![\"\"](\"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Screenshot-2024-01-22-111249-300x254.png\")
<\/p>\n
Figure 1: Keywords associated with the four main clusters of road safety topics in literature<\/em><\/p>\n (Source: Zou et al. (2018) (10))<\/em><\/p>\n <\/div><\/div> In their research, Zou et al. (2018) (10) conducted a quantitative analysis using 10,278 road safety research articles published from 1976 to 2017 in ten source journals in road safety literature including three journals: Accident Analysis and Prevention, Transportation Research Record, and Safety Science. According to Zou et al. (2018) (10), road safety research mainly revolves around five clusters: (i) causation and injury severity analysis of road collisions, (ii) epidemiologic studies and prevention of road traffic injury, (iii) intelligent transportation system and active safety, (iv) young drivers\u2019 driving behaviour and psychology, and (v) older drivers\u2019 psychological and physiological characteristics. Keywords associated with each cluster are presented in Figure 1.<\/p>\n <\/div><\/div> <\/div>\n While road safety professionals have focused on addressing dominant road safety topics (e.g., impaired driving, speeding), the media has reported on some road safety issues that are not largely addressed by road safety professionals but may (or not) have contributed to fatalities and\/or serious injuries. \u201cRoad rage,\u201d was introduced by the media in the late 1980\u2019s to frame aggression on roads that could lead to crashes or cause potential threat to road users (10, 11). Although road rage does not have a clear definition, it is often described as \u201cassault associated with motor vehicle use between people who do not know each other\u201d (12). Pedestrian safety has been one of major road safety topics for the past few decades with a focus ond protecting pedestrians from motorized vehicles. However, pedestrians could also act as the culprits of serious road safety issues (24, 25). For instance, jaywalking, i.e., crossing road in violation of traffic laws (e.g., entering crosswalks when the pedestrian signal is red) or crossing away from a pedestrian crossing facility, substantially increases the risk of a pedestrian being killed in a motor vehicle collision (25). Increased public transit ridership is often perceived as an effective approach to improve road safety due to its ability to reduce traffic throughput and thus exposure to potential crashes. For example, transit riders\u2019 susceptibility to fatal or serious injury crashes is 90% less than that of automobile users (36). However, transit ridership in Canada is significantly low, particularly in cold regions. In fact, transit ridership in Winnipeg, Manitoba, in 2016, was limited to 14.9% of its population (37). One of the significant factors contributing to limited transit ridership is reported to be transit system safety (38). For example, the safety of passengers waiting for a bus or train in a transit station and safety of transit riders en route were identified among the top five important factors affecting transit ridership in Ottawa-Carleton (39). Crash data evaluations including crash frequency modelling approaches (e.g., safety performance functions, crash modification factors) comprise a principal component in road safety investigations. Road safety professionals working on such crash evaluations undoubtedly benefit from easy and convenient access to crash records either through police or other crash reporting agencies (e.g., private organizations). However, crash data are often associated with several issues that may significantly impact road safety evaluations as well as road safety countermeasures designed based on such evaluations. For instance, crash data often suffers from under-reporting issues (48, 49, 50), yielding questionable models and conclusions. For instance, a road safety professional may attribute crash reduction to a specific road safety improvement based on the estimations of a crash model, while in reality, the crash frequency and severity specific to that road safety improvement may have not been reported properly. While road safety professionals often have to work with incomplete crash datasets, they also face problems with data accessibility issues. To the authors\u2019 best knowledge, Canadian crash data collection is governed by jurisdictional boundaries. For instance, while wildlife-vehicle crash data on a provincial highway are collected and handled by the respective provincial government, wildlife-vehicle collision data within Canadian national park boundaries are monitored by the Royal Canadian Mountain Police (RCMP). Such changes in crash data collection and monitoring practices may sometimes prolong and\/or limit researchers\u2019 accessibility to crash data.<\/p>\n Near-misses (i.e., unexpected events such as motor vehicle collisions that have not occurred, but may potentially happen), also known as near-crash incidents, have been proposed by road safety practitioners as a surrogate metric of crashes. In fact, near-misses are indicators of crash contributing factors because they provide cost-free information on causes that may potentially result in human injury and\/or death.