md-medicaldata


Go to content

SOCIJALNO-DEMOGRAFSKE DETERMINANTE RIZIČNOG SAOBRAĆAJNOG PONAŠANJA ODRASLOG STANOVNIŠTVA REPUBLIKE SRPSKE
SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC DETERMINANTS OF RISKY DRIVING BEHAVIOR OF GENERAL POPULATION OF REPUBLIKA SRPSKA

Authors

 

Jelena Niškanović1, Slađana Šiljak1, Dragana Stojisavljević1

1Institut za javno zdravstvo Republike Srpske, Republika Srpska, Bosna i Hercegovina / Institute of Public Health, Banja Luka, Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina

 


Rad je primljen 02.10.2017. / Prihvaćen 10.10.2017.

 


Correspondence to


Doc. dr Jelena Niškanović, dipl.psiholog,
Jovana Dučića 1,
78 000 Banja Luka,
+387 65 725 284,
e-mail: jelena.niskanovic@gmail.com

 

 

Sažetak

 

Uvod. Socijalno-demografske determinante se dovode u vezu sa učestalošću rizičnog ponašanja vozača u saobraćaju.Cilj ovog rada je ispitati povezanosti socio-demografskih determinanti sa rizičnim saobraćajnim ponašanjem među vozačima automobila u Republici Srpskoj, Bosna i Hercegovina.
Metode rada. Studija je dio istraživanja zdravlja stanovništva Republike Srpske koje je provedeno 2010. godine. Istraživanjem je obuhvaćeno 1866 domaćinstava, među kojima je anketirano 4178 odraslih osoba (1688 vozača i 2490 nevozača). Prilikom obrade podataka primjenjen je χ²- test i logistička regresija.
Rezultati. Muškarci znatno češće koriste mobilni telefon tokom vožnje (UO=2,31), prekoračuju dozvoljenu brzinu (UO=3) i voze pod uticajem alkohola (UO=10,63), u poređenju sa ženama vozačima. Sa godinama starosti dolazi do smanjene upotrebe mobilnog telefona (UO=0,96) i prekoračenja brzine (UO=0,97) tokom vožnje. Vozači koji žive u ruralnim naseljima češće koriste mobilni telefon tokom vožnje (UO=1,49), češće prekorače dozvoljenu brzinu(UO=1,51) i voze pod uticajem alkohola (UO=2,08) u poređenju sa vozačima koji žive u urbanim naseljima. Nezaposlene (UO= 0,64) i neaktivne (UO=0,35) osobe su manje sklone upotrebi mobilnog telefona i prekoračenju brzine u poređenju sa zaposlenim osobama. Radno neaktivni vozači rjeđe voze pod uticajem alkohola (UO=0,48) u poređenju sa zaposlenim vozačima. Samci češće ne koriste pojas (UO=1,40) u poređenju sa osobama koje žive u bračnoj/vanbračnoj zajednici.
Zaključak. Ova studija je pokazala da postoje značajne razlike u zastupljenosti pojedinih formi rizičnog ponašanja u saobraćaju među vozačima različitog socijalnog i demografskog statusa. U narednim istraživanjima je potrebno ispitati razloge rizičnog ponašanja u saobraćaju i stepen u kojem vozači procijenjuju rizik od nastajanja saobraćajne nezgode uslijed nepoštovanja saobraćajnih pravila i propisa.

