Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

Investigating the motivational factors influencing drivers

intentions to unsafe driving behaviours: Speeding and
overtaking violations
Charles Atombo a,b,c, Chaozhong Wu a,b,, Ming Zhong a,b, Hui Zhang a,b
a
Intelligent Transportation System Research Center, Wuhan University of Technology, 1040 Heping Avenue, Wuhan, Hubei 430063, China
b
Engineering Research Center for Transportation Safety, Ministry of Education, 1040 Heping Avenue, Wuhan, Hubei 430063, China
c
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ho Polytechnic, P.O. Box HP 217, Ho, Ghana

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Achieving road safety depends on driver attitudes and behaviours in handling the vehicle
Received 5 February 2016 on roads. The availability of good road, improvement of vehicle designs and drivers expe-
Received in revised form 8 August 2016 rience lead to reduction in crashes but not prevention of crashes. The study aims to predict
Accepted 21 September 2016
the drivers intentions towards speeding and overtaking violations when under the influ-
ence of motivational factors using belief measure of TPB and DBQ variables. To achieve this,
questionnaires were randomly administered to a sample of Ghanaian drivers (N = 354) who
Keywords:
held valid driving licenses. This study applied regression techniques. The result shows that
Motivational factors
Speeding
the components of TPB and DBQ variables were able to predict drivers intentions towards
Overtaking speeding and overtaking violations. The study further shows that components of TPB made
Theory of planned behaviour larger contributions to the prediction of divers intentions to speeding and overtaking than
Driver behaviour questionnaire the DBQ. Further analysis revealed that, in the prediction of drivers intentions, speeding
Intentions attitude was the most frequent violations compared to overtaking. The drivers tend to
involved in overtaking violations when they perceived the driving motivations would
enhance the performance of the behaviour. Additionally, control belief has been the stron-
gest predictor of drivers intentions under the influence of motivations to speeding and
overtaking violations. It appeared that the drivers who intended to involve in speeding
and overtaking violations had strong beliefs in the factors and are more likely to violate
based on their beliefs. The practical implications of the findings for the development of
interventions to promote road safety and positive changes are also discussed.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The frequency of vehicles crashes in Ghana has become one of the worrying and growing concerns in recent times. Ghana
Auditor-General (2010) indicated that in 2010, average of 1600 people in Ghana perished and over 15,000 injuries were
recorded annually through road traffic accidents (RTA). The report further shows that this cost Ghana 1.6% of its Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) translating into $ 165 million. Again, in 2012 alone 2249 Ghanaians died while 14,169 sustained
injuries through RTA and 60% of all crash victims were people within the productive age group between 30 and 49 years

Corresponding author at: Intelligent Transportation Systems Research Center, Wuhan University of Technology, 1040 Heping Avenue, Wuhan, Hubei
430063, China.
E-mail addresses: wucz@whut.edu.cn, chaozhongwu@126.com (C. Wu).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2016.09.029
1369-8478/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121 105

(National Road Safety Commission (NRSC), 2011, Siaw, Duodu, & Sarkordie, 2013). As result of this, there are approaches of
effective management of traffic flow, as well as the development and maintenance of road infrastructure to promote road
safety. There is also establishment of powerful institutions and regulatory bodies to promote road safety. Despite all these
approaches, statistics relating to road traffic accidents are overwhelming. For instance, in the report of National Road Safety
Commission (NRSC) (2014), in 2013 more than 14,128 cars were involved in accidents that claimed 1503 lives. The report
further indicated that, every month 165 people are killed in road crashes while more than five road users are killed daily
on roads in Ghana. This suggests that the problem of crashes is a serious trait to public health. According to the road traffic
statistics and analysis information in Ghana, most crashes could be directly linked to drivers mistake and violation of road
traffic laws. It has also been recorded that, 90% of RTAs are caused by human behaviour and 65% are attributed to speeding
and overtaking violations (Damsere-Derry, Ebel, Mock, Afukaar, & Donkor, 2010; Ghana Auditor-General, 2010). The majority
of crashes have been attributed to either one or a combination of road, driver, vehicle and environmental factors. Studies in
other countries have also confirmed that, 90% of all crashes are caused by road user behaviour characteristics (Bener,
Crundall, Haigney, Bensiali, & Al-Falasi, 2007). Majority of findings have attributed road accidents to human factor (Bener
et al., 2007; de Oa, de Oa, Eboli, Forciniti, & Mazzulla, 2014). However, good driving behaviour exhibit by drivers could
have a flow effect to improve the overall safety on roads. This requires drivers to comply with the acceptable norms and reg-
ulations in driving. This may also require drivers refraining from unsafe driving behaviour (hard acceleration and braking).
Unsafe driving is a component of human behaviour in the context of driving. Its consequence on roads can be huge, with
extreme cases leading to damages of properties, injuries and deaths. Ball (2012) conducted a research on why society is com-
plex and indicated that, one cannot tell how big any particular conflict will become. In the context of safety, one cannot also
tell how serious unsafe driving behaviour could result in minor or major damages. Each road accident could be as a result of
unsafe driving behaviour. In this study we attempt to define unsafe driving behaviour as a deliberate and systematic practice
that makes processes and actions minimize positive and maximize negative effects within a driving environment, based on
the awareness about the interaction between the processes and actions. Looking at the suffering and losses caused by crashes
on our road, investigating the factors that stimulate inappropriate speeding and wrong overtaking is very relevant in modern
society. This would promote safety awareness and knowledge for its prevention. Therefore, it is expected that this study
would create awareness and understanding in the importance of regarding traffic regulations.