<\/p>\n On the other hand, the frequency of near-misses is reported to be significantly higher than the frequency of actual crashes (51) irrespective of the type of conflict and potential crash type.\u00a0 The high frequency of near-misses provides a tool that can be used to address the scarcity and under-reporting issues of crash data. In fact, the \u201ciceberg\u201d model of the relationship between crashes, near-misses, and behavioural acts presented in Figure 2 suggests the multitude of near-misses as compared to actual crashes. Van der Schaaf TW et al (51) describes this relationship in more detail.<\/p>\n <\/div><\/div> Figure 2: Iceberg model of the relationships between crashes, near-misses, and behavioural acts (51)<\/em><\/p>\n <\/div><\/div> <\/div>\n The availability of adequate crash-like data enables road safety practitioners to identify patterns of crash causation factors in a specific environment. For instance, past literature has demonstrated on how developing a proper reporting and mapping system of near-misses can help identify potential collision hot spots particularly in the context of improving vulnerable road user safety (52, 53). Although near-misses clearly help road safety professionals take preventive road safety measures instead of the conventional reactive road safety strategies developed based on crashes, near-miss incidents are not reported and needed to be collected for specific safety and operational studies. Accordingly, we propose developing proper operational data collection systems (e.g., video-based data collection) to help analyze near-miss incidents and thus identify areas needing road safety research and\/or infrastructure improvements.<\/p>\n Table 1 provides a summary of gaps in road safety research and practice associated with each road safety topic discussed in this article. By paying better attention\u00a0to these overlooked road safety issues, we can potentially mitigate road traffic fatalities attributed to factors that are not frequently discussed in the field of road safety.<\/p>\n Table 1: Gaps in road safety research and practice for the four selected road safety topics<\/strong><\/p>\n
\nAlthough such road safety topics might not have contributed to a significant proportion of road traffic fatalities, examining the media-reported road safety issues as well as identifying gaps in road safety literature might help bring these topics to the road safety professionals\u2019 attention. In this article, we discuss four prevailing road safety issues that have either received significant media attention over the past decade (i.e., road rage, pedestrian distraction, transit safety) or in the road safety literature (i.e., crash data\/near miss reporting).<\/p>\nList of road safety topics<\/h4>\n
Road rage<\/h5>\n
\nThe lack of a scientific definition for the term \u201croad rage\u201d has sometimes led road rage to be used interchangeably with aggressive driving. However, Tasca (2000) (13) provides a clear approach to differentiate road rage from aggressive driving by considering the purpose or motivation for a specific act of violence on the road. In particular, Tasca (2000) (13) claims that road rage involves \u201cviolent exchanges...where the intent is to harm another road user\u201d whereas aggressive driving is described as \u201cif deliberate...increase the risk of collision and is motivated by impatience, annoyance, hostility and\/or an attempt to save time\u201d. In fact, Transport Canada has not included road rage as an aggressive driving behaviour in their \u201cRoad safety in Canada 2020\u201d report (7). The lack of a proper definition for the term \u201croad rage\u201d has also led to controversies over whether road rage should be treated as a criminal issue or a road safety issue.
\nWhile road rage has sometimes been perceived as a criminal offence (11), several resources (9, 12, 13, 14) have acknowledged it as a serious road safety issue. Despite a proper definition, road rage is commonly associated with intentionally colliding into a vehicle or vehicles, cutting off other vehicles, deliberately blocking traffic lanes such that other vehicles cannot move, running a vehicle off the road, shouting, as well as attacking, fighting, or injuring other drivers and\/or passengers (11). Factors contributing to road rage are multifold. Among such factors, alcohol and drug usage is frequently reported as a trigger for road rage (15, 16) which is known to be prevalent during the nighttime (17). In contrast, road rage is reported to be prevalent during the daytime, i.e., before 6 p.m. (18, 19) implying the need for more scientific research on evaluating the relationship between impaired driving and road rage. In addition, past literature also suggests that road rage is common among younger male drivers (18). In addition to the aforementioned factors, researchers imply that the stressful world we live in today may also ignite road rage among road users irrespective of their sociodemographic and personal characteristics.
