Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (2009) 723728

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Approaches of truck drivers and non-truck drivers toward reckless on-road behavior
Tova Rosenbloom a, , Ehud Eldror b , Amit Shahar a
a b

The Phoenix Road Safety Studies, Interdisciplinary Studies of Social Sciences, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel The Research Institute of Human Factors in Road Safety, Behavioral Studies, College of Management, Rishon Letzion, Israel

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
The purpose of the study was to compare the reported approaches of truck drivers to those of non-truck drivers toward reckless on-road behaviors. One hundred and sixty-seven adult males, including 70 nontruck drivers, completed the questionnaires voluntarily. The truck drivers were employees of a concrete manufacturing company working at various company plants throughout Israel. Seventy were professional mixer truckers and 27 were tip-truckers. The participants completed the Reckless Driving Self-Report Scale based on Taubman Ben-Ari et al. [Taubman Ben-Ari, O., Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., 1999. The impact of mortality salience on reckless driving: a test of terror management mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, 3545], adapted for truck drivers for this study. It was expected that nonprofessional, as compared to professional (truck) drivers, would be more permissive regarding reckless driving, since driving risks are less prominent in their daily driving experience. An ANOVA performed on mean reckless-driving scores yielded signicant results. The post hoc Schffe test indicated signicantly higher reckless-driving scores for automobile drivers as compared to both mixer-truck driver scores and tip-truck driver scores. In addition, the reckless-driving scores for mixer-truck drivers were signicantly higher than the tip-truck driver scores. We discuss various explanations for the ndings and consider possible implications for training strategies in organizations as well as for media campaigns focused on mutual safe road use of truck drivers and private vehicle drivers. 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 23 September 2008 Received in revised form 4 February 2009 Accepted 23 March 2009 Keywords: Truck drivers Reckless on-road behaviors Professional drivers

1. Introduction Occupational vehicular accidents involving truck drivers represent a serious threat to both work safety and public health. Research has indicated that truck driving is among the occupations with the highest risk for fatal injuries (McCall and Horwitz, 2005) though not necessarily due to the fault of the truckers. Professional truck drivers have a unique set of characteristics compared to those of everyday motorists (Walton, 1999). In addition to gender (98% of truckers are male in Israel) and age (the average truck driver is older than the average automobile driver), they are all professional drivers, meaning that they have gone through some selective processes and have had to attain certain physical, psychological and educational standards (Israeli Road Safety Authority, 2006). This study investigates the differences between truck driver and automobile driver perspectives regarding reckless driving. Previous research in the eld reveals several patterns, largely pointing in the direction of a more cautious set of driving behaviors among truck drivers, as compared to light vehicle drivers. In other

Corresponding author. Tel.: +972 3 5741011; fax: +972 3 5741959. E-mail address: rosenbt1@mail.biu.ac.il (T. Rosenbloom). 0001-4575/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2009.03.011

words, drivers of heavy trucks engage in fewer unsafe road behaviors than do drivers in general (Blower, 1998). In addition, truck drivers are more aware of environmental risk factors as well as of their own limitations as drivers (Walton, 1999). Analysis of driverrelated factors in road accidents indicates that passenger vehicle driver errors or other driver factors are cited in 66% of crashes, whereas truck driver errors are cited in fewer than 30% (Blower, 2002). Likewise, Craft and Blower (2004) have presented preliminary statistics on 287 two-vehicle crashes from the FMCSA/NHTSA Large Truck Crash Causation Study (LTCCS). In crashes between trucks and light vehicles, the critical reason for the crash was attributed to the other vehicle or driver in 70% of the cases and to the truck or truck driver in 30% of the cases (Thieriez et al., 2002). Instrumented vehicle studies (Hanowski et al., 2007), which provide a video instant replay of safety-related trafc incidents, have further corroborated the above ndings. One study observed and analyzed 210 critical incidents (driver errors resulting in potentially unsafe conditions, e.g., lane change or road crossing with an insufcient gap) involving the interaction of a large truck and a light vehicle. More than three-quarters of such incidents were attributed to light vehicle drivers in the vicinity of trucks, rather than to truck drivers (Hanowski et al., 2003). Consistent with

