Do you think you’re a good driver? Very few people are likely to answer “no”. Generally we like to present ourselves to other people in a positive light, so we may adapt how we respond to questions to make us seem like better people. In psychological research this is called social desirability and we make this positive adjustment to our responses in a wide range of circumstances. Essentially, any time we’re asked to report our attitudes and behaviours we’re likely to be over positive.

Over the past ten years a large number of online assessments have been developed to allow employers to quickly, easily and cheaply understand their employees driving behaviours and attitudes, including whether they are “risky drivers”. Whilst these assessments do provide a valuable source of information on employees’ driving behaviours, I suspect that the responses from employees might be influenced by social desirability.

Toward the end of the 1990’s a research team from the Traffic Research Unit in Finland developed a questionnaire to specifically measure social desirability in surveys of driving behaviour – the Driver Social Desirability Scale. The questionnaire included 25 items and was completed by more than four hundred participants from Finland and Australia.

From their analysis they identified two distinct aspects of driver social desirability. People scoring highly on the Driver Impression Management scale were more likely to lie about their actual driving behaviours, for example reporting that they would never exceed the speed limit or had driven through a traffic light turning red. People with high scores on the second scale, Driver Self-Deception, tended to overestimate their own driving beliefs. For example, they’re more likely to report being calm, confident and rational when driving.

While most people seek social desirability, some are more susceptible to it than others. Some people will give very honest (but possibly not very desirable) responses to driver assessments, whereas others are more likely to given socially desirable (but possibly not very honest) responses. Are there differences in driving behaviours and attitudes between these types of people?

An international team of researchers examined the relationship between social desirability, using the Driver Social Desirability Scale, and driving behaviours. They found that high scores on the social desirability scale were associated with fewer self-reported traffic collisions, but that they were not associated with the number of incidents recorded by the employing organisation. This means that people who seek social desirability, and want to be seen as good drivers, tend to report being safer drivers than the objective evidence suggests.

Online assessments of driver behaviour have many advantages. It’s easy, quick and cheap to assess the driving behaviours and attitudes of a large number of employees. It’s then possible to identify individuals who report more driving errors or violations or who are riskier drivers and then arrange further training for them. However, it’s important to bear in mind the possible effects of social desirability, which means that some people who might benefit from additional training are not identified.

Many of the recently developed self-report measures include items to test for social desirability. However, simply asking people how good they are at driving is not necessarily the most accurate way of finding out how good they really are. Having an awareness of social desirability when looking at self-report assessments will help a manager to have a better understanding of a driver’s attitudes and behaviours, which should then feed into the development of driver training and other interventions.

Dr Victoria Bourne (BA Hons, DPhil)

Counsultant to Driving Risk Management

In recent years there has been a great deal of emphasis placed on an organisation’s responsibilities towards the health and safety of its employees. In terms of driving, this has led to the Health and Safety Executive developing legislation to ensure that employers have the appropriate policies, procedures and training in place to ensure the welfare and safety of their employees when driving.

So, how much do the organisational climate and employer attitudes influence the driving behaviours of employees? A number of psychological studies have examined this relationship. So, can different approaches to driver training, and health and safety implementation, actually lead to employees driving in a safer way?

Recently, a review of driving safety at work was conducted by Australian researchers Sharon Newnam and Barry Watson, in the light of evidence showing that driving incidents are the most common reason of injury and death in the workplace. One aspect they considered was the organisational procedures, which was found to have three key components:

• holding a crash reporting database
• procuring/maintaining vehicles
• the recruitment and training of drivers.

Newnam and Watson concluded that the interventions instigated and implemented by senior management were essential to successfully increase safe driving behaviours. They also suggested that employees report safer driving behaviours when they have supervisors and fleet managers who encourage safety-related discussions and interventions. This shows the importance of adopting an organisational climate that is driving safety-aware at all levels, from the company directors right through to the company drivers themselves.

A research group in Finland, headed by Bahar Oz, asked 230 professional drivers to complete two questionnaires. One asked about their own driving behaviours and the other asked about the organisational culture of the company they work for. They found that the organisation’s culture divided into two key aspects: work orientation and employee consideration. Each aspect was differently associated with employee driving behaviour.

