交通安全意识对非机动车骑行者危险骑行行为的影响研究

裴玉龙; 龙钰; 马丹

doi:10.3963/j.jssn.1674-4861.2024.01.006

交通安全意识对非机动车骑行者危险骑行行为的影响研究

doi: 10.3963/j.jssn.1674-4861.2024.01.006

东北林业大学交通研究中心哈尔滨 150040

基金项目:

国家重点研发计划项目 2017YFC0803901

黑龙江省重点研发计划项目 JD22A014

详细信息

通讯作者:
裴玉龙（1961—），博士，教授. 研究方向：道路交通安全、交通规划和交通管理.E-mail：peiyulong@nefu.edu.cn

中图分类号: U491
计量
- 文章访问数: 75
- HTML全文浏览量: 28
- PDF下载量: 25
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2023-09-04
- 网络出版日期: 2024-05-31

Impacts of Traffic Safety Awareness on Risky Riding Behaviors among Non-Motorized Cyclists

Transportation Research Center, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China

摘要

摘要: 安全意识在促进安全行为方面发挥着重要作用，但由于安全意识具有多维性和复杂性，难以直接测量。为探究交通安全意识对危险骑行行为的影响，通过云模型选取安全态度、危险认知、安全素质和外界环境这4个潜变量，作为影响交通安全意识的结构要素，并基于调查问卷数据开展实证研究。运用Mplus 8.0软件构建“交通安全意识-危险骑行行为”结构方程模型，量化交通安全意识各要素作用于危险骑行行为的因果链路。采用Bootstrap法检验安全素质、危险认知和安全态度的中介作用，梳理外界环境对危险骑行行为的直接和间接关系；再利用分层回归模型，验证交通安全知识在交通安全意识与危险骑行行为间的调节效应。研究结果表明：①结构方程模型拟合良好，交通安全意识的4个要素分别与危险骑行行为呈显著的负相关，其中，危险认知对无意行为的影响最大（-0.331），安全态度对有意行为的影响最大（-0.332）；②中介效应显示外界环境作为外生变量可直接作用于行为，也可通过安全素质、危险认知和安全态度对骑行者的行为产生影响；③交通安全知识的调节作用显著（∆R² = 0.017，P＜0.05），该变量强化了交通安全意识与危险骑行行为的负向影响关系，其简单斜率关系表明，当骑行者交通安全知识水平较高时，交通安全意识对危险骑行行为的作用效果更强。
- 交通安全 /
- 安全意识 /
- 因果链路 /
- 结构方程模型 /
- 危险骑行行为
Abstract: Traffic safety awareness (TSA) of cyclists plays a crucial role in promoting safe behavior, but it is difficult to directly measure due to its multidimensionality and complexity. To investigate the impact of TSA on risky riding behavior (RRB), safety attitude, risk cognition, safety quality, and external environment are selected as the structural elements (or TSA elements) by using the cloud model, and the empirical research is carried out based on questionnaire data. The"TSA-RRB"structural equation model is developed, and the causal pathway from each TSA element to RRB is quantified by Mplus 8.0. The Bootstrap method is applied to verify the mediating roles of safety quality, risk cognition, and safety attitude, and the direct and indirect relationships between the external environment and RRB are sorted; subsequently, a hierarchical regression model is employed to validate the moderating effect of traffic safety knowledge (TSK) between TSA and RRB. The findings of this research are concluded as follows. ① the proposed structural equation model fits well with questionnaire data, and four TSA elements all have significant negative correlations with RRB. Specifically, risk cognition has the most considerable impact on unintentional behavior (-0.331), while safety attitude displays the greatest influence on intentional behavior (-0.332). ② Mediating effects show that the external environment, as an exogenous variable, could either directly act on riding behavior or indirectly affect the behavior through other TSA elements such as safety quality, risk cognition, and safety attitude. ③ The moderation effect of TSK is significant (∆R² = 0.017, P < 0.05), enhancing the negative correlations between TSA and RRB, and the simple slope relationship between TSA and RRB implies that the effect of TSA on RRB is strengthened when the level of TSK is high.
- traffic safety /
- safety awareness /
- causal pathways /
- structural equation model /
- risky riding behavior