724

T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (2009) 723728

these ndings, commercial drivers on local/short haul operations (dened as trips of 100 miles or shorter) listed other drivers as their primary safety concern, followed by work related time pressure and inattention as causes for critical accidents (Hanowski et al., 1999). Apparently, there is also contradicting evidence to the results cited above. Analysis of driver-faults in road accidents revealed that truck drivers were found to be at fault more often than car drivers (48% as compared to 40.2%), in truckcar accidents (Council et al., 2003). However, the majority of truck-fault accidents were either the less severe rear-end crashes, or accidents involving the trucks dead-zones; whereas car drivers were at fault with the majority (71.2%) of the deadly head-on crashes. These ndings are consistent with trafc experts ratings of truck related dangerous driving situations (Stuster, 1999). The inconsistency regarding driver (either truck or not) responsibility (whether truck or auto) in accidents (Council et al., 2003; Craft and Blower, 2004) might reect a minority group of less cautious truck drivers. This possibility would be consistent with some studies in the eld. Specically, Hanowski et al. (2000) reported that the local/short haul driver population consists of a small high-risk subgroup responsible for the majority of drowsy episodes, with a similar subgroup in the long haul drivers population (Wylie et al., 1996). Vehicle eet safety managers estimate that the majority of total eet risk (50% or more) can be attributed to only 10% of the drivers, as a product of these drivers personality traits makeup, thus maintaining this ratio over time (Knipling, 2005). Finally, converging evidence regarding more cautious driving behaviors among truck drivers comes from Tardif (2003) who reported that heavy vehicle drivers exceed speed limits less often, and by smaller margins, than drivers of light vehicles, and that truck drivers involved in crashes are less likely than passenger vehicle drivers to drive under the inuence of alcohol. In line with Tardif (2003), Rosenbloom (2001) reported that even if their scores in the Sensation Seeking Scale (Zuckerman, 1978) were relatively high, truck drivers actually engaged in fewer reckless driving behaviors than automobile drivers. In Israel, trucks are over-represented in road crashes, and 20% of the fatal crashes derive from only 2.2% of the total eets, due to their high mileage. In spite of their over-representation in fatal crashes, truckers are regarded as more professional drivers than other (passenger light vehicle) drivers (Israeli Road Safety Authority, 2006). It appears, then, that truck drivers support safer road behavior and are known for this trait by experts and by coworkers. The present study compared between truck- and private-drivers attitudes toward reckless driving. Its main purpose was to examine the proneness to reckless driving as reported by professional truck drivers and by non-professional car drivers. We expected that non-professional drivers, as compared to professional drivers (i.e. truck drivers), would display a permissive approach toward reckless driving, as driving risks are less prominent in their daily driving experience. The truck driver sample consisted of two subgroupsconcrete mixer drivers and tip-truck drivers, allowing (as a secondary goal) an evaluation of some of the factors affecting truck driver attitudes toward reckless driving as derivates of their unique professional environment. By sampling workers from a single concrete manufacturing company, we tried to hold constant extraneous factors affecting professional behavior or expressed attitudes such as workplace and legal regulations and corporate culture, maintaining a similar background for all professional drivers. The process of manufacturing and delivering concrete requires applying the mixture (of wet cement and aggregates) in a short time after creating the mix batch, to ensure proper structural strength. Naturally, the wet concrete mixture is impossible to store