People who worked for companies with high work orientation scores, companies that actively promote the effective running of a company, were likely to report fewer intentional driving violations and more positive driving behaviours. In contrast, people working for companies that have high levels of employee consideration reported higher levels of unintentional driving errors, but lower levels of intentional driving violations. This finding is both interesting and important, as it highlights that companies which are openly considerate of their employees’ needs are likely to be rewarded by safer employee driving behaviours, and consequently less associated time and financial loss.

Research conducted at Cranfield University in the UK has also shown that driver training can increase safe driving behaviours. They compared the driving behaviours of drivers who had received professional training with those who had not. In a driving simulator they found that those who had received that training had better lane positioning, slower driving speeds and generally safer driving behaviours.

The research clearly shows that a company’s attitude to driving for work can change or influence an employee’s driving behaviours. In order to create the most advantageous organisational climate, companies need to pay particular attention to showing consideration to their employees and the training they provide. Such a climate leads to employees driving in a safer way, whereby they have fewer traffic incidents and violations. This in turn leads to savings for the company and better health and well being for the employee. In these difficult financial times many companies are searching for ways to save money so investing in driver safety is likely to provide long term benefits financially.

Dr Victoria Bourne (BA Hons, DPhil)

Counsultant to Driving Risk Management

It is well known that there is a higher risk of a collision if you are driving for work purposes than if you are driving for non-work purposes. When discussing this increased risk, the topic most frequently turns to how much these collisions cost the employer.

While this is obviously an important issue for companies to consider, being involved in a vehicle collision may also have serious consequences for the employee involved in the crash. Not only is there a risk of physical injury, but there can also be negative psychological effects after being involved in a collision, which are far less discussed and acknowledged.

One study, conducted by Jennifer Lucas and published in the Transportation Research Journal in 2003, gave a range of psychological questionnaires to 124 drivers, 42 of whom had been involved in at least one motor vehicle collision within the past five years.

Drivers who had been involved in a collision reported significantly greater fear of personal safety, worries about driving and being more stressed when driving. There were also some sex differences in the psychological consequences of being involved in a motor vehicle collision. Women were significantly more likely to report an increased fear of personal safety when driving than men. However, men and women reported very similar levels of worries and stresses about driving.

Studies such as the one conducted by Lucas show that being involved in a motor vehicle collision can have negative psychological consequences, but for some people these consequences are more severe and can develop into a clinical psychological condition.

A key distinction when considering the psychological consequences of being involved in a collision is the difference between early and late psychological trauma. Early psychological traumas occur immediately after the incident, but tend to be relatively short lived. In contrast late psychological trauma can be longer lasting.

After being involved in an incident people are often described as being in “shock”. This is an early reaction to being involved in a traumatic event and it is more accurately called an acute stress reaction. This response usually occurs within a few minutes of the traumatic experience and people may report feeling “fuzzy headed”, having anxiety and depression, as well as fear. They may even withdraw from situations that remind them about the event. Typically this acute stress reaction lasts for a few days and the individual suffers no further negative psychological consequences.

A more severe and serious response to being involved in a collision is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Many research papers have investigated PTSD following vehicle collisions, and while some find that up to 50% of individuals involved in a collision develop PTSD, most studies report a figure closer to 10-15%.

The key distinction between PTSD and an acute stress reaction is that PTSD occurs for longer than one month after the incident. In fact, the symptoms may not even emerge until up to six months after the traumatic experience.

Typically individuals who have PTSD report frequent nightmares and flashbacks, where they have vivid memories of the incident, to the point where they feel like they are reliving the traumatic experience. They are also likely to avoid being in situations that remind them of the incident, so they may avoid having to drive altogether. According to the current clinical diagnosis criteria, if these negative consequences last for longer than a month, and impact on the person’s personal, social or professional life, it is possible that the individual may be diagnosed with clinical PTSD.

Not everyone develops PTSD, so why might some people be more likely to develop PTSD after a vehicle collision? A recent study conducted at the University of Lyon in France found that people were more likely to develop PTSD if they either suffered an injury which was still causing pain six months later or if they felt that they were not responsible for the incident in the first place.

One of the most frequently used treatments for PTSD is cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and research has examined how effective this method of treatment might be for people experiencing PTSD following a motor vehicle collision.

Gayle Beck and colleagues from the University of Memphis compared the severity of PTSD symptoms in individuals who had been diagnosed with PTSD after being involved in a collision. Half of the participants in the study received group CBT, whereas the other half received no CBT. For those in the treatment group, after three months only 12% still met the criteria for clinical PTSD. In comparison, 69% of those in the no treatment group still met the clinical criteria.

