Analysis of the Accident Propensity of Chinese Bus Drivers: The Influence of Poor Driving Records and Demographic Factors
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Data
2.1. Data Source
2.2. Data Processing
2.3. Data Description
2.3.1. Number of Violations Analysis
2.3.2. Number of Alarms Analysis
2.3.3. Age Analysis
2.3.4. Driving Age Analysis
2.3.5. Gender Analysis
2.3.6. Political Background Analysis
2.3.7. Education Analysis
2.3.8. Number of Accidents Analysis
2.4. Factors
3. Methods
3.1. C5.0 Decision Tree
3.1.1. C5.0 Decision Tree Model
3.1.2. Parameter Tuning
3.2. Binary Logistic Regression Model
4. Results
4.1. C5.0 Decision Tree Model Results
4.2. Binary Logistic Model Results
5. Discussion
6. Conclusions and Recommendations
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Chimba, D.; Sando, T.; Kwigizile, V. Effect of bus size and operation to crash occurrences. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 2063–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaplan, S.; Prato, C.G. Risk factors associated with bus accident severity in the United States: A generalized ordered logit model. J. Saf. Res. 2012, 43, 171–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Barua, U.; Tay, R. Severity of urban transit bus crashes in Bangladesh. J. Adv. Transp. 2010, 44, 34–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Traffic Administration Bureau of the Ministry of Public Security of the People’s Republic of China. In Annual Report on Road Traffic Accidents 2020[R]; Research Institute of Traffic Management, Ministry of Public Security: Beijing, China, 2021.
- Strathman, J.G.; Wachana, P.; Callas, S. Analysis of bus collision and non-collision incidents using transit ITS and other archived operations data. J. Saf. Res. 2010, 41, 137–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Das, S.; Sun, X.; Wang, F.; Leboeuf, C. Estimating likelihood of future crashes for crash-prone drivers. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. (Engl. Ed.) 2015, 2, 145–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Khanehshenas, F.; Mazloumi, A.; Jalaldehi, P.A.; Kaveh, M. Drivers’ subjective perceptions of the contextual factors influencing fatigue: A qualitative study of suburban bus drivers in Iran. Work 2022, 72, 1481–1491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dorn, L.; Af Wåhlberg, A. Work-related road safety: An analysis based on U.K. bus driver performance. Risk Anal. Int. J. 2008, 28, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goh, K.; Currie, G.; Sarvi, M.; Logan, D. Factors affecting the probability of bus drivers being at-fault in bus-involved accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 66, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huting, J.; Reid, J.; Nwoke, U.; Bacarella, E.; Ky, K.E. Identifying Factors That Increase Bus Accident Risk by Using Random Forests and Trip-Level Data. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2016, 2539, 149–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.-H.; Liu, Q.; Yuan, W.; Liu, H.-X. Relationship between fatigue driving and traffic accident. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2010, 10, 104–109. [Google Scholar]
- Jovanis, P.P.; Schofer, J.L.; Prevedouros, P.; Tsunokawa, K. Analysis of Bus Transit Accidents: Empirical, Methodological and Policy Issues; Transportation Research Board: Springfield, IL, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Glendon, A.I.; McNally, B.; Jarvis, A.; Chalmers, S.L.; Salisbury, R.L. Evaluating a novice driver and pre-driver road safety intervention. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2014, 64, 100–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, H.-Y.W.; Donmez, B.; Liberty Hoekstra-Atwood, L.; Marulanda, S. Self-reported engagement in driver distraction: An application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 38, 151–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tao, D.; Zhang, R.; Qu, X. The effects of gender, age and personality traits on risky driving behaviors. J. Shenzhen Univ. Sci. Eng. 2016, 33, 551–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Wang, L.; Yuan, H.; Duan, M.; Xie, L. Relationship between Driving Skills and Driving Behaviors Based on a Structural Equation Model. In Proceedings of the 21st COTA International Conference of Transportation, Xi’an, China, 17–20 December 2021; pp. 1704–1713. [Google Scholar]