for long periods. The mixture is produced on demand, and is delivered by mixer trucks as soon as possible to construction sites, where the driver dispenses the mix load. As construction sites are often located in residential areas, additional maneuvering ability is required. A wide spread of cement manufacturing plants allows shorter routes to construction sites, resulting in a more efcient delivery of better quality concrete mixture (Clark et al., 2001; Weeks, 1998). With workload and working hours dictated by construction site requirements, mixer-truck drivers do not have a regular schedule; this can lead to long working days, irregular working hours including working intermittently as well as periods of concentrated work followed by long breaks. Importantly, mixer truck driving poses some unique driving challenges, such as adjusting the driving to the constant shifts in the cargos center of gravity due to concrete uidity and the mixer truck drums rotating action. Furthermore, the mixer operation adds a constant heavy noise in the drivers cabin, in addition to the more conventional noise (and vibrations) affecting most truck drivers. These elements present additional stresses for mixer-truck drivers who need to balance the professional demands with careful driving (Clark et al., 2001). In contrast, the companys tip-truck drivers deliver gravel from mining sites and quarries to the cement manufacturing plants, to be stored for future use. Tip-truck driver schedules are constant, with regular work shifts. Tip-truck drivers working for the concrete manufacturing company in the current study were all regular company employees, and the vehicles they use were company owned. Driving tip-trucks poses no unusual driving challenges relative to other truck driving. Importantly, both mixer-truck drivers and tiptruck drivers operations are dened as local/short haul operations, i.e. less than 150 miles. Subjective workload is affected not only by task-related factors such as the perceived mental, physical, and temporal demands, but also by driver-related factors such as effort, frustration and performance (Hart and Staveland, 1987; Maincent et al., 2004). By examining an attitudinal factorthe drivers self-reported proneness to reckless driving, we wished to elaborate on this model, allowing the inclusion of a cognitive feedback loop between the perceived subjective workload and some of the driver mental and cognitive factors (Rosenbloom, 2001). Primarily, it can be expected that truck drivers, would display a more cautious approach toward reckless driving than non-professional drivers, as their (truck drivers) regular driving experience is signicantly more complex than non-professional drivers. Secondly, it can be expected that, on the one hand, concrete mixer-truck drivers would display a more cautious approach toward reckless driving than tip-truck drivers, as their (mixer) regular driving experience is even more complex than that of tip-truck drivers, particularly in terms of balance and noise (see above). On the other hand, since schedule demands require a speedy delivery, mixer-, as compared to tip-truck drivers might display more permissive approaches toward road risks.

2. Method 2.1. Participants One hundred and sixty-seven adult males, of which 70 were non-professional drivers, completed the questionnaires voluntarily. Of the remaining drivers all employees of a concrete manufacturing company working at the various company plants located countrywide 70 were professional mixer truckers, and 27 were tip-truckers. Participants were recruited using a snowball sampling method, i.e. participants recruited future subjects from among their acquaintances.

T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (2009) 723728 Table 1 Overall and by-driver-type demographic data (frequencies and percentages) and correlations with driver type and age group. Overall Driver type Non-professional Age group 2030 3050 50+ Up to 10 1020 Over 20 Up to 10 1020 Over 20 Personal Company Private Truck 2 25 5+ Central All areas People Goods 2007 2006 2005 2004 and older 1 2 3+ Urban Interurban Urban & Interurban 22 (13.2) 98 (58.7) 47 (28.1) 35 (21.0) 56 (33.5) 76 (45.5) 59 (35.3) 50 (29.9) 58 (34.7) 89 (53.3) 78 (46.7) 71 (42.5) 96 (57.5) 37 (22.0) 25 (15.0) 105 (62.9) 102 (61.1) 67 (38.9) 48 (28.7) 119 (71.3) 40 (24.0) 34 (20.4) 20 (12.0) 73 (43.7) 122 (73.1) 31 (18.6) 14 (8.0) 20 (12.0) 20 (12.0) 127 (76.0) 14 (20.0) 34 (48.6) 22 (31.4) 15 (21.4) 20 (28.6) 35 (50.0) 26 (37.1) 15 (21.4) 29 (41.4) 53 (75.7) 17 (24.3) 70 (100) 34 (48.6) 23 (32.9) 13 (18.6) 52 (74.3) 18 (25.7) 23 (32.9) 47 (67.1) 10 (14.3) 8 (11.4) 10 (14.3) 42 (60) 36 (51.4) 22 (31.4) 12 (17.2) 15 (21.4) 15 (21.4) 40 (57.2) Concrete mixer truck 6 (8.6) 47 (67.1) 17 (24.3) 17 (24.3) 23 (32.9) 30 (42.9) 28 (40.0) 24 (34.3) 18 (25.7) 36 (51.4) 34 (48.6) 70 (100) 3 (4.3) 2 (2.9) 65 (92.9) 50 (71.4) 20 (28.6) 70 (100) 15 (21.4) 14 (20.0) 10 (14.3) 31 (44.3) 59 (84.3) 9 (12.9) 2 (2.9) 5 (7.1) 5 (7.1) 60 (85.7) Tip-truck 2 (7.4) 17 (63.0) 8 (29.6) 3 (11.1) 13 (48.1) 11 (40.7) 5 (18.5) 11 (40.7) 11 (40.7) 27 (100) 27 (100) 27 (100) 27 (100) 27 (100) 15 (55.6) 12 (44.4) 27 (100) 27 (100) Correlation with Driver type .06

