guide the research a provisional ‘working’ definition of aggressive driving was proposed encapsulating the recurrent characteristics of the behaviour cited in the literature. The definition was: “aggressive driving is any on-road behaviour adopted by a driver that is intended to cause physical or psychological harm to another road user and is associated with feelings of frustration, anger or threat”. Two main theoretical perspectives informed the program of research. The first was Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, which identifies both the person-related and situational characteristics that contribute to aggressive driving, as well as proposing that aggressive behaviours can serve either an ‘instrumental’ or ‘hostile’ function. The second main perspective was Anderson and Bushman’s (2002) General Aggression Model. In contrast to Shinar’s model, the General Aggression Model reflects a broader perspective on human aggression that facilitates a more comprehensive examination of the emotional and cognitive aspects of aggressive behaviour. Study One (n = 48) examined aggressive driving behaviour from the perspective of young drivers as an at-risk group and involved conducting six focus groups, with eight participants in each. Qualitative analyses identified multiple situational and person-related factors that contribute to on-road aggression. Consistent with human aggression theory, examination of self-reported experiences of aggressive driving identified key psychological elements and processes that are experienced during on-road aggression. Participants cited several emotions experienced during an on-road incident: annoyance, frustration, anger, threat and excitement. Findings also suggest that off-road generated stress may transfer to the on-road environment, at times having severe consequences including crash involvement. Young drivers also appeared quick to experience negative attributions about the other driver, some having additional thoughts of taking action. Additionally, the results showed little difference between males and females in the severity of behavioural responses they were prepared to adopt, although females appeared more likely to displace their negative emotions. Following the self-reported on-road incident, evidence was also found of a post-event influence, with females being more likely to experience ongoing emotional effects after the event. This finding was evidenced by ruminating thoughts or distraction from tasks. However, the impact of such a post-event influence on later behaviours or interpersonal interactions appears to be minimal. Study Two involved the quantitative analysis of n = 926 surveys completed by a wide age range of drivers from across Queensland. The study aimed to explore the relationships between the theoretical components of aggressive driving that were identified in the literature review, and refined based on the findings of Study One. Regression analyses were used to examine participant emotional, cognitive and behavioural responses to two differing on-road scenarios whilst exploring the proposed theoretical framework. A number of socio-demographic, state and trait person-related variables such as age, pre-study emotions, trait aggression and problem-solving style were found to predict the likelihood of a negative emotional response such as frustration, anger, perceived threat, negative attributions and the likelihood of adopting either an instrumental or hostile behaviour in response to Scenarios One and Two. Complex relationships were found to exist between the variables, however, they were interpretable based on the literature review findings. Factor analysis revealed evidence supporting Shinar’s (1998) dichotomous description of on-road aggressive behaviours as being instrumental or hostile. The second stage of Study Two used logistic regression to examine the factors that predicted the potentially hostile aggressive drivers (n = 88) within the sample. These drivers were those who indicated a preparedness to engage in direct acts of interpersonal aggression on the road. Young, male drivers 17–24 years of age were more likely to be classified as potentially hostile aggressive drivers. Young drivers (17–24 years) also scored significantly higher than other drivers on all subscales of the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992) and on the ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive careless style’ subscales of the Social Problem Solving Inventory – Revised (D’Zurilla, Nezu & Maydeu-Olivares, 2002). The potentially hostile aggressive drivers were also significantly more likely to engage in speeding and drink/drug driving behaviour. With regard to the emotional, cognitive and behavioural variables examined, the potentially hostile aggressive driver group also scored significantly higher than the ‘other driver’ group on most variables examined in the proposed theoretical framework. The variables contained in the framework of aggressive driving reliably distinguished potentially hostile aggressive drivers from other drivers (Nagalkerke R2 = .39). Study Three used a case study approach to conduct an in-depth examination of the psychosocial characteristics of n = 10 (9 males and 1 female) self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers. The