1.1. Speeding and overtaking violations

There are considerable numbers of inappropriate driving behaviours on our roads. Among these, the most significant are
speeding and overtaking violations. Excessive speeding and wrong overtaking are potentially crash situations which could
predetermine the severity of injuries and fatalities. It can be induced by internal and external factors associated with the
drivers attitudes, beliefs, intentions and purpose. Excessive speeding has been recognised as one of the inappropriate driving
behaviour which could increase workload and decrease safety threshold (point above high risk) (Fuller et al., 2006). They
further pointed out that even if drivers remain in control in handling the vehicle at high speed without any crash outcome
such behaviour is still regarded as highly inappropriate. Musselwhite (2006) also conducted study on attitudes towards vehi-
cle driving behaviour. The study revealed that majority of overtaking accidents that occurred was associated with excessive
speeding. Studies by Boufous et al. (2010) also stated that failure to observe speed limits is one of the leading factors asso-
ciated with involvement in motor vehicle accidents. Inappropriate speeding and overtaking may also occur when drivers
dont want to yield to one another on the circulation roadway. This situation can be as a result of drivers attempt to achieve
their target. For instance Krivda (2013) investigated conflict situations in road traffic on roundabout and indicated that most
of the time, some drivers adapt to unacceptable driving behaviour to impair other road users to achieve their target goal (e.g.
reaching their destination quickly). In this case, the driver is most likely to choose risky driving behaviour. It can be stated
that, drivers in their attempt to achieve their immediate goals would certainly be under the influence of motivations to
engage in unsafe driving behaviour. In such situation, the probability of crash occurring is very high, most especially on high-
ways. Inappropriate speeding and wrong overtaking may be useful for some drivers, even though it is unacceptable. For
example, some drivers may engage in inappropriate speeding and overtaking because it allows them to get to their appoint-
ment on schedule. According to Krivda (2013), the wrong behaviour of road traffic users result in restriction or danger to the
culprit and other users. This suggests that, the end results of unsafe driving behaviour dont affect the culprit alone but other
road users as well.
As a result of increased number of road traffic crashes unsafe driving behaviour can caused, there have been measures in
the past and recent times to improve road designs. However, this may have adverse effects on drivers behaviours which
intend can affect crash rates. Automotive manufacturers have developed a number of advanced intelligent technologies to
assist the driver skills and decrease workload. However, these technologies which are capable of enhancing vehicles to travel
at a high speed may influenced drivers speed choice and overtaking perception. Increased in-vehicle safety devices could also
influence drivers to feel protected even in the event of accident and opt for risky driving behaviour. Though the transport
construction designer can never regard transport solutions as completely safe and suitable (Krivda, 2013). In the work of
Fuller, Bates et al. (2008), it was concluded that the motivational influences which raises speed simultaneously raise the driv-
ing task difficulty and drivers risk threshold which in turn reduces the safety margin of the driver. There is evidence that
speed perception is also affected by perceived driving ability and social norms (McEvoy, Stevenson, & Woodward, 2007).
It could be seen that the implementations of safety measures were to improve in achieving road safety. Nonetheless, these
106 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121