725

Age group 1.00

License tenure (years)

.02

.65*

Professional tenure (years)

.03

.62*

Vehicle ownership Vehicle class Daily drive (h)

.49* .91* .66*

.09 .01 .09

Driving areas Cargo

.41* .67* .45*

.01 .5 .08

Model year

Drivers using vehicle

.43*

.05

Roads

.39*

.04

Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

2.2. Measures and procedure Personal demographic and driving-related data, including drivers age group, license and professional tenure, vehicles ownership, class, and model year, the number of drivers using the vehicle, primary vehicle use (transportation of people or goods), type of roads used, geographical area where most driving took place, and daily driving periods, are given in Table 1. Approaches toward reckless driving were assessed using the Reckless Driving Self-Report Scale (Taubman-Ben-Ari et al., 1999). The scale, consisting of 10 hypothetical driving scenarios aimed at assessing dangerous reactions in driving, requires estimating the chances for self- or peer-action. Scales are 11-points each, ranging from 0 to 100 representing the chance (zero chance and absolute certainty, respectively) of acting in the manner depicted in the story. Items scores are averaged, with a higher mean score representing a more lenient approach toward reckless driving. Cronbachs alpha coefcient values reported by Taubman-Ben-Ari et al. (1999) ranged from .80 to .84, in studies 1 and 2, respectively. The scale originally used to evaluate military drivers attitudes was slightly modied to accommodate to the current study sample: minor military related details were changed into more betting civilian settings and the question at the end of each scenario was turned to a stranger driver (What are the chances that the car driving in front of you will try to overtake the truck?). The latter change was made to overcome possible bias due to posing direct questions to the truck drivers. The modication consisted of projective elements, which are well established in psychological procedures. Evidence for the validity of projective measures

has been found in the works of Bornstein (1999) and Graybill and Blackwood (1996). Overall Cronbachs alpha coefcients for the 10 items were .76, with respective values of .76, .73 and .74 for the mixer-truck drivers group, the tip-truck drivers group, and the regular drivers group (see Appendix A for the 10 driving scenarios), respectively. The participants anonymously completed the questionnaires on their own free time. Truck drivers delivered the forms to the eet managers company mailbox, whereas non-professional drivers delivered them by mail or personally, to the experimenters. 3. Results Correlations between the various parameter frequencies for both driver type and age, given in Table 1, indicate the hypothesized relationships exist between driver type (either non-professional, mixer-truck or tip-truck drivers) and the profession-related variables. Vehicle related variables (ownership, number of drivers, vehicle class and model years, cargo type, traveling areas and roads used and daily drive period), were all correlated with the specic line of work. A similar correlation was found between the drivers age group and his age-related variables (professional and license tenure). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) comparing the mean recklessdriving approach scores of the three driver groups yielded signicant results, F(2, 164) = 16.34, p < .001. Post hoc Schffe test indicated signicantly higher reckless-driving approach scores for non-professional passenger vehicle (M = 48.06, SD = 16.03, N = 70), as compared to both mixer-truck drivers scores (M = 37.16,