All organisations that employ people who drive as part of their job have a legal responsibility towards their safety. Most companies adopt policies focussed on reducing the risk of vehicle collisions. Whilst this is an essential aspect of road safety, perhaps companies could also consider implementing policies to help employees who are involved in vehicle collisions return to work in full psychological health as soon as possible.

This would not only avoid financial losses for the company, but would also reduce stress and anxiety for employees.

Dr Victoria Bourne (BA Hons, DPhil)

Consultant to Driving Risk Management ltd

In recent years the introduction of airbags, ABS braking systems, traction control and other safety features has undoubtedly made driving safer by reducing the chances of the driver being involved in a collision. While these developments have clearly increased the safety ratings of the vehicles we drive, do they actually make our driving safer?

A great deal of research has examined how our driving changes when additional safety features are introduced. One of the first researchers to suggest this pattern of driving behaviour was Gerald Wilde in the 1980’s, who proposed the ‘risk homoeostasis’ theory, more commonly referred to as “risk compensation”.

According to this hypothesis, each driver has a certain level of risk that they are willing to take when driving and this level is maintained regardless of how many safety features the vehicle has. Essentially, if someone is prepared to drive in a risky manner, they will increase the riskiness of their driving when they are in a vehicle with many safety features.

Since then, research has examined how people adjust their driving behaviours in response to a wide range of different safety devices.

In a series of studies throughout the 1990’s Fridulv Sagberg and colleagues from the Institute of Transport Economics examined how driving behaviours change when safety devices are introduced. In one study they considered how the use of ABS and airbags influenced the driving behaviours of taxi drivers. One of the key differences they found was that seatbelt usage decreased and drivers tended to adopt close following behaviours when the taxi was fitted with ABS.  In another study the research group found that improved street lighting was associated with faster driving speeds and reduced concentration.

One interesting development of the risk compensation hypothesis is that drivers adapt their behaviours differently for different safety devices. An example would be ABS, a dynamic device designed to reduce the risk of a collision occurring, as opposed to non dynamic devices designed to reduce the risk of injury, such as airbags.

Sagberg suggested that people are far more likely to engage in risk compensation behaviours when driving a vehicle with collision avoidance mechanisms, so increasing the riskiness of their driving. In contrast, no compensation or change in the riskiness of their driving seems to occur when driving a vehicle with injury-reducing devices. This seems to suggest that people are willing to risk having a crash, but not to be injured as a result.

One important point to remember about risk compensation behaviours is that they are not a conscious decision. People do not decide to drive in a riskier manner just because they have air bags and ABS brakes. Instead, people unconsciously adjust their acceptable levels of risk according to the safety features of the vehicle they are driving.

To improve safety and reduce risk when driving it is important to understand how driving styles might adjust according to the vehicle being driven. Regardless of how many safety features might be installed, the most important and effective source of safety is the driver. Awareness of the risks that you take when driving and techniques that can be adopted to reduce risk taking is still clearly the best way to avoid a collision.

Dr Victoria Bourne  (BA Hons, DPhil)

Consultant to Driving Risk Management Limited

If you look at almost any road traffic incident statistics, you’ll see that novice drivers, who also tend to be younger drivers, are far more likely to be involved in incidents. Indeed, of all fatalities from road traffic incidents in 2009, there were almost twice the number of causalities in the 16-25 years old age group than any other. Additionally, 25% of fatalities occurred as a result of incidents involving young drivers.

Although these statistics may be alarming, it’s also important to note that the number of incidents and fatalities within this age group has halved over the past 10-15 years. This means that these incidents are preventable and avoidable, probably through a mixture of improved safety features in cars and an improved understanding of how people learn to drive, which in turn leads to more effective training.

So how are the driving behaviours of novice drivers different to the driving behaviours of experienced drivers and how can their skills be developed and improved to avoid risks?

A recent study, conducted by a team of researchers at the University of Rome, examined driving behaviours in novice drivers. They asked more than a thousand drivers aged 18-23 years old to complete a number of different questionnaires which asked about driving habits, attitudes towards driving and personality traits. They then analysed these questionnaire responses to identify different groups of novice drivers and found that there were three different “types” of new drivers:

Risky drivers
About 34% of drivers were categorised as ‘risky’, were more likely to be males and tended to spend more time driving each week. They were also more likely to have negative attitudes towards driving rules, so they were more likely to believe that speeding or drink driving are acceptable. Risky drivers also reported more driving problems in terms of violations, lapses and errors; however they were only slightly more likely to have been involved in an incident or to have been given a ticket.