 

 

 

Ključne reči:

Socio-demografske determinante, rizično saobraćajno ponašanje, vozači, istraživanje zdravstvenog stanja, Republika Srpska

 

 

Abstract

 

Introduction. Socio-demographic determinants are associated with risky driving behavior. The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between socio-demographic determinants and risky driving behavior among car drivers in the Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Methods. This study is part of general population survey, that was conducted in 2010 in Republic of Srpska. Data was collected among 1866 households and total number of 4178 persons were interviewed (1688 drivers and 2490 non-drivers). Chi- square test and logistic regressionwere used for data analysis
Results. Men are more likely to use mobile phone while driving (UO = 2,31), exceed the allowed speed (UO = 3) and drive under the influence of alcohol (UO = 10,63), in comparison with women drivers. With age, there is a decline in use of mobile phone (UO = 0,96) and over speed (UO = 0,97) during driving. Drivers who live in rural settlements often use their mobile phone while driving (UO = 1,49), exceedthe allowed speed (UO = 1,51) and drive under the influence of alcohol (UO = 2,08) in comparison whit drivers who live in urban settlements. Unemployed (UO = 0,64) and inactive (UO = 0,35) persons are less prone to use a mobile phone and to exceed the speed in comparisonwhit employed persons. Inactive drivers less drive under the influence of alcohol (UO = 0,48) in comparison whit employed drivers. People who live alonemore often do not use the seat belt (UO = 1,40) compared whit persons who live in a marital union
Conclusion. This study has shown that there are present significant differences in frequency of certain forms of riskydriving behavior among drivers of different demographic and social status. In futuresurveys it is necessary to explore reasons for risky driving behavior and the degree in which drivers assess the risk of a traffic accident due to non-compliance with traffic rules and regulations.

 

 

Key words:

Socio-demographic determinants, risky traffic behavior, drivers, health research, Republic of Srpska

 

 

References

 