726

T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (2009) 723728

8 and 10, non-professional drivers score were signicantly higher than both mixer truckers (ps < .01), and tip-truckers (ps < .001). In contrast, for item 7, concrete mixer trucker mean scores were higher non-professional driver scores (ps = .01), indicating a more scrupulous attitude of non-professional drivers on this item. 4. Discussion Truck driving is a complex activity, which relies on a certain number of cognitive skills and on their automation level and mainly depends on the drivers expertise (Perruchet, 1988). Moreover, psychological and physiological factors such as motivation, personality, cognitive style, fatigue and stress level of the driver must also be considered (Rosenbloom, 2001). The variability of the driving activity is dependant, among other factors, on the demands of the organization (Sperandio, 1995). In addition to their responsibility to the company and the customers, truckers are inuenced by the on-road dynamics. This study explored differences in approaches toward reckless driving between non-professional automobile drivers and professional truck drivers. A secondary goal was to examine the role of professional concerns on these attitudes. The main nding was that there were signicantly higher reckless-driving approach scores for non-professional passenger vehicle drivers, as compared to truckdrivers, and this supports the hypothesis that truck drivers (in general) would report more cautious driving approach, and that non-professional passenger vehicle drivers would report a more permissive approach toward reckless driving. This nding is consistent with previous research in the eld (e.g., Blower, 1998; Craft and Blower, 2004; Hanowski et al., 2007; Rosenbloom, 2001; Tardif, 2003; Walton, 1999; for details, see Section 1), supporting the position that truck drivers are generally aware of the size and weight of their vehicles and of the enormous potential damage to life and property they may cause. Moreover, they are well-trained to avoid dangerous situations (Israeli Road Safety Authority, 2006). Our main nding supports the notion that the training, expertise and experience of professional drivers (Glendon, 2005) such as truck drivers, underlies the differences between their views toward reckless driving compared with those of non-professional drivers. Yet several nding indicates being a professional driver does not necessarily imbue safe driving behaviors or safe attitudes toward reckless driving. Other professional driver groups, such as taxi drivers, displayed permissive reckless driving approach compared to non-professional automobile drivers (Dalziel and Soames, 1997; Rosenbloom and Shahar, 2007). These ndings suggest another attribute of professional truck driving also affected truck driver attitudes, possibly an awareness of the deadly implications of their involvement in trafc crashes.

Fig. 1. Mean reckless-driving scores as a function of the type of driver (nonprofessional, mixer truck and tip-truck).

SD = 17.30, N = 70) and tip-truck drivers scores (M = 28.22, SD = 15.18, N = 27), resulting in three separate homogeneous subsets, one for each group (p < .05). Fig. 1 displays the mean reckless-driving approach scores for the three drivers groups. To ensure that any possible differences between the driver groups do not stem from the age-related variables, a preliminary independent samples t-test was performed on a cluster sample of 60 drivers, 30 of the non-professional drivers and 30 of the truck drivers (both tip-truck and concrete mixer trucks), all being of the middle range age group (3050 years old). Non-professional drivers scored higher on the reckless-driving approach scale (M = 46.97, SD = 16.57) than truck drivers (M = 38.53, SD = 16.02), t (58) = 2.00, p < .05, suggesting that differences in reckless-driving approach scores did not originate from the age differences or age-related factors such as license and professional tenure. Analyses of variance performed for each reckless driving approach self-report scale item separately (see Table 2), revealed that a similar pattern of response appeared in items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10, in which truck drivers mean scores were lower than non-professional drivers (indicating the truck drivers approaches toward reckless driving are more strict), and an opposite trend on items 1 and 7, in which non-professional drivers mean scores were lower than truck drivers (indicating a more strict approach of the non-professional drivers). Schffe post hoc test revealed non-professional drivers scores were signicantly higher than those of mixer truckers on items 2, 6 and 9 (ps = .049, .024 and .008, respectively), as well as signicantly higher than tip-truckers scores on item 5 (p = .014). On items 3, 4,

Table 2 Item means, SDs (in brackets) and F values, for non-professional-, concrete mixer-truck, and tip-truck drivers. Driver type Non-professional drivers (N = 70) Item 1, White line Item 2, Amber light Item 3, Job interview Item 4, After party shortcut Item 5, Evil boss Item 6, Overtaking Item 7, Sharp turn in the rain Item 8, Late to the event Item 9, Wedding and alcohol Item 10, Fatigue and party
* ** ***

F Concrete mixer-truck drivers (N = 70) 24.14 (30.29) 38.43 (32.86) 47.14 (31.45) 34.57 (29.28) 48.43 (33.65) 19.86 (23.74) 29.43 (34.43) 37.71 (29.55) 37.57 (29.61) 54.29 (32.24) Tip-truck drivers (N = 27) 12.96 (15.89) 39.63 (29.02) 38.89 (25.77) 21.11 (27.22) 37.41 (32.77) 23.70 (30.02) 15.93 (25.15) 25.56 (28.47) 39.26 (32.81) 27.78 (31.91) 3.01* 3.41** 16.37*** 12.52*** 4.78*** 3.94** 5.18*** 13.79*** 5.55*** 20.65***

15.71 (20.11) 52.14 (33.88) 70.14 (27.32) 53.71 (34.94) 58.71 (29.14) 33.43 (33.18) 14.43 (23.87) 57.71 (31.40) 54.14 (31.42) 70.43 (25.68)

p = .052. p < .05. p < .01.

