The prevalence of fatalities in road traffic is the ultimate measure of road safety. And it is an objective one. However, it overall does not correspond to how safe people feel within their local traffic system. The relationship between objective and subjective traffic safety is assumed to be only minor (SWOV, 2012). At the same time, it is not agreed upon which level of subjective safety even is desirable, given that ‘feeling too safe’ might result in decreased caution of traffic participants and therefore in reduced traffic safety. Furthermore, awareness of the contribution of specific risk factors to crashes is a precondition for behavioural changes. The concept of subjective safety in traffic refers to feeling safe/unsafe in traffic or the anticipation of being safe/unsafe in traffic for oneself and/or others (SWOV, 2012). This individual assessment is shaped by various internal and external factors like personal experience, observation and interpretation of traffic situations, social norms, personality traits, level of information, the built environment, infrastructure and traffic volume etc. It represents a broad concept that is similar to many others. In this thematic report it is referred to as subjective safety on a global level asking about how safe/unsafe one feels when using various transport modes and distinguished from driving anxiety as well as from feeling safe/unsafe in very specific situations (like driving in cities). Furthermore, respondents have been asked if they perceive certain risky driving behaviours increased, decreased or stagnated within the last two years. Subjective safety has furthermore common ground with the concepts of ‘risk perception’ and ‘concern’ about traffic safety which are also operationalised to a certain extent in the ESRA survey. It is important to note that there is no agreed-upon standard definition of risk perception (Shinar, 2007). ESRA respondents were asked in this regard about their assessment of how many accidents can be accounted for a specific factor like tiredness behind the wheel or driving too fast. Risk perception must be differentiated from ‘risk tolerance’ and ‘risk taking’. It is a complex construct like subjective safety and is very sensitive to misperception by traffic participants (De Blaeij & Van Vuuren, 2003). There is a tendency to overestimate unlikely events with catastrophic outcomes and to underestimate frequent events with less catastrophic outcomes (Slovic, 2000). In this respect a question about subjective exposure to the single risk factors was included as well. Asking about different perceived accident causes and put them in mutual relation indicates furthermore to which extent a risk factor is considered as relevant for traffic safety. The subjective importance of road safety in the ESRA countries is assessed through asking about the level of concern people experience towards traffic safety. This is further put in relation to levels of concern towards other societal realms like crime or unemployment rates. Whereas a certain amount of concern about traffic safety issues might be beneficial for the acceptance of road safety measures, a low level of concern in combination with a high fatality rate is greatly problematic. Some of the ESRA questions regarding subjective safety and risk perception have already been used in the SARTRE4 survey, like the level of concern regarding traffic safety. This allows an assessment of the development in a perspective of the previous years. Some others are slightly different or new and can be considered a first benchmark for future comparison and monitoring across Europe. This thematic ESRA report aims at describing subjective safety and risk perception of all kind of road users in 17 European countries and comparing it among themselves to this effect. (Author/publisher)
Abstract