  1. World Health Organization. Global status report on road safety 2015. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2015. Available from: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2015/en/
  2. World Health Organization. European facts and the Global status report on road safety 2015. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2015. Available from: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/293082/European-facts-Global-Status-Report-road-safety-en.pdf?ua=1
  3. Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova Republike Srpske. Informacije o stanju bezbijednosti saobraćaja u Republici Srpskoj za 2016. godinu. Banja Luka: Ministarstvo unutrašnjih poslova Republike Srpske; 2017. Available form: http://www.mup.vladars.net/lat/index.php?vijest=informisanje_javnosti&vrsta=statistike
  4. Mohan D, Tiwari G, Khayesi M, Nafukho FM. Road traffic injury prevention : training manual. India: World Health Organization, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi; 2006, 1-126.
  5. Carey RN, McDermott DT, Sarma KM. The impact of threat appeals on fear arousal and driver behavior: a meta-analysis of experimental research 1990-2011. PloS one. 2013; 8(5):1-8.
  6. Whitlock G, Norton R, Clark T, Jackson R, MacMahon S. Motor vehicle driver injury and marital status: a cohort study with prospective and retrospective driver injuries. Inj Prev 2004; 10(1):33-6.
  7. Shi J, Bai Y, Ying X, Atchley P. Aberrant driving behaviors: a study of drivers in Beijing. Accid Anal Prev 2010; 42(4):1031-40.
  8. Whitlock G, Norton R, Clark T, Pledger M, Jackson R, MacMahon S. Motor vehicle driver injury and socioeconomic status: a cohort study with prospective and retrospective driver injuries. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 2003; 57(7):512-6.
  9. Hosking J, Ameratunga S, Exeter D, Stewart J, Bell A. Ethnic, socioeconomic and geographical inequalities in road traffic injury rates in the Auckland region. Aust N Z J Public Health 2013; 37(2):162-7.
  10. Park K, Hwang SS, Lee JS, Kim Y, Kwon S. Individual and areal risk factors for road traffic injury deaths: nationwide study in South Korea. Asia Pac J Public Health 2010; 22(3):320-31.
  11. Hasselberg M, Vaez M, Laflamme L. Socioeconomic aspects of the circumstances and consequences of car crashes among young adults. Soc Sci Med 2005; 60(2):287-95.
  12. Sehat M, Naieni KH, Asadi-Lari M, Foroushani AR, Malek-Afzali H. Socioeconomic Status and Incidence of Traffic Accidents in Metropolitan Tehran: A Population-based Study. Int J Prev Med 2012; 3(3):181-90.
  13. vanBeeck EF, Mackenbach JP, Looman CW, Kunst AE. Determinants of traffic accident mortality in The Netherlands: a geographical analysis. Int J Epidemiol1991; 20(3):698-706.
  14. Jafarpour S, Rahimi-Movaghar V. Determinants of rosky driving behavior: a narrative review. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2014; 28: 1-8.
  15. Roidl E, Siebert FW, Oehl M, Hoger R. Introducing a multivariate model for predicting driving performance: The role of driving anger and personal characteristics. J Safety Res 2013; 47:47-56.
  16. Bachoo S, Bhagwanjee A, Govender K. The influence of anger, impulsivity, sensation seeking and driver attitudes on risky driving behavior among post-graduate university students in Durban, South Africa. Accid Anal Prev 2013; 55:67-76.
  17. Fosgerau M. Speed and Income.  Journal of Transport Economics andPolicy 2005; 39(2):225-240.
  18. Summala H. Young Driver Accidents: Risk Taking or Failure of Skills? Alcohol, Drugs Driving 1987; 3: 79-91.
  19.  Opera C. Traffic risk behavior: a theoretical and empirical research. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2012; 33: 840-844.
  20. Torfs K. Meesmann U, Van den Berghe W, Trotta M. ESRA 2015 – The results. Synthesis of the main findings from the ESRA survey in 17 countries. ESRA project (European Survey of Road users’ safety Attitudes). Brussels: Belgian Road Safety Institute; 2016. Available from: www.esranet.eu
  21. Boyle JM, Lampkin C. 2007 motor vehicle occupant safety survey. Volume 2: Seat belt report. (DOT HS 810 975). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2007.
  22. World Health Organization. Mobile phone use: a growing problem of driver distraction. Geneva: World Health Organisation; 2011. Available from: http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/distracted_driving_en.pdf
  23. Brusque C, AlauzetA. Analysis of the individual factors affecting mobile phone use while driving in France: Sociodemographic characteristics, car and phone use in professional and private contexts. Accid Anal Prev 2008; 40(1): 35-44.
  24. Lamble D, Rajalin S, Summala H. Mobile phone use while driving: Public opinions on restrictions. Transportation 2002; 29(3): 223-236.
  25. Regan MA, Hallett C, Gordon CP. Driver distraction and driver inattention: Definition, relationship, and taxonomy. Accid Anal Prev 2011; 43: 1771-1781.
  26. Peden M, Scurfield R, Sleet D, Mohan D, Hyder AA, Jarawan E. World report on road traffic injury prevention, Vol. 7. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2004, 1-244.
  27. Drew L, Royal D, Moulton B, Peterson A, Haddix D. National survey of drinking and driving attitudes and behaviors: 2008. (NHTSA DOT HS 811 342). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2010.
  28. Stout EM, Sloan FA, Liang L, Davies HH. Reducing harmful alcohol-related behaviors: Effective regulatory methods. J. Stud. Alcohol2000; 61: 402-412.
  29. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Traffic safety facts: Results of the 2007 National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers. (DOT HS 811 175). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation; 2009.
  30. Augustyn M, Simons-Morton BG. Adolescent drinking and driving: Etiology and interpretation. J Drug Educ 1995; 25: 41-59.
  31. Cox E, Fisher S. Drinking on the dirt roads of America: NACCHO’s impaired driving prevention in rural communities demonstration site project. J Public Health Manag 2009; 15: 278-280.

UDK: 656.1.08(497.6)"2010"
651.1.052(497.6)"2010"



PDF Niškanović J. et al • MD-Medical Data 2017;9(4): 223-228

 

 

 

Naslovna | Revija | Galerija | Dešavanja | Instrukcije | Redakcija | Izdavač | Prijatelji sajta | Saradnja | Kontakt | Site Map


Back to content | Back to main menu