T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (2009) 723728

727

Given that in most cases of cartruck collisions, automobile drivers are the ones usually faulted (Blower, 2002), the irregular response pattern in items 1 and 7, in which non-professional drivers displayed a more strict approach toward reckless driving than truck drivers, is surprising. However, these two scenarios were the only ones in which a truck was present, either as another vehicle (item 1) or as the vehicle driven by the participant (item 7). This could indicate that non-professional drivers view truck presence on the road and actually driving a truck as potentially dangerous, hence their more conservative ratings. Based on the above discussion, we recommend that reference to the special on-road dynamics would be included in driver training for both truck drivers and private car drivers. An emphasis that truck drivers must cope with other road users and attempt to better understand and anticipate their on-road decisions may be appropriate. By the same token, private car drivers must also take into consideration the sudden appearance of a truck and leave safety margins in order to prevent crashes. We also can recommend to use advanced technology, such as automatic evasive car-following actions or other kind of actions to make it harder for truck drivers for example to tailgate, to run red lights, to speed or to look away from the roadway for more than a critical time period. In further research it will be useful to examine truck-drivers approaches toward non-truck drivers and toward pedestrians. These can be measured through interviews or a specic inventory to elicit truck driver perceptions of road dynamics in order to prevent fatal encounters between trucks and light vehicles. Differences between truck driver types were also found; tiptruck drivers reported even more cautious driving approaches than concrete mixer-truck drivers. This nding may be related, either to the different characteristics of the truck (either tip or mixer), or to the sample of the truck drivers in the present study, in which tip-truck drivers enjoy steady work conditions, whereas concrete mixer-truck drivers work as freelancers. Thus, on the one hand, explanations for the differences that were found between the two groups of truck driver may come from organizational psychology in general and specically the organizations safety climate (Zohar, 1980). Safety climate is dened as a set of molar perceptions, shared by individuals with their work environment, which are valid as references for guiding behavior in the execution of tasks during day-to-day eventualities (Diaz and Cabrera, 1997, p. 644). There is evidence that companies with higher managements commitment to safety have much less accidents (Diaz and Cabrera, 1997). As tip-truck drivers (in the present study) enjoy steady work conditions they might feel more committed to their working place, and display greater compliance with safety regulations compared to the less committed concrete mixer-truck drivers (in the present study). Alternatively, the characteristic irregular working shifts might affect concrete mixer-truck drivers, leading to fatigue and resulting in carelessness and greater risk-taking. We recommend that a commitment to organizational safety rules be included as part of the employment contract of concrete mixer-truck drivers as well as tip-truck drivers. In addition, continuing education programs conducted as a part of the organization routine should include the concrete mixer-truck drivers as well. 4.1. Methodological remarks and future directions The conclusions of this study are based solely on the selfreported behaviors of automobile and truck drivers. To validate the ndings of this study, future research should make use of eld observations of truck drivers and automobile drivers. It might also be useful to compare the driving practices of truck drivers while driving trucks in comparison to driving in their private cars, in order to see whether their safety approaches are carried over into private car driving. Validation of the differences found here between