Worried drivers
Around 28% of novice drivers were worried drivers, with a higher proportion likely to be females. These drivers have the highest scores on traffic risk perception tests, tend to view speeding and drink driving negatively and are less likely to make driving errors. Worried drivers also have lower levels of driving anger, but higher levels of driving anxiety than risky drivers.

Careful drivers
The third type of novice driver is the careful driver. These make up about 38% of novice drivers and are equally likely to be male or female. Careful drivers are significantly less prone to driving errors than both risky and worried drivers, and they are less likely to have been involved in a crash. However, careful drivers also spend significantly less time driving. They also have lower levels of driving anger than both risky and worried drivers and lower levels of anxiety than worried drivers, but higher levels of anxiety than risky drivers.

A consistent finding across all three types of new driver is that they have strong emotional responses to driving, whether that’s high levels of anger or high levels of anxiety. On the basis of this finding, the researchers suggested that the most effective training for new drivers will involve guidance on how to deal and cope with these emotional responses. Both anger and anxiety can increase the chances of driving errors which can result in an incident.

One important point to remember is that a “new” driver isn’t necessarily a “bad” driver. Drivers of all ages and with wide ranging levels of experience benefit from ongoing training to develop and improve their driving skills, knowledge and behaviour. With new drivers, they may just need a slightly different kind of support and training. By identifying the kind of new driver that they are, and the areas in which they can be supported and provided with appropriate training, anyone has the potential to be a safe and effective driver.

Dr Victoria Bourne  (BA Hons, DPhil)

Consultant to Driving Risk Management Limited

There have been a number of highly publicised cases of elderly people driving “badly”, for example driving the wrong way on a motorway or at 9mph on a dual carriageway. Such cases have caused people to question the existing licensing rules for elderly drivers. Currently, older adults simply need to re-apply when they reach the age of 70 years old and inform the DVLA if they have any medical condition that may influence their driving abilities. Some have suggested that additional tests may be needed to reduce the risks of elderly drivers, but first it’s necessary to understand why the elderly are more collision prone.

There are some obvious reasons why older adults might be more at risk of causing a crash; deteriorating eyesight and motor control are two factors that may contribute, but they by no means provide a complete explanation. Indeed, much of the increased risk can be explained in terms of the psychological changes and cognitive decline that occurs in later life.

Driving is a highly complex activity, requiring the driver to allocate their attention to a range of different tasks but attention is one aspect of cognitive processing that declines in later life. Researcher Liisa Hakamies-Blomqvist has suggested that this may be one of the main contributory factors.

She asked older and middle-aged drivers whether they were aware of the risk of a collision before it occurred. For the middle-aged drivers 74% were aware, but only 66% of the older adults were aware. It seems that older drivers may find it difficult to monitor and pay attention to all the different aspects of driving. They are therefore not likely to notice a potential danger and would be unable to attempt to avoid an incident.

The cognitive decline that many older adults experience may also contribute to increased driving risk. Professor Timothy Salthouse from the University of Virginia is one of the leading experts in cognitive ageing. He has suggested that one of the main consequences of cognitive ageing is a decrease in the speed with which information can be processed. This means that older adults may take longer to notice a potential hazard and to then respond to it. Salthouse has also suggested that older adults find it difficult to process multiple pieces of information at the same time. Consequently they may tend to concentrate on one aspect of driving at a time. Given how rapidly things occur when driving, it’s easy to imagine how challenging driving would be if you could only pay attention to one thing at a time and slowly process that information before moving on to process the next piece.

Although there are a number of reasons why drivers become more accident prone in old age, there are actually some aspects of driving in which older drivers are less risky. For instance, the elderly are far less likely to drive after consuming alcohol and are more likely to wear prescription glasses whilst driving. Also, older adults are more likely to drive in a generally cautious manner. They are also less likely to speed, however this might also become a risky behaviour if speed drops too low, as has occurred in a number of cases.

While it’s clear that elderly drivers may be more accident prone, we do not know exactly why this is the case, and there are likely to be multiple reasons that contribute to the increased accident risk. How might we reduce this risk? There appear to be two strategies, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive. First, it may be possible to provide training to elderly drivers that can make them aware of the possible risks and to teach them techniques that help them to drive safely. Second, methods might be developed that allow the licensing authorities to identify elderly drivers that are more “at risk” of causing a collision. Such identification may then feed into decisions about renewing the driving licence of older adults.

