Is safety in the eye of the beholder? Discrepancies between self-reported and proxied data on road safety behaviors—A systematic review

Abstract

Recent studies have problematized on the lack of agreement between self-reported and proxied data in the field of road safety-related behaviors. Overall, and although these studies are still scarce, most of them suggest that the way we perceive our own road behavior is systematically different from the perspective from which we perceive others' behavior, and vice versa. The aim of this review paper was to target the number and type of studies that have researched the behavioral perceptions of different groups of road users, contrasting self-reported behavioral data with those reported by other users (proxied), and their outcomes. This systematic review followed the PRISMA methodology, which allows for the identification of relevant articles based on the research term. A total number of 222 indexed articles were filtered, and a final selection of 19 articles directly addressing the issue was obtained. Search strategies were developed and conducted in MEDLINE, WOS, Scopus and APA databases. It is remarkable how road users perceive themselves as behaviorally “safer” than the rest of road users in what concerns the knowledge of traffic norms and their on-road performance. In addition, and regardless of the type of user used as a source, self-reported data suggest their perceived likelihood to suffer a traffic crash is lesser if compared to any other user. On the other hand, proxied reports tend to undervalue third users' performance, and to perceive riskier behaviors and crash-related risks among them. The outputs of this systematic review support the idea that the perception of road users' behavior and its related risks substantially differ according to the source. It is also necessary to increase the number, coverage and rigor of studies on this matter, perhaps through complementary and mixed measures, in order to properly understand and face the bias on road users' risk-related behaviors.

Analysis of Commuting Habits and Perceived Risks: An Empirical Case Study in a Large Spanish Company

“…Finally, it should be noted that concerning the factors that most influence the probability of suffering an accident commuting, 70.1% of the participants point to other drivers who do not respect the rules. Therefore, there is a tendency to underestimate their infringing behaviors and overestimate those of others, a phenomenon that also occurs in other studies [62]. These identified perception biases underline the importance of self-reflection and recognition of individual responsibility for road safety and the need for awareness programs that address these distorted perceptions to promote safer user behaviors.…”

“It’s okay because I’m just driving”: an exploration of self-reported mobile phone use among Mexican drivers

“…However, it is worth noting that the self-reported methods in this study may underestimate the true extent of this behavior due to potential legal consequences and social desirability bias. Contrastingly, observational and proxy reports offer a more accurate depiction of mobile phone use while driving ( Duarte & Mouro, 2019 ; Li et al, 2016 ; Useche, Faus & Alonso, 2022 ). This implies that the prevalence of mobile phone use while driving may be even more extensive than indicated in the present study.…”

Supervivencia vial: cultura del riesgo

“…Esto implica la posibilidad de que las respuestas de las personas no coincidan totalmente con sus comportamientos en la conducción. De hecho, por medio de medidas de autoinforme se ha encontrado que los automovilistas se perciben con conductas seguras en la conducción y, por lo tanto, consideran que tienen poco riesgo de tener accidentes (Useche et al, 2022). Sin embargo, el autoinforme es una estrategia adecuada para medir estados emocionales internos (el enojo, en este caso).…”

“…Un factor clave en esta actuación fue la adopción de medidas legislativas desde la primera década del milenio: acciones legislativas, de comunicación, administrativas educativas, y, sobre todo, penales, que recayeron sobre todo en los comportamientos demostrados como principales factores concurrentes en los accidentes: alcohol y sustancias, velocidad inadecuada, conducción temeraria, distracciones, uso de cinturón, casco o sistemas de retención infantil, móvil, etcétera (dgt, 2022a, 2022b). Éstas se centraron sobre los conductores en general (Alonso et al, 2022;Castillo-Manzano et al, 2010Faus et al, 2023;Moreira, 2013) y sobre los conductores reincidentes en particular por el impacto de sus comportamientos viales violentos sobre la seguridad pública (Escamilla, 2018;Martí, 2015;Ministerio del Interior, 2020a).…”