tip- and mixer-truck drivers would require matching the two groups for working conditions. Another point is related to the above-mentioned interpretation of our results, that non-professional drivers seem to view truck presence on the road and actually driving a truck as potentially dangerous, hence their more conservative ratings, in items 1 and 7. If the presence of a truck on the road causes other drivers to have a more responsible attitude toward driving, it remains to be further examined why this attitude does not lead to more cautious behavior in the presence of trucks, as evidenced by trafc accidents. It is worth noting here that this studys results refer mainly to truck drivers (both to mixer and tip-trucks) and less to articulated vehicles (such as tractor-trailers) drivers. Finally, the limitations of the questionnaire used in the study, particularly its projective style must be taken into account. The original scale items were converted to rather projective scenarios in order to gain a higher validity of the responses. This adaptation may have led to some ambiguity as some items refer to truck drivers while others refer to non-truck drivers. In sum, this study examined the differences in the approaches of truckers and automobile drivers toward reckless driving. In addition, it included an analysis of some of the factors affecting truck driver approaches toward reckless driving as derivates of their unique professional environment. Overall, the study found that truck driver display more scrupulous approaches toward reckless driving than private car drivers, and that tip-truck drivers report an even more scrupulous attitude than mixer-truck drivers. These ndings can utilized in developing organizational training strategies as well as in media campaigns dealing with road safety practices of both private car drivers and truck drivers. Appendix A. Reckless driving scenarios 1. You are on your way to a weekend vacation. A sedan and a very slow truck are driving just in front of you. A continuous white line separates your lane from the opposite trafc lane. What are the chances that the car driving in front of you will try to overtake the truck? 2. You and your friends are on a road trip up north. You travel in three separate cars, with you driving the rst car. The atmosphere in the car is good, and as your friends are not familiar with the road you maintain eye contact with the two other car drivers. You reach a signaled crossroad, and you drive through a ashing green light, whereas your friend in the car behind you drives through an amber light signal. The trafc light has just turned red, what are the chances the driver of the third car will try to drive through the red light in order to keep up with the rest of you? 3. It is Sunday morning.2 Your friend is driving on his way to a job interview and he is going to be late. The new boss is a very strict person and your friend feels he must not fail him. What are the chances that he will drive over 80 km/h inside city limits (where the speed limit is 50 km/h)? 4. Your friend meets someone at a party. He goes over and starts talking to her. He likes her and offers to give her a ride home. She agrees and shows him the way, giving exact directions. She points to a shortcut leading through a no entry road. What are the chances that he will take the shortcut? 5. Your friend had a ght with his boss, again, at the end of a terrible day. He has a lot of work to do. Your friend takes his car for a drive on the freeway, turns on some loud music and just drives. What are the chances that he will drive over 130 km/h?

In Israel, the rst work day of the week is Sunday.

728

T. Rosenbloom et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (2009) 723728 Graybill, D., Blackwood, A., 1996. Prediction of adolescent aggression by childhood personality measures: a comparison of projective procedures, self-report tests, and behavior ratings. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 5261. Hanowski, R.J., Wierwille, W.W., Gellatly, A.W., Dingus, T.A., Knipling, R.R., Carroll, R., 1999. Safety concerns of local/short haul truck drivers. Transportation Human Factors Journal 1, 377386. Hanowski, R.J., Wierwille, W.W., Garness, S.A., Dingus, T.A., 2000. Impact of local/short haul operations on driver fatigue. Final Report (Report No. DOTMC-00-203). US Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carriers Safety Administration, Washington, DC. Hanowski, R.J., Keisler, A.S., Wierwille, W.W., 2003. Light vehicleheavy vehicle interactions: a preliminary assessment using critical incident analysis. Final Report (Report No. FMCSA-RT-03-013). US Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Washington, DC. Hanowski, R.J., Hickman, J.S., Wierwille, W.W., Keisler, A., 2007. A descriptive analysis of light vehicleheavy vehicle interactions using in situ driving data. Accident Analysis and Prevention 39, 169179. Hart, S.G., Staveland, L.E., 1987. Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock, P.A., Meshkati, N. (Eds.), Human Mental Workload. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Knipling, R.R., 2005. Evidence and dimensions of commercial driver differential crash risk. In: Proceedings of the Third International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design. Maincent, A., Martin, R., Fornengo, S., 2004. Truck drivers behaviour and rational driving assistance. In: Proceedings of International Conference on Trafc and Transport Psychology. Elsevier, Nottingham. McCall, B.P., Horwitz, I.B., 2005. Occupational vehicular accident claims: a workers compensation analysis of Oregon truck drivers 19901997. Accident Analysis and Prevention 37, 767774. Perruchet, P., 1988. Les Automatismes Cognitifs. Mardaga, Lige. Rosenbloom, T., 2001. Sensation seeking and detection of danger signals on the road. Ph.D. Thesis, Dept. of Criminology, Bar Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel. Rosenbloom, T., Shahar, A., 2007. Differences between taxi and nonprofessional male drivers in attitudes towards trafc regulations. Transportation Research Part F: Trafc Psychology and Behaviour 10, 428435. Sperandio, J.P., 1995. Ergonomie Cognitive. Psychologie Francaise, 4041. Stuster, J., 1999. The Unsafe Driving Acts of Motorists in the Vicinity of Large Trucks. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Tardif, L.P., 2003. Speeding: climate change and road safety implications for heavy freight vehicles. Final Report prepared for Natural Resources Canada Ofce of Energy Efciency and Transport Canada Road Safety Directory. Taubman-Ben-Ari, O., Florian, V., Mikulincer, M., 1999. The impact of mortality salience on reckless driving: a test of terror management mechanisms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76, 3545. Thieriez, K., Radja, G., Toth, G., 2002. Large truck crash causation study interim report (NHTSA Interim Technical Report #DOT HS 809 527). National Center for Statistics and Analysis Advanced Research and Analysis, Springeld, VA. Walton, D., 1999. Examining the self-enhancement bias: professional truck drivers perception of speed, safety, skill and consideration. Transportation Research Part F: Trafc Psychology and Behaviour 2, 91113. Weeks, J.L., 1998. Construction. In: Stellman, J.M. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, Fourth Edition. International Labour Ofce, III, Geneva, pp. 93144. Wylie, C.D., Shultz, T., Miller, J.C., Mitler, M.M., Mackie, R.R., 1996. Commercial motor vehicle driver fatigue and alertness study. Project Report (FHWA-MC-97-002). Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC. Zohar, D., 1980. Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology 65, 96102. Zuckerman, M., 1978. Sensation seeking. In: London, H., Exner, J. (Eds.), Dimensions of Personality. Wiley, New York, pp. 487550. (Israel Road Safety Authority: http://www.pasimlev.co.il).