Dr Victoria Bourne (BA Hons, DPhil)

 Consultant to Driving Risk Management Limited

Imagine this situation: You are driving down a very narrow road and you accidentally clipped the wing mirror of a parked car. There was no damage to either car, so no harm done, but how would you react? Are you likely to blame yourself for not paying enough attention or for being too risky? Or would it be the fault of the person who parked the car, obviously too far out from the kerb!

Whether you tend to blame yourself or someone else for things that happen to you, most people will tend to be quite consistent in this behaviour. In 1966 a psychologist called Julian Rotter developed the locus of control scale. Locus of control refers to the beliefs that people have about why things happen to them.

There are two locus of control “personality” types: internal and external. Someone with an internal locus of control believes that they are responsible for their own actions and that they can control things that happen to them. So they would have believed that clipping someone’s wing mirror was their fault. Someone with an external locus of control believes that other people, or perhaps fate, determine the things that happen to them. So they would have blamed the person who parked the car rather than themselves.

The locus of control theory has been highly influential in psychology and has been applied to many different areas of research, including driving research. Özkan and Lajunen[i] developed the multidimensional traffic locus of control scale (T-LOC). The T-LOC is a questionnaire which presents sixteen potential causes for an incident to occur. For each cause the participant has to rate how likely it is that an collision that they were involved in could have been caused in that way.

They found that the T-LOC identified four different aspects of locus of control with regards to driving. One factor reflects the traditional internal locus of control where a driver is most likely to blame themselves for an accident. The other three dimensions were of different aspects of the external locus of control: other drivers, vehicle/environment and fate.

In addition to developing the T-LOC, Özkan and Lajunen also examined how the four different factors might be associated with risky driving behaviour. The “self”, or internal, T-LOC scale was the aspect most highly correlated with risky driving behaviour predicting the number of collisions, offenses and violations that a person committed. Someone who blames themselves is likely to drive in a riskier way. The external scale of “vehicle and environment” was also predictive of committing offenses and errors with those who blame the vehicle and environment being less likely to participate in risky driving. “Blaming other drivers” was only predictive of errors and “fate” did not predict any of the risky driving behaviours.

The same research group more recently looked at whether the T-LOC can predict whether people speed or not[ii]. When driving on a road with a 50 km/h speed limit none of the T-LOC scales were predictive of driving behaviour. However, relationships were found when people were driving on a road with a 90 km/h speed limit. People who are likely to blame their own driving behaviour for crashes were more likely to speed whereas those who tend to blame the vehicle and the environment were less likely to speed.

In many respects, locus of control is quite similar to a personality trait. This means that it is unlikely that you can simply “change” your locus of control type in order for you to reduce possible risky driving behaviours. An awareness of whether you tend to have an internal or an external locus of control may help you to better understand you own driving behaviours, especially if you are involved in a collision.

[i]Özkan and Lajunen (2005)

[ii]Warner et al (2010)

Dr Victoria Bourne (BA Hons, DPhil)

Consultant to Driving Risk Management Limited

Using a hand held mobile phone when you’re driving has been illegal in the UK for many years. This has been widely publicised and it would be difficult for any driver, especially one who drives as a part of their job, to admit not being aware of this law.

It’s now widely acknowledged that using a mobile phone, even with a legal hands free kit, reduces your ability to concentrate on driving and the chances of having a collision increase substantially. Despite considerable publicity associated with incidents involving serious injury or even death, why do some people continue to use mobile phones when they are driving?

Surprisingly, a large number of people admit to using their mobile phones illegally, with some surveys finding up to 60% of respondents admitting to regularly breaking the law. A recent study conducted in Australia believes that the explanation lies with the ‘Theory of Planned Behaviour’.

This theory suggests that there are three reasons why people behave in a particular way:

• their attitudes towards the behaviour
• their subjective norms and the amount that their behaviour might be influenced by others
• their perceived behavioural control or their belief in how well they can carry out the behaviour

In addition to these behavioural components, it’s also possible that the driver’s personality and the driving situation may influence whether someone will use a mobile phone when driving.

Researcher Mark Rozario and colleagues asked participants to rate how likely they were to use a mobile phone in different situations; when either driving alone or with passengers and when either being early or late to arrive somewhere.

