Lisa N. Wundersitz

An examination of the environmental, driver and vehicle factors associated with the serious and fatal crashes of older rural drivers

Motor vehicle crashes involving rural drivers aged 75 years and over are more than twice as likely to result in a serious or fatal injury as those involving their urban counterparts. The current study examined some of the reasons for this using a database of police-reported crashes (2004-2008) to identify the environmental (lighting, road and weather conditions, road layout, road surface, speed limit), driver (driver error, crash type), and vehicle (vehicle age) factors that are associated with the crashes of older rural drivers. It also determined whether these same factors are associated with an increased likelihood of serious or fatal injury in younger drivers for whom frailty does not contribute to the resulting injury severity. A number of environmental (i.e., undivided, unsealed, curved and inclined roads, and areas with a speed limit of 100km/h or greater) and driver (i.e., collision with a fixed object and rolling over) factors were more frequent in the crashes of older rural drivers and additionally associated with increased injury severity in younger drivers. Moreover, when these environmental factors were entered into a logistic regression model to predict whether older drivers who were involved in crashes did or did not sustain a serious or fatal injury, it was found that each factor independently increased the likelihood of a serious or fatal injury. Changes, such as the provision of divided and sealed roads, greater protection from fixed roadside objects, and reduced speed limits, appear to be indicated in order to improve the safety of the rural driving environment for drivers of all ages. Additionally, older rural drivers should be encouraged to reduce their exposure to these risky circumstances.

Phone Use While Driving: Results From an Observational Survey

Objectives: The aim of this study was to quantify the level of handheld phone use when driving in South Australia. The study also sought to investigate any driver, site, and vehicle characteristics associated with handheld phone use to inform countermeasure development and publicity campaigns. Method: An on-road observational survey of handheld phone use was undertaken as part of a larger restraint use survey. The survey was conducted at 61 sites in metropolitan Adelaide and rural regions within South Australia on weekdays and a weekend in 2009. Results: A total of 64 (0.6%) of the 11,524 drivers observed during the survey were using handheld phones. Handheld phone usage rates ranged from 0.8 percent in metropolitan Adelaide to 0.3 percent in the rural region of The Riverland. Of all driver, site, and vehicle characteristics examined, the only statistically significant difference in handheld phone usage was for the number of vehicle occupants. The odds of a driver using a handheld phone while traveling alone was over 4 times higher than for a driver traveling with passengers. Conclusions: The level of handheld phone use among drivers in South Australia appears to be low relative to other jurisdictions. The level of enforcement activity and severity of penalties do not offer a clear explanation for the higher levels of compliance with phone laws. Given the rate of increase in phone technology, it is important to conduct regular roadside surveys of phone use among drivers to monitor trends in usage over time.

Road safety mass media campaigns: Why are results inconclusive, and what can be done?

Recent research literature on the effectiveness (or otherwise) of promoting road safety via mass media advertising is selectively reviewed. The overall picture from this is inconclusive: effects of substantial size have been rare, but effects of small size cannot be ruled out. It is then argued that attempts to use crash data to establish or disprove the cost-effectiveness of campaigns are, indeed, doomed to failure: the random variability in crash numbers is too great (and even low effectiveness may be sufficient as campaigns are very cheap per person reached). It is suggested that evaluation may need to be based on before and after comparison of behaviours or variables that can be objectively observed and are closely linked to safety – and in order to substantiate the behaviour-safety link, credible theories are needed.