6. Somebody overtakes your car just before the trafc light. The light has turned from amber to red. What are the chances that you will cross through a red light so that you can shout at him? 7. It is winter. It is raining and it is getting dark. Your friend is driving a full trailer truck on the highway. There is not a car in view. A signal ahead indicates a sharp turn is coming. What are the chances that he will maintain a 120 km/h speed? 8. Your friend has to get to an important social event that starts in 20 min. He is standing in a long and irritating trafc jam, and is afraid he will not make it on time. What are the chances that he will get off road and drive over the shoulder to bypass the trafc jam? 9. You and your friends are returning from a wedding, where you drank a few alcoholic beverages and you all feel a little tired. Your friend is driving on the highway, and his girl friend is anxious to get home because she is waiting for an important phone call due in the next half hour. What are the chances that your friend will drive at 140 km/h? 10. Your friend has returned home on a Thursday evening, after a very difcult week. He is very tired and is dying to get to bed, but a good friend of his is throwing a party and all of his friends are going to be there. Your friend feels he just cannot miss it. He takes the car keys and goes out. What are the chances that he will actually drive the car? References
Blower, D., 1998. The relative contribution of truck drivers and passenger vehicle drivers to truck-passenger vehicle trafc crashes. Publication No. UMTRI-98-25. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, MI. Blower, D., 2002. Vehicle condition and heavy truck accident involvement. In: Proceedings of the International Truck & Bus Safety & Policy Symposium, Center for Transportation Research, University of Tennessee, and National Safety Council, Knoxville, TN, pp. 311322. Bornstein, R.F., 1999. Criterion validity of objective and projective dependency tests: a meta-analytic assessment of behavioral prediction. Psychological Assessment 11, 4857. Clark, N., Dropkin, J., Kaplan, L., 2001. Ready Mixed Concrete Truck Drivers: WorkRelated Hazards and Recommendations for Controls. The Center to Protect Workers Rights, Silver Spring. Council, F.M., Harkey, D.L., Nabors, D.T., Khattak, A.J., Mohamedshah, Y.M., 2003. Examination of fault, unsafe driving acts, and total harm in car-truck collisions. Transportation Research Record No. 1830. Highway Safety, Trafc Law Enforcement, and Truck Safety, pp. 6371. Craft, R., Blower, D., 2004. The Large Truck Crash Causation Study. In: Paper Presented and Distributed at the November 17, 2004 FMCSA R&T Stakeholder Forum, Arlington, VA. Dalziel, J.R., Soames, R.F., 1997. Motor vehicle accidents, fatigue and optimism bias in taxi drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29, 489494. Diaz, R.I., Cabrera, D.D., 1997. Safety climate and attitude as evaluation measures of organization safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention 29, 643650. Glendon, I., 2005. Review of driver behaviour and training. Ergonomics 48, 905917.