They found that people were more likely to use a mobile phone when driving alone, regardless of whether they were running late or whether they were on time to arrive at their destination.

When the research team considered the Theory of Planned Behaviour, they found that all three components were significantly correlated with a driver’s willingness to use a mobile phone whilst driving. If a driver believes mobile phone use is not harmful, if their subjective norms are highly influenced by others and if they believe that their driving skill does not decrease when using a mobile phone, they are far more likely to use one.

Although this finding suggests that there are three different reasons why people may be willing to use a mobile phone, neither being extraverted nor being neurotic was associated with mobile phone use.

Another study recently conducted at the University of Beijing examined whether it was possible to change a driver’s attitude towards mobile phone use whilst driving. The participants in the study were asked to drive two routes in a driving simulator, one whilst having a mobile phone conversation and then one without.

Half of the participants were then provided with training to increase their awareness and understanding of how their mobile phone use influenced their driving behaviour. They viewed a video of their driving in each situation, whilst a trainer gave them feedback on their behaviours and possible risks. Participants who received the feedback training had a significant reduction in their self-reported willingness to use a mobile phone whilst driving, and this change in attitude was still apparent a month after the feedback training was given.

So it seems clear that, by providing training and by raising the driver’s awareness of the issues of mobile phone usage whilst driving, it is possible to reduce the potential for incidents and collisions to occur.

Dr Victoria Bourne (BA Hons, DPhil)

Consultant to Driving Risk Management Limited

While some people feel very comfortable behind the wheel and very much enjoy the driving experience, other people can feel very anxious when driving. Why do some people find that driving makes them feel this way? Does this anxiety influence their driving behaviour? And can this anxiety be reduced to help people feel more confident and thus improve driving safety?

Research examining driving anxiety has typically examined two groups of anxious people: those who become anxious after a specific traumatic incident such as a car crash and those who are prone to driving anxiety with no specific cause. One of the key researchers in this area is Dr Joanne Taylor from Massey University in New Zealand. She has found that there is actually little difference in driving behaviour and levels of driving anxiety between these two groups.

There are, however, differences in driving behaviour between those who have driving anxiety and those who do not. Taylor’s research has shown that people with driving anxiety are likely to have a number of counterproductive driving behaviours, such as driving too slowly or slowing for unnecessary reasons. Additionally, anxious drivers are more likely to make mistakes whilst driving.

Ironically, it’s therefore possible that people are so anxious about driving that they overcompensate in changing their driving behaviours, which in turn increases the likelihood of being in a collision, which then further increases anxiety.

A recent study by researchers from the Universities of Buffalo and Memphis in the US identified three distinct areas of driving anxiety.

The first aspect of driving anxiety is deficits in performance, such as finding it difficult to stay in the correct lane or forgetting the correct route to take. The second type of driving anxiety is exaggerated safety behaviour, mainly driving in an overcautious but dangerous manner, such as driving too slowly. Hostile or aggressive behaviour is the third type of driving anxiety, which might include shouting or swearing at other drivers when nervous.

The researchers then examined how each type of anxiety might be related to different aspects of driving behaviour. They found that people who tend to report deficits in driving performance due to anxiety, report being less skilled as a driver, avoiding driving and a tendency to become angry when driving.

Those who drive in an overcautious way are likely to avoid driving entirely, but report good driving skills and low levels of driving-associated anger. Finally, hostile anxious behaviour is, perhaps not surprisingly, associated with high levels of driving anger, but it’s not associated with either driving skill or driving avoidance.

People may become anxious whilst driving either due to a traumatic experience or more simply because of their anxious personality tendencies. It’s also clear that there are different aspects of driving anxiety and each of these is differently associated with driving skills and behaviours.

Whilst anxiety may appear to have a very negative impact on driving, it’s important to remember that this is likely only to be true for people who have very high levels of anxiety already. For most people, low levels of anxiety and fear are actually necessary to maintain safe driving behaviours. If drivers had no fear or anxiety they would probably drive in a reckless manner and many incidents and collisions would occur.

For people who do suffer from extreme anxiety, there is help at hand. Targeted fleet driver training is the obvious way to improve knowledge, brush up on skills, boost confidence, and reduce the amount of anxiety experienced.

___________________

Dr Victoria Bourne  (BA Hons, DPhil)

Consultant to Driving Risk Management Limited