self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers were aged 24–55 years of age. A large proportion of these drivers reported a Year 10 education or better and average–above average incomes. As a group, the drivers reported committing a number of speeding and unlicensed driving offences in the past three years and extensive histories of violations outside of this period. Considerable evidence was also found of exposure to a range of developmental risk factors for aggression that may have contributed to the driver’s on-road expression of aggression. These drivers scored significantly higher on the Aggression Questionnaire subscales and Social Problem Solving Inventory Revised subscales, ‘negative problem orientation’ and ‘impulsive/careless style’, than the general sample of drivers included in Study Two. The hostile aggressive driver also scored significantly higher on the Barrett Impulsivity Scale – 11 (Patton, Stanford & Barratt, 1995) measure of impulsivity than a male ‘inmate’, or female ‘general psychiatric’ comparison group. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey (Carlson, 1982), the self-confessed hostile aggressive drivers scored equal or higher scores than the comparison group of incarcerated individuals on the subscale measures of chemical abuse, thought disturbance, anti-social tendencies and self-depreciation. Using the Carlson Psychological Survey personality profiles, seven participants were profiled ‘markedly anti-social’, two were profiled ‘negative-explosive’ and one was profiled as ‘self-centred’. Qualitative analysis of the ten case study self-reports of on-road hostile aggression revealed a similar range of on-road situational factors to those identified in the literature review and Study One. Six of the case studies reported off-road generated stress that they believed contributed to the episodes of aggressive driving they recalled. Intense ‘anger’ or ‘rage’ were most frequently used to describe the emotions experienced in response to the perceived provocation. Less frequently ‘excitement’ and ‘fear’ were cited as relevant emotions. Notably, five of the case studies experienced difficulty articulating their emotions, suggesting emotional difficulties. Consistent with Study Two, these drivers reported negative attributions and most had thoughts of aggressive actions they would like to take. Similarly, these drivers adopted both instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours during the self-reported incident. Nine participants showed little or no remorse for their behaviour and these drivers also appeared to exhibit low levels of personal insight. Interestingly, few incidents were brought to the attention of the authorities. Further, examination of the person-related characteristics of these drivers indicated that they may be more likely to have come from difficult or dysfunctional backgrounds and to have a history of anti-social behaviours on and off the road. The research program has several key theoretical implications. While many of the findings supported Shinar’s (1998) frustration-aggression model, two key areas of difference emerged. Firstly, aggressive driving behaviour does not always appear to be frustration driven, but can also be driven by feelings of excitation (consistent with the tenets of the General Aggression Model). Secondly, while the findings supported a distinction being made between instrumental and hostile aggressive behaviours, the characteristics of these two types of behaviours require more examination. For example, Shinar (1998) proposes that a driver will adopt an instrumental aggressive behaviour when their progress is impeded if it allows them to achieve their immediate goals (e.g. reaching their destination as quickly as possible); whereas they will engage in hostile aggressive behaviour if their path to their goal is blocked. However, the current results question this assertion, since many of the hostile aggressive drivers studied appeared prepared to engage in hostile acts irrespective of whether their goal was blocked or not. In fact, their behaviour appeared to be characterised by a preparedness to abandon their immediate goals (even if for a short period of time) in order to express their aggression. The use of the General Aggression Model enabled an examination of the three components of the ‘present internal state’ comprising emotions, cognitions and arousal and how these influence the likelihood of a person responding aggressively to an on-road situation. This provided a detailed insight into both the cognitive and emotional aspects of aggressive driving that have important implications for the design of relevant countermeasures. For example, the findings highlighted the potential value of utilising Cognitive Behavioural Therapy with aggressive drivers, particularly the more hostile offenders. Similarly, educational efforts need to be mindful of the way that person-related factors appear to influence one’s perception of another driver’s behaviour as aggressive or benign. Those drivers with a predisposition for aggression were more likely to perceive aggression or ‘wrong doing’ in an ambiguous on-road situation and respond with instrumental and/or hostile behaviour, highlighting the importance of perceptual processes in aggressive driving behaviour.