HTML全文

图 1 权重评语云

Figure 1. Cloud of weighted rubrics

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 2 隶属度判断云图

Figure 2. Cloud diagram of affiliation judgement

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 3 意识-行为结构方程模型假设

Figure 3. Hypothesis of the TSA-RRB SEM

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 4 不同分组下的箱线图

Figure 4. Box line diagram with different groupings

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 5 交通安全意识4因子模型

Figure 5. Four factor model of traffic safety awareness

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 6 意识-行为结构方程模型和路径系数

Figure 6. TSA-RRB structural equation model and path coefficients

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 7 安全知识调节作用的假设

Figure 7. Hypothetical of the moderating effect of safety knowledge

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 8 正态性检验P-P图

Figure 8. P-P plot for normality test

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

图 9 交通安全知识的调节作用

Figure 9. The moderating role of traffic safety knowledge

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

表 1 潜变量及观测指标变量

Table 1. Potential variables and observation indicator variables

结构要素	测量指标	符号	问卷参考
安全态度（AT）	对交通规则的态度	AT_1	文献[24]，[25]
	对交通安全的责任感	AT_2
	对危险骑行行为的态度	AT_3
危险认知（RC）	骑行使用手机的危险程度	RC_1	文献[17]，[26]
	机动车道骑行的危险程度	RC_2
	逆向骑行的危险程度	RC_3
	并排骑行的危险程度	RC_4
安全素质（SQ）	追逐骑行的危险程度	RC_5	文献[23]
	处理突发状况的能力	SQ_1
	判断周围车辆动向的能力	SQ_2
	危险源辨识	SQ_3
	骑车能力评估	SQ_4
外界环境（EE）	周围交通参与者的影响	EE_1	文献[27]
	基础设施完善程度	EE_2
	交通安全投入	EE_3
	道路交通条件	EE_4
无意行为（UB）	制度与规范	EE_5	文献[9]，[28]
	疲劳骑行	UB_1
	单手骑行	UB_2
	骑行时交谈	UB_3
有意行为（IB）	在机动车道上骑行	IB_1
	看到黄灯加速抢行	IB_2
	逆向骑行	IB_3

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 样本描述性统计

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of sample

项目	类别	比例/%
性别	男性	54.4
性别	女性	45.6
学历	高中（中专）及以下	29.7
	大学本科（含大专）	51.2
	研究生	19.1
非机动车道设置	有	75.7
非机动车道设置	无	24.3
交通事故	是	12.8
交通事故	否	87.2

下载: 导出CSV

表 3 验证性因素分析模型拟合指数

Table 3. Confirmatory factor analysis model fitting index

指数	CMIN/DF	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
拟合值	1.712	0.049	0.948	0.937	0.041
参考值	≤3	≤0.08	≥0.9	0.9	≤0.08

下载: 导出CSV

表 4 危险骑行行为量表效度检验结果

Table 4. Validity test results of the risky riding behavior scale

测量变量	因子载荷		AVE	CR
IB_1	0.75
IB_2	0.794		0.608	0.823
IB_3	0.794
UB_1		0.764
UB_2		0.858	0.657	0.852
UB_3		0.807

下载: 导出CSV

表 5 模型检验指标结果

Table 5. Fitness statistics of the confirmatory factor analysis

指数	CMIN/DF	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
拟合值	2.804	0.064	0.92	0.904	0.044
参考值	≤3	≤0.08	≥0.9	0.9	≤0.08