\nThe number of road rage incidents in Canada has unfortunately spiked in the past few decades. In fact, a survey conducted based on 1,522 Ontario drivers revealed that more than 95% of the respondents admit to conducting some form of road rage and\/or aggressive driving action (20). Approximately 1 in 10 Ontario residents have reported being threatened of damage or personal injury when they were driving or while being on the road (21). By examining 59 cases of road rage incidents reported in 99 Canadian newspapers, Smart & Mann (2002) (22) found that 43 out of the 59 road rage cases (i.e., 73% of cases) involved injuries to 59 individuals; 4 incidents resulted in fatalities.
\nMoreover, cases involving road rage towards vulnerable road users (e.g., pedestrians, cyclists) have recently gained significant attention in the media. In fact, by conducting a series of semi-structured interviews with 29 self-identified road rage victims, Cavacuiti et al. (2013) (22) revealed that most vulnerable road users felt that they were specifically targeted during their road rage experiences.
\nAlthough road rage has not contributed to a relatively larger proportion of traffic collisions, it is important to note that most road rage related crash statistics may not have been reported (22). In addition to potential under-reporting, road rage has also been a relatively neglected area in road safety research (8, 21-23). More specifically, gaps related to road rage in road safety research include investigating (i) the impacts of externalities (e.g., congestion, road-weather, time of the day) on drivers\u2019 road rage behaviour, (ii) the relationship between road rage behaviour and general aggressiveness such as domestic violence, and (iii) effective strategies to minimize the impact of road rage on road safety.<\/p>\nDisruptive pedestrian behaviours: Jaywalking and distracted pedestrians<\/h5>\n
\nIn fact, 13 out of the 25 pedestrian fatalities recorded in Toronto in 2017 were attributed to crossing road mid-block (26). Jaywalking in extreme road-weather conditions may intensify the risk of pedestrian-vehicle collisions. Yet, jaywalking in adverse road-weather conditions is common in cold regions in Canada such as Winnipeg, especially along corridors where pedestrian crossing facilities are deficient.
\nBy observing a set of pedestrians\u2019 road crossing behaviours, Schober (1999) (27) revealed that jaywalkers\u2019 road crossing behaviour in rainy conditions is not statistically different from their road crossing behaviour in dry weather conditions. Such observations imply that jaywalkers may cross roads in violation of traffic laws irrespective of the prevailing road-weather conditions which in turn increase crash risk.
\nDistracted pedestrians (i.e., engaging in some other activity while walking) are becoming an increasingly common sight worldwide with global media extensively reporting on this phenomenon (28). In fact, past studies suggest that pedestrian distraction rates could be as high as 45% (29). The most commonly reported source of distraction for pedestrians in literature is often listed as listening to music using headphones followed by text messaging and looking at the screen of a handheld device (30). Researchers, however, are divided on the issue of distracted pedestrians leading to serious road safety issues.
\nBy surveying 278 transportation practitioners, Ralph & Girardeau (2020) (31) found that 36% of the respondents considered distraction in pedestrians as a critical road safety issue while 47% categorized distracted pedestrians as a minor road safety problem; 17% of the transportation professionals surveyed did not consider it as a problem. Yet, the general consensus among road safety professionals is that distraction in pedestrians may lead to unsafe walking behaviours including failures to identify safe gaps in incoming traffic, and not watching out for vehicles (31) which may lead to collisions or near-misses (32).
\nHowever, it is important to note that most studies focusing on evaluating the impacts of pedestrian distraction on road safety are either observational or survey-based due to limited data availability and difficulties in identifying the presence\/absence of pedestrian distraction in pedestrian-involved crashes (33).
