Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 29
29 Barnard (2003) found that driver personality traits such as hon- This explanation fits well within a behavioral framework, esty, patience, reliability, self-discipline, and self-motivation which surmises that people are motivated to behave based on were highly valued by fleets. The driver personality trait "socia- the expected consequences of their actions. Behavior can be ble" was also valued by fleets, but to a lesser degree. The explained by its antecedents (events prior to behavior that remainder of this section discusses some specific personality direct behavior) and consequences (events after behavior that traits with possible relationships to driving safety. motivate behavior) of specified behavior(s). For example, being late for a delivery (antecedent) may prime a commercial driver to speed (behavior). The consequences of speeding may 4.7.1 Impulsivity and Risk-Taking be positive (deliver on time) or negative (receive a speeding ticket, cause a crash). Behaviors followed by positive con- Impulsivity is characterized by behavioral instability and an sequences are more likely to be repeated in the future and inability to control impulses, sometimes including threatening those followed by negative consequences are less likely to be behavior and violence. Impulsivity has been suggested to repeated in the future. The immediate and reliable positive be related to an increase in crash risk. Logically, it is easy to consequence of making the delivery on time may outweigh assume that if an individual reacts quickly and without ade- the low probability of a negative consequence of getting a quate forethought, he or she will be at higher risk for errors and vehicle crashes. Schuman, Pelz, Ehrlich, and Seltzer (1967) ticket or being involved in a crash (Daniels 1989, Geller assessed 288 unmarried male drivers and found that both 2001). A behavioral approach to commercial driver safety a high-crash/other accident group and high-violation group management would emphasize the use of rewards (e.g., scored higher on a measure of impulsivity than those with a bonuses, positive recognition) for safe driving behaviors as a low number of crashes/other accidents and violations. Crashes way of counteracting unsafe driving practices. in this study were defined as vehicle incidents that caused prop- erty damage or injuries (whether or not the respondent was at 4.7.2 Social Maladjustment and fault). Traffic violations were defined by self-reported traffic Aggressive/Angry Personalities violations over the prior year. Risk-taking in driving obviously creates unsafe situations Social maladjustment is a set of behaviors and personality and increases the probability of crash involvement. Dewer characteristics that have been found to be related to accident (2002) makes a distinction between "high-level" and "low- rates in a variety of settings. People are often considered level" risk-related decisions. In driving, a "high-level" deci- socially maladapted if they have a general tendency to disregard sion might relate to the decision to drive or not drive under laws and rules. Behaviors may include law breaking, disregard particular conditions, such as during adverse weather or after for other people, hostility or aggression, irresponsibility, self- inadequate sleep. "Low-level" decisions refer to choices made centeredness, problem drinking, and authority problems. In the while driving, such as decisions to speed or tailgate. Turns research project survey, the adjective "aggressive/anger" was across a stream of traffic are a test of driver judgment and among the factors with the highest-rated association with crash decision-making, and driver tendencies toward impulsivity risk. Dishonesty as a personality trait was considered by respon- and risk-taking obviously increase crash risk. Dewer (2002) dents to have a relatively weak association with crash risk. discusses sensation-seeking as a related individual charac- When comparing 20 taxi drivers with a poor crash record teristic, and cites an analysis by Jonah (1997) documenting (more than four crashes in the past 15 years) with 20 taxi correlations between sensation-seeking and risky driving drivers with low crash rates, Tillman and Hobbs (1949) found behaviors such as speeding, frequent lane changes, alcohol that drivers in the high-crash group were significantly more use, and failure to wear safety belts. Rimmo (2002) noted likely to be violent, to be delinquent, to have frequent job that sensation-seeking is strongly associated with misbehaviors changes, to report themselves as being unfaithful, and to have (violations of rules) but only weakly associated with driving a general lack of responsibility. In a more controlled study, errors not associated with rule violations, for example, failure McGuire (1972) matched two groups of 67 non-commercial to see another vehicle. drivers on age, driving experience, miles driven, and marital As many vehicle crashes are the result of at-risk behaviors, status. One group had a crash in the previous 3 months, while such as speeding, improper following distance, and driving drivers in the other group did not have a crash in the last fatigued, it appears that drivers' subjective risk of their actions 3 months. Drivers in the crash group were described as less determine the extent to which drivers engage in at-risk behav- mature, holding negative views toward laws and authority, and iors. For example, few would doubt that speeding is more having poor social adjustment. When studying South African risky than not doing so; yet, there are situations where the risk bus drivers with repeated crashes, Shaw and Sichel (1961, of crash or injury while speeding is minimal. The accumulation 1971) described these individuals as being selfish, self- of these instances may confound a driver's evaluation of crash centered, overconfident, resentful and bitter, intolerant, and or injury potential because he or she may be basing individ- having antisocial attitudes and criminal tendencies. Sweeney ual conclusions on prior outcomes (e.g., no crash) rather than (1998) correlated a number of "temperament" scales with the on objective risk (Haight 1986). 3-year crash records of a group of U.S. Army soldiers and