下载: 导出CSV

表 6 意识-行为模型标准化路径系数

Table 6. Standardized path coefficients of the TSA-RRB structural equation model

路径	参数结果
路径	参数估计	S.E.	P - value	假设结论
IB←SQ	-0.163	0.058	0.005^**	支持
IB←RC	-0.272	0.062	< 0.001^***	支持
IB←AT	-0.332	0.063	< 0.001^***	支持
IB←EE	-0.236	0.063	< 0.001^***	支持
UB←SQ	-0.154	0.054	0.005^**	支持
UB←RC	-0.331	0.058	< 0.001^***	支持
UB←AT	-0.287	0.059	< 0.001^***	支持
UB←EE	-0.212	0.058	< 0.001^***	支持
SQ←EE	0.285	0.054	< 0.001^***	支持
RC←EE	0.417	0.048	< 0.001^***	支持
AT←EE	0.324	0.056	< 0.001^***	支持
注：^* - P < 0.05显著水平；^ - P < 0.01显著水平；^* - P < 0.001显著水平。

下载: 导出CSV

表 7 中介效应分析结果

Table 7. Results of the mediation effects analysis

路径	效应量	95%置信区间
路径	效应量	Lower	Upper
路径1：IB←SQ←EE	-0.032	-0.06	-0.009
路径2：IB←RC←EE	-0.077	-0.117	-0.041
路径3：IB←AT←EE	-0.071	-0.112	-0.037
总间接效应	-0.18	-0.236	-0.126
路径4：UB←SQ←EE	-0.029	-0.058	-0.007
路径5：UB←RC←EE	-0.073	-0.118	-0.032
路径6：UB←AT←EE	-0.066	-0.107	-0.033
总间接效应	-0.168	-0.224	-0.117

下载: 导出CSV

表 8 分层回归分析结果

Table 8. Hierarchical regression analysis results

变量	模型1		模型2
变量	回归系数	T - value	回归系数	T - value
截距项	2.234		2.244
交通安全意识	-0.614	-19.371^***	-0.616	-20.103^***
交通安全知识	-0.71	-27.292^***	-0.704	-27.967^***
int（交互项）			-0.3	-5.658^***
R²		0.746		0.763
∆R²				0.017^*

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(33)