- Hamed, M.; Jaradat, A.; Easa, S.M. Analysis of commercial mini-bus accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1998, 30, 555–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Azhar, A.; Ariff, N.M.; Abu Bakar, M.A.; Roslan, A. Classification of driver injury severity for accidents involving heavy vehicles with decision tree and random forest. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taamneh, M. Investigating the role of socio-economic factors in comprehension of traffic signs using decision tree algorithm. J. Saf. Res. 2018, 66, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rejali, S.; Aghabayk, K.; Shiwakoti, N. A clustering approach to identify high-risk taxi drivers based on self-reported driving behavior. J. Adv. Transp. 2022, 2022, 6511225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukongo, O.E.B. Examining prominent causes of traffic injury severity in Louisiana with multinomial logistic models. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 2020, 2675, 245–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiao, Y.; Liu, H.; Liang, Z. An analysis of the influential factors of violations in urban-rural passenger transport drivers. J. Adv. Transp. 2022, 2022, 1652923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smart, R.G.; Stoduto, G.; Mann, R.E.; Adlaf, E. Road Rage Experience and Behavior: Vehicle, Exposure, and Driver Factors. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2004, 5, 343–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, A.; Qiu, C.; Zhao, L.; Jin, Y. Driver Risk Assessment Using Traffic Violation and Accident Data by Machine Learning Approaches. In Proceedings of the 2018 3rd IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Engineering (Icite), Singapore, 3–5 September 2018; pp. 291–295. [Google Scholar]
- Chu, W.; Wu, C.; Atombo, C.; Zhang, H.; Özkan, T. Traffic climate, driver behaviour, and accidents involvement in China. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2018, 122, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Segura, M.; Mello, J.; Hernández, A. Machine Learning Prediction of University Student Dropout: Does Preference Play a Key Role? Mathematics 2022, 10, 3359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, W.-C.; Lan, T.-H.; Ho, W.-C.; Lan, T.-Y. Factors affecting the use of health examinations by the elderly in Taiwan. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2010, 50, S11–S16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fadlalla, A. An experimental investigation of the impact of aggregation on the performance of data mining with logistic regression. Inf. Manag. 2005, 42, 695–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cobas, J.A. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Sociol. Inq. 2000, 70, 109. [Google Scholar]
