1 Which factors affect handheld phone use in traffic - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

1

Which factors affect handheld phone use in traffic

?

– A survey study in Denmark and the Netherlands

2

Rebecca Brandt, Mette Møller, Sonja Haustein and Marjan Hagenzieker

Laws and sanctions are widely used means to regulate behaviours in traffic

3

Behavioristic explanation

The law works as an inhibitor by adding a

(new)

risk (a fine) with a higher probability

-

Åberg

, 1998

Systemic explanation

The law alters culture and indirectly affects behaviours

by

changing

the perceived safety risk

- Nadler, 2017

The practical

frameworkCase: The b

an on handheld phone use in The Netherlands - mixed methods: interviews and surveys - compare to Denmark, specifically with focus on culture

4

Ban of

Hh

use

in NL

Interviews DK

Interviews NL

Survey DK + NL

Interviews NL

Survey DK + NL               NovDecJanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOct NovMay 201820192020

Country characteristics

Denmark

The

Netherlands

Population

size

5.806.081

(Q1, 2019)

17.101.084

(2018)

Area

sq.km

42.933

42.508Risk by exposure:Deaths per billion kilometres cycled9 (2011-2015)8(2011-2015)Trips by bicycle18 %(2008)26 % (2008)Statistics Denmark / Danmarks StatistikStatistics Netherlands / Centraal Bureau voor de StatistiekOECD/IFT (2018) Roundtable 168 Summary and ConclusionsBuehler, R. & Pucher, J. (2012): Walking and Cycling in Western Europe and the United Stated, TR News 280 May – June

Theoretical

backgroundTheory of Planned Behaviour (

Ajzen, 1991, 2006 and more)6

Method

Semi-structured, qualitative pre-survey interviews

DK

n =9 NL n =10Web surveyDistributed by

Epinion

Response

collection:

May 13 to June 11

2019Inclusion criteria: Age 17<

Phone ownership

bike

frequency>never

Language: Danish and

DutchAnalysis performed in SPSS7

Sample description

8

Denmark

The Netherlands

Test of difference

N

(completed)

580

509

Age (SD)

46 (15.8)

45.7 (14.8)

T-test: p = 0.734Gender (F/M/O) %55.1/44.9/052.7/47.3/0Fisher's Exact Test p = 0.427Education level (Low/high) % 49/5133.1/66.9Fisher's Exact Test p = 0.000

Handheld use within country

9

Fisher’s

Exact

test p

=

0.755

Most frequent bike type,

within country10

Fishers

Exact

Test: p

=<0.000

Law

beliefs by country

11

Fishers

Exact

Test: p

=

<0.000

Helmet

use (for most freqent bike type)

12

Pearson

Chi-Square: p

=

<

0.000

Perceived

risk of handheld phone use 13

DK

NL

Mean difference (CI)

4.32

4.12

0.20 (0.98, 0.31) ***

HH legal

HH

banned

Mean difference (CI)

4.174.24 -0.08 (-0.20, 0.05)By law belief By country* p ≤ 0.05** p ≤ 0.01*** p ≤ 0.001

Principal Component Analysis

Component

Perceived Self (responsible)

S

ocial

Norms

Neg. Perceived

Behavioural Control

Behavioural beliefs

Safe

cycling

0.73

-

0.120.10-0.07Compliance with traffic laws0.670.010.24-0.25Concern about others0.580.050.27-0.23General norms-0.060.55-0.190.30Peers attitude-0.030.77-0.160.13Peers use-0.010.80-0.080.21Wobble (HH)-0.04-0.070.17-0.12Skills0.01-0.120.70-0.24Attention0.19-0.070.70-0.25HF pleasant0,100.130.180.43No disturbance0.240.22-0.310.39HH pleasant-0.160.12-0.12

0.73

Perceived

s

afety (

HH

)

-

0.12

0.18

-

0.23

0.62

Cronbach’s Alpha

0.71

0.68

0.79

0.58

14

Denmark: Handheld phone use

Demographic

variables only

With psychological variables

B

Exp

(B)

95%

C.I

.