\nA recent study by Hossain et al. (2024) (33) attempted to identify factors contributing to collisions involving distracted pedestrians by examining police officers\u2019 comments on such crashes in Louisiana. More specifically, the police officers\u2019 reports investigated by Hossain et al. (2024) included narratives from the police officers, other pedestrians, and occupants who witnessed the collisions. Based on the study results of Hossain et al. (2024), engaging in in-person conversations while standing on roadways without traffic controls was found to increase crash vulnerability for pedestrians living in an urban setting. Pedestrian distractions due to other pedestrians, pets, and\/or objects while crossing roads was found to be a significant cause of distraction for pedestrians in rural areas (33).
\nBased on the information presented above, we believe that jaywalking constitutes a serious road safety problem, particularly when distracted pedestrians and adverse road-weather conditions are involved. In fact, distraction (e.g., social interaction, using headphones) is also acknowledged as a contributing factor of jaywalking (25). Several media articles have reported fatalities and\/or issues related to disruptive pedestrian behaviours including distraction (34) and jaywalking (35) based on surveillance footage and\/or discussions with individuals who have witnessed the collisions or people that are affected by the collisions.
\nAlthough the gravity of the impact of distracted and\/or jaywalking pedestrians on road safety is apparent, research, policies, and regulations on pedestrian behaviour are surprisingly limited. In a research context, studies focusing on jaywalking patterns in extreme winter conditions (e.g., heavy snow, icy pavements) are almost non-existent although winter jaywalking is common irrespective of the prevailing environmental conditions (e.g., temperature, pavement surface condition). Further, the body of road safety literature may also benefit from studies investigating the relationship between pedestrian distraction and crash frequency in different sociodemographic\/geographic conditions. There is also a need for effective education, policies, rules and regulations (enacted with proper enforcement) designed to regulate pedestrian distraction as well as risky crossing behaviours such as jaywalking.<\/p>\nPublic transit and road safety<\/h5>\n
\nRoad safety issues associated with transit systems are mainly twofold. First, safety impacts of transit infrastructure are reported to be a key road safety issue associated with public transit systems. In fact, the media has reported multiple incidents where passengers were fatally injured due to public transit infrastructure, such as the lack of proper safety measures between subway tracks and passenger platforms (40, 41). In addition, studies evaluating the safety impacts of transit specific infrastructure systems such as bus rapid transits are limited, particularly in the context of different road-weather conditions. Second, there is a need to evaluate transit riders\u2019 safety both while riding in public transport vehicles as well as during their journey to a public transport access point. For instance, the safety of pedestrians in the vicinity of public transit access points has been identified as a major pedestrian safety issue (42). In fact, 50% of pedestrian-involved collisions reportedly occur within 30 meters from public transit access points (43). On the other hand, the media has recently reported on an alarming number of incidents (e.g., stabbings, assault, violence) related to the safety of public transit riders (44, 45). Such incidents may scare-off potential transit riders from regularly using public transit as a mode of transportation. In fact, a survey conducted in 2023 revealed that approximately 27% of Canadians feel unsafe while riding public transit alone (46). However, some studies claim that the heavy media coverage on transit-related crashes and crimes impose exaggerated public transit risks which are considerably lower than the crash risks associated with automobile usage (32, 47). Such claims in public transit safety literature indicate that some researchers may contradict the media\u2019s opinion on crash or crime risks associated with public transit indicating controversies about transit rider safety among research scholars and media.
\nAccordingly, there is a need to (i) evaluate and\/or compare the true safety risks associated with public transportation systems\/infrastructure, and (ii) develop effective strategies to improve public transit safety. Such studies could potentially attract more public transit riders and thus reduce traffic flow on Canadian roads eventually reducing potential crashes leading to enhanced road safety.<\/p>\nCrash data and near-miss reporting<\/h5>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/carsp.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Screenshot-2024-01-22-111702-300x165.png\")
<\/p>\nConclusion \u2013 research recommendations<\/h2>\n