Accidents and Unpleasant Incidents: Worry in Transport and Prediction of Travel Behavior

Worry on nine different means of transport was measured in a Norwegian sample of 853 respondents. The main aim of the study was to investigate differences in worry about accidents and worry about unpleasant incidents, and how these two sorts of worry relate to various means of transport as well as transport behavior. Factor analyses of worry about accidents suggested a division between rail transport, road transport, and nonmotorized transport, whereas analyses of worry about unpleasant incidents suggested a division between transport modes where you interact with other people and "private" transport modes. Moreover, mean ratings of worry showed that respondents worried more about accidents than unpleasant incidents on private transport modes, and more about unpleasant incidents than accidents on public transport modes. Support for the distinction between worry about accidents and unpleasant incidents was also found when investigating relationships between both types of worry and behavioral adaptations: worry about accidents was more important than worry about unpleasant incidents in relation to behavioral adaptations on private means of transport, whereas the opposite was true for public means of transport. Finally, predictors of worry were investigated. The models of worry about accidents and worry about unpleasant incidents differed as to what predictors turned out significant. Knowledge about peoples' worries on different means of transport is important with regard to understanding and influencing transport and travel behavior, as well as attending to commuters' welfare.     

Risk Compensation and Bicycle Helmets

This study investigated risk compensation by cyclists in response to bicycle helmet wearing by observing changes in cycling behavior, reported experience of risk, and a possible objective measure of experienced risk. The suitability of heart rate variability (HRV) as an objective measure of experienced risk was assessed beforehand by recording HRV measures in nine participants watching a thriller film. We observed a significant decrease in HRV in line with expected increases in psychological challenge presented by the film. HRV was then used along with cycling pace and self‐reported risk in a field experiment in which 35 cyclist volunteers cycled 0.4 km downhill, once with and once without a helmet. Routine helmet users reported higher experienced risk and cycled slower when they did not wear their helmet in the experiment than when they did wear their helmet, although there was no corresponding change in HRV. For cyclists not accustomed to helmets, there were no changes in speed, perceived risk, or any other measures when cycling with versus without a helmet. The findings are consistent with the notion that those who use helmets routinely perceive reduced risk when wearing a helmet, and compensate by cycling faster. They thus give some support to those urging caution in the use of helmet laws.