This paper aims at exploring the sociological literature in order to come to some insights into traffic behaviour. The social dimension of the interdependence between vehicle, traffic environment and the human factor is discussed. An attempt is made to analyse some of the aspects of the interaction between these three groups of factors. Some tentative comments are made on the relative importance of each of them by stressing the intermediate role of social interaction. Before `traffic' is approached with a sociological perspective, the second part of the social dimension of traffic safety is briefly discussed: the social meaning of `safety'. Traffic is a place of social behaviour just like other institutionalised spaces in society. The authors have differentiated the concept of safety into three aspects: objective or factual insecurity, possible (un)safety or safety risks and thirdly, subjective (un)safety or feelings of insecurity. Through these three dimensions of safety, preventive and avoidance behaviour is influenced. Starting from the broad and the narrow definition of traffic, a working definition is proposed of traffic centred around human interaction. As a contra-force against the egocentric behaviour in traffic, which is nurtured by the anonymous kind of communication, which prevails in a traffic environment, the authors have stressed the role of a "we"-feeling, which emerges within categories of road users. It was not intended in the scope of this paper to come to a ranking order of relative weights of each of the determinants of traffic behaviour. The main aim was to look at the interaction between vehicle, traffic environment and the human factor from a sociological standpoint. In this scope it is stated that traffic behaviour is a derivative of intentions (of road users) which can only be studied through the norms and attitudes which are associated with them. The authors have asked the question why it is that the safety effect, which is hoped for with the introduction of a technological innovation in a vehicle, is never entirely reached. Wilde's risk homeostasis theory provides an answer to this question. The authors have stated four critical comments on the validity of this theory. They have pointed out the need for more attention to the perverse effects of legislation and stressed the role of an adequate control mechanism to reinforce the influence of laws and regulations on traffic behaviour. A lack of adequate surveillance offers people the possibility to behave as free riders. To conform to traffic laws means a loss of time. In this context the authors have pointed out the role of subjective value of travel time and the implications of differences in meaning given to a journey by the actors involved (the road user, the people at the point of destination, those who provided the motivation to make the journey, and others). Discussing the social dimension of the vehicle in the explanatory model of traffic behaviour, the authors presented the vehicle as an extension of the driver's identity. Characteristics of a vehicle feed prejudices and stereotypes and thereby act as an important source of labelling behaviour in traffic, which is partly responsible for traffic behaviour in general. The environment in which traffic takes place also plays an important role in the way safe traffic behaviour takes shape but we have argued that the meaning of a particular environment (which is a precursor for the behaviour in which this meaning results) emerges to a large extent out of social interaction. Socialisation processes in traffic teach road users where the threshold lies between acceptable and unacceptable traffic behaviour within a particular environment and a specific traffic context. Traffic signs serve to communicate the rules of the game but they should not be considered as static instruments. The authors pointed out the importance of a continuous reassessment of their function within the changing ecology of the environment in which they have been placed. To finish, the sociological perspective is illustrated on the interaction between vehicle, environment and the human factor by discussing some observations on the special case of speed behaviour. It is argued that social norms concerning the behaviour towards the maximum speed limit are very complex and can be considered as a black box within the explanatory model of traffic behaviour. The main conclusion is that social action in traffic is driven by the meaning which is given to elements in the traffic environment (in the broad sense), meanings that are the products of social interaction. Knowledge on these interaction processes could help to design road safety campaigns and instruments, which are more effective. (A)
Abstract