measures also influence inappropriate driving behaviour affecting the aim of achieving absolute road safety. For instance,
Edquist, Rudin-Brown, and Lenne (2009) indicated that the improvement of design, the environment and lighting conditions
of the road can influence driver perception about speed choice which can affect road safety.
Due to the increase number of road traffic crashes, many important researches have been conducted in order to enhance
understanding of drivers behaviours, the effect of crashes on road safety and measurement of driver intentions towards vio-
lations in both developed and developing countries (Akaateba & Amoh-Gyimah, 2013; De Groot, Ricote, & De Winter, 2012).
Most of the crashes have been blamed on drivers errors and violations of the traffic regulations. In previous study, Bureau
and Australian Transport Safety (2006), argued that human behaviour which is the potential avenue for impact on road
safety is influenced by motivations. Researches was conducted on driver behaviour and risk-adaptation respectively and
revealed that the motivational weighting of gains influences drivers choice of driving behaviour (Fuller, 2005; Koornstra,
2009). The factors such as human, road, vehicle and the environmental/weather condition contribute to road crashes
(Bener et al., 2007; de Oa et al., 2014; Forward, 2009a; Wu & Malipeddi, 2011). The beliefs of the drivers in these factors
could affect the behaviour on the road. This situation needs understanding as to what kinds of factors influences the beha-
viour for interventions to enhance safety. In attempt to understand the behaviour, previous researchers have also addressed
the problems of violating driving regulations and aggressive behaviour relative to traffic crashes (af Whlberg, 2010;
Stanojevic, Jovanovic, & Lajunen, 2013). Few researchers evaluated the impact of factors on drivers performance and have
attributed road crash to defective infrastructures and inexperience (Bijleveld & Churchill, 2009; Zhang, Yau, & Chen, 2013).
Others have also applied TPB and DBQ to understand speeding behaviour and prediction of drivers intentions (De
Pelsmacker & Janssens, 2007; Peer, 2011). The majority of such analyses on drivers behaviour were concerned with devel-
oped countries. Currently, most of the developmental efforts regarding driver behaviour are still being researched. This
implies that the behaviour of driver contributing to the road traffic crashes rate is still a potential factor.
Looking at the trend, the beliefs of the drivers in driving motivational factors could be the major contributing factor to the
increasing number of road accidents. Even though in the developed countries evidences showed that the rate of accident has
reduced for some time now (World Health Organization, 2009). In the developing countries the number keeps on increasing
each year. This means that a gap still exists in understanding factors contributing to road crashes in the developing countries.
One may attribute this to the increase number of human population and vehicle numbers. With regard to this assertion, the
vehicle population in developed countries is far greater than that of developing countries, Africa. Therefore, increased pop-
ulation is by no means the sole contributor. This study suggests that the missing link is the lack of enough assessment on the
significant stimuli on driver behaviour towards speeding and overtaking violations which is the frequent traffic offence
involvement and causes of road crashes in developing country, Ghana. To the best of our knowledge the influence of the
motivational factors on drivers perception towards traffic violations are grossly underemphasized in previous studies.
Therefore, it is important to understand the underlying factors associated with drivers aberrant behaviours with purpose
of identifying those that can be changed by countermeasures to enhance future safety. More so, investigating the factors that
influenced unsafe driving behaviour with theories of DBQ and TPB is important to reduce the risk of road crashes. However,
most of the studies that used the TPB and DBQ as a measure were carried out in developed countries. Therefore, using these
theories in developing country like Ghana would validate the cross-cultural applicability of the model. It is in this direction
that the study was conducted to investigate the correlation between the DBQ and belief measures of TPB variables with
regard to drivers intentions to speeding and overtaking violations when under the influence motivations. The study also
aims to predict the behavioural intention of drivers towards speeding and overtaking violations. The variables in the three
constructs of beliefs measure that best predict the intentions to engage in speeding and overtaking violations were also
investigated. The intentions that were considered in this study are linked to the probability of driver choosing inappropriate
speeding and overtaking driving behaviour and the probability of such behaviour causing road crashes based on the beliefs in
the factors.

1.2. Attributes of factors influencing drivers behaviours

Human behaviour which is the potential avenue in the driving environment is influenced by many factors, which could
have direct effect on road safety. In this study the three factors that are considered to be influencing drivers speeding and
overtaking violations are discussed below.