[1]	国家统计局. 2022年交通事故统计数据[EB/OL]. (2023-1)[2023-3-17]. https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS. Traffic accident data for 2022[EB/OL]. (2023-1)[2023-3-17]. https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=C01. (in Chinese)
[2]	寇丽平. 从事故特性谈人的安全意识的培养[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2003, 13(12): 20-24, 100. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZAQK200312005.htm KOU L P. Discussion on development of safety awareness from characteristics of accident[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2003, 13(12): 20-24, 100. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZAQK200312005.htm
[3]	YAHIA H A M, ISMAIL A, ALBRKA S I, et al. Attitudes and awareness of traffic safety among drivers in Tripoli-Libya[J]. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology, 2014, 7(24): 5297-5303. doi: 10.19026/rjaset.7.929
[4]	MISTUKO T, HARUKA U, SSIJI H, et al. Analysis on the impact of traffic safety measures on children's gaze behavior and their safety awareness at residential road intersections in Japan[J]. Safety Science, 2022, 150: 105706. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105706
[5]	WANG Z, NEITZEL R L, XUE X, et al. Awareness, riding behaviors, and legislative attitudes toward electric bikes among two types of road users: an investigation in Tian Ji, a municipality in China[J]. Traffic Injury Prevention, 2019, 20(1): 72-78. doi: 10.1080/15389588.2018.1511898
[6]	杨东, 杨依轩, 徐瑞, 等. 电力员工安全意识, 大五人格和不安全行为的关系研究[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 43(8): 129-137. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XNND202108016.htm YANG D, YANG Y X, XU R, et al. Research of the relationship among safety awareness, five-factor personality and unsafe behavior of electric employees [J]. Journal of Southwest University(Natural Science Edition), 2021, 43(8): 129-137. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XNND202108016.htm
[7]	钱乔益. 地铁乘客安全意识评价研究[D]. 昆明: 昆明理工大学, 2020. QIAN Q Y. Research on safety awareness evaluation of subway passengers [D]. Kunming: Kunming University of Science and Technology, 2020. (in Chinese)
[8]	姜沁瑶, 李洁. 基于ISM的建筑工人安全意识影响因素[J]. 土木工程与管理学报, 2016, 33(3): 106-110. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-WHCJ201603018.htm JIANG Q Y, LI J. Influencing factors of construction workers'safety awareness based on interpretive structure model[J]. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 2016, 33(3): 106-110. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-WHCJ201603018.htm
[9]	冯忠祥, 季诺亚, 罗毅, 等. 基于问卷调查的公众交通安全意识评价方法[J]. 中国公路学报, 2020, 33(6): 212-223. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGGL202006021.htm FENG Z X, JI N Y, LUO Y, et al. Questionnaire survey based evaluation of public traffic safety awareness[J]. China Journal of Highways and Transport, 2020, 33(6): 212-223. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZGGL202006021.htm
[10]	张昕明, 弓棣, 谢秉磊, 等. 计划行为理论视角下基于出行行为的公交防疫策略影响效果研究[J]. 交通信息与安全, 2021, 39(6): 117-125. doi: 10.3963/j.jssn.1674-4861.2021.06.014 ZHANG X M, GONG D, XIE B L, et al. A study of the effectiveness of epidemic prevention policies on public transit usage based on the theory of planned behaviors[J]. Journal of Transport Information and Safety, 2021, 39(6): 117-125(. in Chinese doi: 10.3963/j.jssn.1674-4861.2021.06.014
[11]	NORDFJARN T, TORBJORN R. Acceptance of disincentives to driving and pro-environmental transport intentions: the role of value structure, environmental beliefs and norm activation[J]. Transportation, 2019, 46(6): 2381-2396.
[12]	陈龙, 杨澄璐, 景鹏, 等. 老年人驾车出行转移行为影响因素分析[J]. 重庆交通大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 42(3): 119-127. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CQJT202303017.htm CHEN L, YANG C L, JING P, et al. Influencing factors on elderly adults'driving switching behavior [J]. Journal of Chongqing Jiaotong University(Natural Science), 2023, 42(3): 119-127. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CQJT202303017.htm
[13]	NG B Y, KANKANHALLI A, XU Y C. Studying users'computer security behavior: a health belief perspective[J]. Decision Support Systems, 2009, 46(4): 815-825.
[14]	杨辰飞, 陈雪波, 孙秋柏. 企业员工安全意识影响因素的探索和分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2015, 25(1): 34-39. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZAQK201501006.htm YANG C F, CHEN X B, SUN Q B. Exploration and analysis of factors influencing employees'safety awareness [J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2015, 25(1): 34-39. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZAQK201501006.htm