- Gómez-Fernández, N.; Mediavilla, M. Factors Influencing Teachers’ Use of ICT in Class: Evidence from a Multilevel Logistic Model. Mathematics 2022, 10, 799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, X.; He, J.; Zhang, C.; Liu, Z.; Qiao, B.; Zhang, H. Single-vehicle crash severity outcome prediction and determinant extraction using tree-based and other non-parametric models. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 153, 106034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xie, P.; Qin, D.; Zhu, T. Impact of rule-violating behaviors on the risk of bus drivers being at-fault in crashes. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2022, 23, 364–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mallia, L.; Lazuras, L.; Violani, C.; Lucidi, F. Crash risk and aberrant driving behaviors among bus drivers: The role of personality and attitudes towards traffic safety. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2015, 79, 145–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Factor, R. An empirical analysis of the characteristics of drivers who are ticketed for traffic offences. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2018, 53, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taubman-Ben-Ari, O.; Mikulincer, M.; Gillath, O. The multidimensional driving style inventory-scale construct and validation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2004, 36, 323–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maxwell, J.; Grant, S.; Lipkin, S. Further validation of the propensity for angry driving scale in British drivers. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2005, 38, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sheykhfard, A.; Haghighi, F. Driver distraction by digital billboards? Structural equation modeling based on naturalistic driving study data: A case study of Iran. J. Saf. Res. 2019, 72, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwerling, C.; Peek-Asa, C.; Whitten, P.S.; Choi, S.-W.; Sprince, N.L.; Jones, M.P. Fatal motor vehicle crashes in rural and urban areas: Decomposing rates into contributing factors. Inj. Prev. 2005, 11, 24–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isabelle, M.P.; Simon, M. Comparison between elderly and young drivers’ performances on a driving simulator and self-assessment of their driving attitudes and mastery. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 135, 105317. [Google Scholar]
- Tseng, C.M. Social-demographics, driving experience and yearly driving distance in relation to a tour bus driver’s at-fault accident risk. Tour. Manag. 2012, 33, 910–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hutchens, L.; Senserrick, T.M.; Jamieson, P.E.; Romer, D.; Winston, F.K. Teen driver crash risk and associations with smoking and drowsy driving. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2008, 40, 869–876. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, F.; Mehrotra, S.; Roberts, S.C. Driving distracted with friends: Effect of passengers and driver distraction on young drivers’ behavior. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 132, 105246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shinar, D.; Compton, R. Aggressive driving: An observational study of driver, vehicle, and situational variables. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2004, 36, 429–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Masuri, M.G.; Mustaffa, D.N.A.; Dahlan, A.; Isa, K.A. The Intention in Speeding Behavior between Low and High Intended Young Driver in Urban University. Environ. Proc. J. 2016, 1, 330–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Claret, P.L.; del Castillo, J.D.D.L.; Moleón, J.J.J.; Cavanillas, A.B.; Martín, M.G.; Vargas, R.G. Age and sex differences in the risk of causing vehicle collisions in Spain, 1990 to 1999. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2003, 35, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, G.; Yau, K.K.; Zhang, X.; Li, Y. Traffic accidents involving fatigue driving and their extent of casualties. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 87, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- D’Souza, K.A.; Maheshwari, S.K. Multivariate Statistical Analysis of Public Transit Bus Driver Distraction. J. Public Transp. 2012, 15, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kashani, A.T.; Besharati, M.M. An investigation of the relationship between demographic variables, driving behaviour and crash involvement risk of bus drivers: A case study from Iran. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2021, 27, 535–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Variables | Value | Categories | Count | Percentage |