B

Exp

(B)

95% C.I.Age-0.08 ***0.93(0.91, 0.94)-0.06 ***0.95(0.93, 0.96)Male (1)0.34 1.41(0.93, 2.14)-0.070.94(0.58, 1.98)Cycling in minutes0.38 ***1.46(1.19, 1.80)0.45 ***1.56(1.24, 1.98)Number of inhabitants in municipality0.18 *1.20(1.04, 1.40)0.24 **1.267(1.07, 1.50)Higher education (1)0.221.25(0.83, 1.88)0.301.37(0.84, 2.15)Constant0.942.55  Perceived self: responsible-0.080.93(0.62, 1.38)Social Norms0.55 **1.73(1.21, 2.47)Neg. PBC-0.63 ***0.53(0.39, 0.72)

Behavioural

beliefs

0.94 ***

2.56

(1.73, 3.79)

Lawbelief

HH

banned (

1)

-

0.58

0.56

(0.31, 1.02)

Constant

-

0.67

0.51

Nagelkerke

R Square

0.36

0.53

15

*

p ≤ 0.05

** p

≤

0.01

*** p

≤

0.001

The Netherlands:

Handheld phone use

Demographic

variables only

With psychological variables

B

Exp

(B)

95%

C.I

.

B

Exp(B)95% C.I.Age-0.09 ***0.91 (0.90, 0.93)-0.06 ***0.94(0.92, 0.96)Male (1)0.94 ***2.56(1.62, 4.03)0.71 **2.03(1.22, 3.39)Cycling in minutes0.171.18(0.97, 1.43)0.161.180(0.93, 1.48)Number of inhabitants in municipality0.061.06(0.92, 1.23)0.081.09(0.93, 1.28)Higher education (1)0.411.50(0.92, 2.44)0.521.68(0.96, 2.92)Constant2.10 ***8.14  Perceived self: responsible   -0.52 *0.60(0.40, 0.90)Social Norms   0.80 ***2.22(1.49, 3.30)Neg. PBC   -0.77 ***0.47

(0.34, 0.63)

Behavioural

beliefs

0.09

1.10

(0.73, 1.65)

Lawbelief

HH

banned (

1)

-

0.50

0.61

(0.35, 1.06)

Constant

3.53 **

34.00

Nagelkerke

R Square

0.38

0.54

16

*

p ≤ 0.05

** p

≤

0.01

*** p

≤

0.001

Comparison across countries

DK

NL

B

Exp

(B)

95%

C.I

.

B

Exp

(B)

95% C.I.Age-0.06 ***0.95(0.93, 0.96)-0.06 ***0.94(0.92, 0.96)Male (1)-0.070.94(0.58, 1.98)071 **2.03(1.22, 3.39)Cycling in minutes0.45 ***1.56(1.24, 1.98)0.161.18(0.93, 1.48)Number of inhabitants in municipality0.24 **1.27(1.07, 1.50)0.081.09(0.93, 1.28)Higher education (1)0.301.35(0.84, 2.15)0.521.68(0.96, 2.92)Perceived self: responsible-0.080.93(0.62, 1.38)-0.52 *0.60(0.40, 0.90)Social Norms0.55 **1.73(1.21, 2.47)0.80 ***2.22(1.49, 3.30)Neg. PBC-0.63 ***0.53(0.39, 0.72)-0.77 ***0.47(0.34, 0.63)Behavioural beliefs0.94 ***2.57(1.73, 3.79)0.091.10(0.73, 1.65)

Lawbelief

HH

banned (

1)

-

0.58

0.56

(0.31, 1.02)

-

0.50

0.61

(0.35, 1.06)

Constant

-

0.67

0.51

3.53 **

34.00

Nagelkerke

R Square

0,53

0,54

17

*

p ≤ 0.05

** p

≤

0.01

*** p

≤

0.001

18

Rebecca Karstens Brandt

rebbr@dtu.dk

Phone: (+45) 45254444