[15]	KHAN N, AHMAD I, ILYAS M. Impact of ethical leadership on organizational safety performance: the mediating role of safety culture and safety consciousness[J]. Ethics & Behavior, 2018, 28(8): 628-643.
[16]	夏越. 城乡居民道路交通安全意识差异性比较研究[D]. 焦作: 河南理工大学, 2016. XIA Y. The study on the difference of traffic safety awareness between urban and rural residents-a case of Jiaozuo [D]. Jiaozuo: Henan Polytechnic University, 2016. (in Chinese)
[17]	赵双静. 基于SEM的建筑工人安全意识测量研究[D]. 西安: 西安建筑科技大学, 2019. ZHAO S J. Study on measurement of construction workers' safety awareness based on SEM [D]. Xi'an: Xi'an University of Architecture and Technology, 2019. (in Chinese)
[18]	刘纪坤, 王佳茹, 王翠霞. 改进组合赋权-云模型下的地铁站突发事件应急能力评价[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2023, 23(5): 1398-1406. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-AQHJ202305006.htm LIU J K, WANG J R, WANG C X. Evaluation of emergency response capability of metro stations emergency under improved combination weighting-cloud model[J] Journal of Safety and Environment, 2023, 23(5): 1398-1406. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-AQHJ202305006.htm
[19]	WARMERDAM A, NEWNAM S, WANG Y, et al. High performance workplace systems' influence on safety attitudes and occupational driver behavior[J]. Safety Science, 2018, 106: 146-153.
[20]	贺宜, 孙昌鑫, 彭建华, 等. 电动载货三轮车风险行为及影响因素分析[J]. 吉林大学学报(工学版), 2023, 53(2): 413-420. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JLGY202302011.htm HE Y, SUN C X, PENG J H, et al. Risk behaviors and influencing factors analysis of cargo electric tricycles [J]. Journal of Jilin University(Engineering and Technology Edition), 2023, 53(2): 413-420. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-JLGY202302011.htm
[21]	杨京帅, 李秀丽, 任书杭, 等. 驾驶人危险感知影响因素建模与试验[J]. 长安大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 35(5): 104-110. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XAGL201505016.htm YANG J S, LI X L, REN S H, et al. Modeling and experimental of influencing factors of driver'hazard perception[J]. Journal of Chang'an University(Natural Science Edition), 2015, 35(5): 104-110. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XAGL201505016.htm
[22]	SYAMSUDIN N, ELIYANA A, NURDIN N, et al. Are job satisfaction and role breadth self-efficacy the links to proactive work behavior?[J]. Heliyon, 2022, 8(1): e08710.
[23]	KACAN B, FINDIK G, UZUMCUOGLU Y, et al. Driver profiles based on values and traffic safety climate and their relationships with driver behaviors[J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 64(7): 246-259.
[24]	ULLEBERG P, RUNDMO T. Personality, attitudes and risk perception as predictors of risky driving behavior among young drivers[J]. Safety Science, 2003, 41(5): 427-443.
[25]	RUNDMO T, NORDFJAERN T, IVERSEN H, et al. The role of risk perception and other risk-related judgements in transportation mode use[J]. Safety science, 2011, 49(2): 226-235.
[26]	IVERSEN H. Risk-taking attitudes and risky driving behaviour[J]. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 2004, 7(3): 135-150.
[27]	SI H Y, SHI J G, TANG D Z, et al. Understanding intention and behavior toward sustainable usage of bike sharing by extending the theory of planned behavior[J]. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2020, 152: 104513.
[28]	YAO L, WU C. Traffic safety for electric bike riders in China: attitudes, risk perception, and aberrant riding behaviors[J]. Transportation Research Record, 2012, 2314(1): 49-56.
[29]	UNDERWOOD G, NGAI A, UNDERWOOD J. Driving experience and situation awareness in hazard detection[J]. Safety Science, 2013, 56: 29-35.
[30]	HAMZAH M I, TANWIR N S. Do pro-environmental factors lead to purchase intention of hybrid vehicles? The moderating effects of environmental knowledge[J]. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2020, 279: 123643.
[31]	JING L, SHAN W, ZHANG Y. Risk preference, risk perception as predictors of risky driving behaviors: the moderating effects of gender, age, and driving experience[J]. Journal of Transportation Safety and Security, 2023, 15(5): 467-492.
[32]	NYBERG A, GREGERSEN N P. Practicing for and performance on drivers license tests in relation to gender differences in crash involvement among novice drivers[J]. Journal of Safety Research, 2007, 38(1): 71-80.
[33]	方杰, 温忠麟, 欧阳劲樱, 等. 国内调节效应的方法学研究[J]. 心理科学进展, 2022, 30(8): 1703-1714. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLXD202208004.htm FANG J, WEN Z L, OUYANG J Y, et al. Methodological research on moderation effects in China's mainland[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2022, 30(8): 1703-1714. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XLXD202208004.htm