Attitudes to road safety and its implications for public policy

This paper provides an analysis of past survey data on community attitudes to safety, and investigates the following question: Can public policy impact community attitudes to safety? This is done by analysing the attitudes to mobile phone usage among a range of demographics (for example age, sex, and education) over a number of years and identifying high-risk groups. The conclusions should enable policy makers to understand how policy can better target high-risk groups. These high-risk groups are then recommended as a target for policy makers with a range of possible policy solutions. A unique approach of this paper is the use of two different modelling methods for data analysis. A multinomial regression model and an ensemble classifier based on regression trees are used to identify high-risk groups. Both approaches provide unique insights into the data. The comparison of the two models may be of particular interest to researchers, since it demonstrates their relative advantages in predictive capacity and in data handling.

[1]  Michael G Lenné,et al.  Look Who's Talking! A Roadside Survey of Drivers’ Cell Phone Use , 2010, Traffic injury prevention.

[2]  G. Larkin,et al.  Effectiveness of ignition interlock devices in reducing drunk driving recidivism. , 1999, American journal of preventive medicine.

[3]  Jian Xu,et al.  Random forest for relational classification with application to terrorist profiling , 2009, 2009 IEEE International Conference on Granular Computing.

[4]  Richard A. Berk,et al.  An Introduction to Ensemble Methods for Data Analysis , 2004 .

[5]  Leo Breiman,et al.  Random Forests , 2001, Machine Learning.

[6]  A J McKnight,et al.  The effect of cellular phone use upon driver attention. , 1993, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[7]  C. Nash International Transport Forum , 2010 .

[8]  Michael A. Regan,et al.  Driver distraction: A review of the literature , 2003 .

[9]  William J Horrey,et al.  Assessing the awareness of performance decrements in distracted drivers. , 2008, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[10]  Matthew Witte,et al.  Effect of cellular telephone conversations and other potential interference on reaction time in a braking response. , 2003, Accident; analysis and prevention.

[11]  David L. Strayer,et al.  Driven to Distraction: Dual-Task Studies of Simulated Driving and Conversing on a Cellular Telephone , 2001, Psychological science.

[12]  M. Woodward,et al.  Systematic review and meta-analysis of strategies for the diagnosis of suspected pulmonary embolism , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[13]  Richard A. Berk,et al.  Ensemble Procedures for Finding High Risk Prison Inmates , 2003 .

[14]  Katja Kircher,et al.  Driver distraction : a review of the literature , 2007 .

[15]  Y. Susilo,et al.  Understanding public attitudes to road-user safety – literature review: final report road safety research report no. 112. , 2010 .

[16]  Andy Liaw,et al.  Classification and Regression by randomForest , 2007 .

[17]  Yoko Ishigami,et al.  Is a hands-free phone safer than a handheld phone? , 2009, Journal of safety research.

[18]  Charles Musselwhite,et al.  Understanding public attitudes to road user safety , 2010 .