---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 1 | 20–25 | 76 | 1.54% |
2 | 26–35 | 1085 | 22.03% | |
3 | 36–45 | 1607 | 32.63% | |
4 | 46–55 | 1995 | 40.51% | |
5 | 56–60 | 162 | 3.29% | |
Driving age | 1 | <2 | 161 | 3.37% |
2 | 2–5 | 666 | 13.52% | |
3 | 6–9 | 1097 | 22.27% | |
4 | 10–14 | 1909 | 38.76% | |
5 | 15–20 | 728 | 14.78% | |
6 | >20 | 364 | 7.39% | |
Gender | 1 | Male | 4524 | 91.86% |
2 | Female | 401 | 8.14% | |
Political background | 1 | The masses | 4369 | 81.71% |
2 | League member | 246 | 4.99% | |
3 | Party member | 310 | 6.30% | |
Nationality | 1 | Han nationality | 4912 | 99.74% |
2 | Minority nationality | 13 | 0.26% | |
Education | 1 | Junior high school and below | 1405 | 28.53% |
2 | Technical school | 247 | 5.02% | |
3 | Secondary school | 981 | 19.92% | |
4 | Senior middle school | 1814 | 36.83% | |
5 | Vocational high school | 54 | 1.10% | |
6 | Undergraduate | 99 | 2.01% | |
7 | Junior college | 325 | 6.60% | |
Accident occurrence | 1 | Yes | 3407 | 69.18% |
2 | No | 1518 | 30.82% | |
Alarm | 1 | 0 | 2202 | 44.71% |
2 | 1–15 | 2466 | 50.07% | |
3 | 16–30 | 218 | 4.43% | |
4 | >30 | 39 | 0.79% | |
Violation | 1 | 0 | 3419 | 69.42% |
2 | 1 | 976 | 19.82% | |
3 | >1 | 530 | 10.76% |
Violation | Count | Percentage | Number of Accident Drivers | Percentage of Accident Drivers |
---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 3419 | 69.42% | 616 | 18.02% |
1 | 976 | 19.82% | 328 | 33.61% |
>1 | 530 | 10.76% | 180 | 33.96% |
Alarm | Count | Percentage | Number of Accident Drivers | Percentage of Accident Drivers |
---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 2202 | 44.71% | 548 | 24.89% |
1–15 | 2466 | 50.07% | 508 | 20.60% |
16–30 | 218 | 4.43% | 57 | 26.15% |
>30 | 39 | 0.79% | 11 | 28.21% |
Age | Count | Percentage | Number of Accident Drivers | Percentage of Accident Drivers |
---|---|---|---|---|
20–25 | 76 | 1.54% | 25 | 32.89% |
26–35 | 1085 | 22.03% | 323 | 29.77% |
36–45 | 1607 | 32.63% | 367 | 22.84% |
46–55 | 1995 | 40.51% | 379 | 19.00% |
56–60 | 162 | 3.29% | 20 | 12.35% |
Driving Age | Count | Percentage | Number of Accident Drivers | Percentage of Accident Drivers |
---|---|---|---|---|
<2 | 161 | 3.27% | 57 | 35.40% |
2–5 | 666 | 13.52% | 208 | 31.23% |
6–9 | 1097 | 22.27% | 258 | 23.52% |
10–14 | 1909 | 38.76% | 407 | 21.32% |
15–20 | 728 | 14.78% | 136 | 18.68% |
>20 | 364 | 7.39% | 58 | 15.93% |
Gender | Count | Percentage | Number of Accident Drivers | Percentage of Accident Drivers |
---|---|---|---|---|
Male | 4524 | 91.86% | 1051 | 23.23% |
Female | 401 | 8.14% | 73 | 18.20% |
Political Background | Count | Percentage | Number of Accident Drivers | Percentage of Accident Drivers |
---|---|---|---|---|
The masses | 4369 | 88.71% | 985 | 22.55% |
League member | 246 | 4.99% | 88 | 21.95% |
Party member | 310 | 6.30% | 51 | 16.45% |
Education | Count | Percentage | Number of Accident Drivers | Percentage of Accident Drivers |
---|---|---|---|---|
Junior high school and below | 1405 | 28.53% | 353 | 25.12% |
Technical school | 247 | 0.05% | 75 | 30.36% |
Secondary school | 981 | 19.92% | 385 | 39.25% |
Senior middle school | 1814 | 36.83% | 548 | 30.21% |
Vocational high school | 54 | 1.10% | 19 | 35.19% |
Undergraduate | 99 | 2.01% | 18 | 18.18% |
Junior college | 325 | 6.60% | 94 | 28.92% |
Accident Occurrence | Count | Percentage |
---|---|---|
0 | 3801 | 77.18% |
1 | 858 | 17.42% |
>1 | 266 | 5.40% |
Independent Variables | Age | Driving Age | Nationality | Political Background | Education | Alarm | Violation | Gender |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 1 | |||||||
