dc.description.abstract |
This study involved self-completion questionnaire-based surveys in which a total of almost
1800 respondents took part. Attributional bias identified by previous research in relation to
drivers' causal attributions for road accidents (Preston & Harris, 1965; Clay, 1987) was
more fully explored with the aid of both objectively and subjectively culpable driver samples.
Banks et al (1977) demonstrated the utility of distinguishing drivers according to culpability
in relation to accident fatalaties. The current study examined the utility of distinguishing
subjectively culpable, non-culpable, and non-accident driver groups in relation to road
accidents with a variety of consequences, in relation to factors which may predispose drivers
to accident involvement. This study involved a large sample of drivers who were
representative of the general population of licenced drivers in Britain, and specifically
focussed samples which allowed the influence of objective and subjective culpability to be
ascertained, while a relatively small cross-cultural survey allowed a focus on young drivers
(up to 25 years), involving Victorian (Australian) licenced drivers and a sub-sample of young
British drivers drawn from the main British sample.
The main objectives of the current study were to evaluate drivers' awareness of their potential
for active accident avoidance, exploring attribution issues raised by previous research and
examining factors which may contribute to road accidents in relation to self-reported accident
involvement and culpability and their implications for accident prevention.
The main findings were that drivers seemed to have a tendency to attribute more
responsibility to "other drivers" than to themselves for accidents in which they had been
involved, and to consider that such other drivers had more scope for accident avoidance than
they did themselves. Such tendencies, although very considerably reduced, were not
eradicated within the driver group deemed culpable by traffic police investigative teams.
These findings were broadly consistent with those of Clay (1987) and Preston & Harris
(1965), suggesting a lack of awareness of personal influence on accident occurrence, at least
to some degree, with implications for accident prevention, the quality of social interaction in
the driving environment (Knapper & Cropley, 1980), and the driver's potential to learn from
experience.
Perhaps more importantly, the other major finding was that clear distinctions could
nonetheless be made between drivers in accordance with self-reported accident involvement
and culpability in relation to driver affect/state, self-perception, attributions for accident
causation, and attitudinal/behavioural tendencies, in a manner which seemed to be meaningful
in terms of driver susceptibility to accident risk. Ile pattern of response for accident
involvement and culpability effects was then examined in relation to the norms which
emerged for age and sex, while the effects of driving experience duration and intensity were
examined separately. The second point of focus on any distinctive features of younger driver
risk, also allowed assessment of generalizability of findings across cultures, to some degree.
The findings appear to have considerable implications for the development of effective
accident prevention strategies, while suggesting that further exploration of drivers' causal
attribution bias in relation to road accidents and distinctions between drivers according to
subjective culpability may offer considerable safety benefits. |
en_UK |