Driving age | 0.608 ** (0.000) | 1 | ||||||
Nationality | −0.013 (0.366) | −0.012 (0.386) | 1 | |||||
Political background | −0.020 (0.157) | −0.045 ** (0.002) | 0.031 * (0.027) | 1 | ||||
Education | −0.329 ** (0.000) | −0.217 ** (0.000) | −0.008 (0.598) | 0.135 ** (0.000) | 1 | |||
Alarm | −0.022 (0.115) | −0.028 (0.052) | 0.013 (0.356) | 0.022 (0.121) | 0.026 (0.070) | 1 | ||
Violation | −0.075 ** (0.000) | −0.065 ** (0.000) | −0.026 (0.073) | −0.065 ** (0.000) | 0.031 * (0.030) | 0.123 ** (0.000) | 1 | |
Gender | −0.164 ** (0.000) | −0.090 ** (0.000) | −0.015 (0.083) | 0.000 (0.990) | 0.125 ** (0.000) | −0.023 (0.109) | −0.074 ** (0.000) | 1 |
No Accidents Will Occur | Accidents Will Happen or Even Happen Multiple Times | |
---|---|---|
No accidents will occur | 0.0 | 1.3 |
Accidents will occur or even occur multiple times | 1.2 | 0.0 |
Num | Age | Driving Age | Nationality | Political Background | Education | Alarm | Violation | Gender | V | Pr |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0.12% | 100.00% | ||||
2 | 2 | 2 | 5, 7 | 2 | 2 | 0.28% | 71.43% | |||
3 | 1 | 2 | 0.47% | 69.57% | ||||||
4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0.59% | 58.62% | |||
5 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0.39% | 57.90% | ||
6 | 2 | 3, 4, 5 | 2 | 2.46% | 34.71% | |||||
7 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0.31% | 33.33% | |||
8 | 2 | 1 | 4, 5 | 1 | 2 | 0.12% | 33.33% | |||
9 | 3, 4, 5 | 2 | 14.34% | 29.04% | ||||||
10 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0.16% | 25.00% | ||
11 | 1, 3 | 80.18% | 20.16% | |||||||
12 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 0.12% | 16.68% |
Variables | B | Degrees of Freedom | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|
Age | −0.228 | 1 | 0.000 * |
Driving age | −0.099 | 1 | 0.012 * |
Nationality | 1.245 | 1 | 0.279 |
Political background | −0.056 | 1 | 0.274 |
Education | 0.027 | 1 | 0.224 |
Gender | −0.383 | 1 | 0.006 * |
Alarm | −0.204 | 1 | 0.000 * |
Violation | 0.497 | 1 | 0.000 * |
Variables | Categories | Reference Category | B | Odds Ratio | p-Value |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age | 26–35 | 20–25 | −0.484 | 0.616 | 0.002 * |
36–45 | −0.687 | 0.503 | 0.010 * | ||
46–55 | −0.870 | 0.419 | 0.001 * | ||
56–60 | −1.443 | 0.236 | 0.000 * | ||
Driving age | 2–5 | <2 | −0.034 | 0.967 | 0.009 * |
6–9 | −0.228 | 0.796 | 0.003 * | ||
10–14 | −0.276 | 0.759 | 0.017 * | ||
15–20 | −0.400 | 0.670 | 0.006 * | ||
>20 | −0.529 | 0.589 | 0.013 * | ||
Violation | 1 | 0 | 0.641 | 1.635 | 0.003 * |
>1 | 0.821 | 2.272 | 0.000 * | ||
Alarm | 1–15 | 0 | 0.347 | 1.195 | 0.315 |
16–30 | 0.593 | 1.243 | 0.028 * | ||
>30 | 0.805 | 1.462 | 0.009 * | ||
Gender | Female | Male | −0.360 | 0.698 | 0.006 * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Zheng, L.; He, X.; Ding, T.; Li, Y.; Xiao, Z. Analysis of the Accident Propensity of Chinese Bus Drivers: The Influence of Poor Driving Records and Demographic Factors. Mathematics 2022, 10, 4354. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10224354
Zheng L, He X, Ding T, Li Y, Xiao Z. Analysis of the Accident Propensity of Chinese Bus Drivers: The Influence of Poor Driving Records and Demographic Factors. Mathematics. 2022; 10(22):4354. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10224354
Chicago/Turabian StyleZheng, Lili, Xinyu He, Tongqiang Ding, Yanlin Li, and Zhengfeng Xiao. 2022. "Analysis of the Accident Propensity of Chinese Bus Drivers: The Influence of Poor Driving Records and Demographic Factors" Mathematics 10, no. 22: 4354. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10224354
APA StyleZheng, L., He, X., Ding, T., Li, Y., & Xiao, Z. (2022). Analysis of the Accident Propensity of Chinese Bus Drivers: The Influence of Poor Driving Records and Demographic Factors. Mathematics, 10(22), 4354. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10224354