1.2.1. Vehicle factors

Over the past years, a number of passive and active safety features have been introduced on vehicles to assist and improve
drivers performance and reduce road traffic injuries and deaths. These include air bags, crumple zones, seat belts, anti-lock
braking systems, forward collision warning systems, traction control systems and others. The reduction in the severity of
injuries caused in crashes has been achieved but these features did not reduce the number of crashes. One of the reasons
for the increase in the number of crashes is that, the competency of drivers has not improved even with added safety features
(Malik & Rakotonirainy, 2008). This may also be that the drivers beliefs, with current increase in vehicle design technologies
and in-vehicle safety devices, vehicles have become safer to drive and they are protected from danger in them, even at high
speeds and in event of road crash.
According to National Transport Safety Board (2015) dynamic brake support or improves safety outcomes by reducing
stopping distance for drivers but will not cure drivers error in situations where no decision is made to stop. Vehicle with
 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121 107

advance safety features (e.g. Automatic braking systems) may influence driver to feel more capable to stop quickly in the
event of unexpected hazards and therefore may engage in excessive speeding behaviour. This may become more problematic
on freeway motorways. The ability of vehicle to run very fast influences speed choice of drivers (Edquist et al., 2009). The
newness of vehicles may also influence the speeding behaviour of a driver. In the work of Brookhuis, De Waard, and
Janssen (2001) an overview on driver behavioural impacts of advanced driver assistance system was conducted. It was stated
that electronics driving aid are developed for safety and comfort to the driver, drivers impairment is the first cause of acci-
dents. Though the primary aim of introduction of automobile advance technology was to improve drivers comfort and traffic
safety, it may have adverse effects on driver behaviour. For instance Shinar (2007) revealed that, the introduction of the dri-
ver support system is intended to reduce accidents but when not properly used can be categorise as drivers error and vehicle
factor. It could be seen that advance technologies of vehicle design only lead to reductions in crashes and does not prevent
crashes from occurring. Despite these technologies, drivers behaviour in handling the vehicle plays a major role in reducing
and preventing road crash. The probability of accident occurring could be very high if the drivers attitudes and behaviours
towards traffic safety violation remain unchanged.

1.2.2. Human factors

Driver characteristic is one of the factors contributing to road crashes. For instance, in other studies, there is evidence that
driver motivations play important role in the choice of driving in a certain manner by either promoting or preventing risky
driving (Koornstra, 2009; Summala, 2007; Zuckerman, 2007). Drivers who feel under time pressure and desire to reach des-
tination on time might be motivated to travel faster (Fuller, Bates et al., 2008; Fuller et al., 2006; Fuller, Hannigan et al., 2008;
Schmidt-Daffy, Brandenburg, & Beliavski, 2013). Some drivers may also intend to choose a particular behaviour because of
the belief that, they are protected over their driving capability and confidence. Another factor which may be influencing driv-
ing behaviour is tendency of some drivers seeing themselves as more experience than their fellow average drivers. Peer influ-
ences may encourage risky driving behaviour. For example, urging the driver to drive fast or when a driver perceived that the
occupants would view fast driving behaviour as desirable (Simons-Morton, Lerner, & Singer, 2005). In the study of Horvath,
Lewis, and Watson (2012) argued that, some drivers may engage in dangerous overtaking and crossing of other vehicles to
impress others. A driver may possess all the good qualities in the context of driving environment but when such qualities are
allowed to influence driving behaviour, the probability of causing crash is likely to be very high.

1.2.3. Road design and environmental factors

In the early days of motorisation, highway design standards progressed and design manuals were introduced (Hakkert &
Gitelman, 2014). The environment of road can affect the drivers behaviour in choice of driving behaviour which can there-
fore affect crash rates. The factors that come from road environment includes the road geometry, road sign and marking
information, light and weather conditions (Edquist et al., 2009). Given that, the conditions of road surface may be one of
the most important factors that affect the drivers perceptions in choosing appropriate speed and lane changing. Driver often
choose lower speed on roads that have rough surfaces, and narrow (Edquist et al., 2009). When the road is wider, drivers may
increase speed and make dangerous overtaking. Road signs and markings are expected to provide the driver with the correct
or needed information about the appropriate speed. It also helps the driver to stay within their lane particularly at night.
Nevertheless, these signs have little effects to countermeasure road accident in the area where the driver perceived to be
less busy and on high roads where there is no provision to monitor aberrant driving behaviour. Where the road makings
are reflective, at night drivers may assume they can remain in the lane at a high speed without considering how they can
stop in time of unexpected hazard. For example Elliot, Mccoll, and Kennedy (2003) carried out a review on road design mea-
sures to reduce drivers speed and revealed that, drivers overcompensate and engage in unaccepted driving behaviour when
the road marking out is improved. Furthermore, unlit road at night may also influence the rate at which the driver moves.
Majority of drivers behaviours may also be influenced by good weather conditions. In such situation they may engage in
dangerous overtaking and excessive speeding.

1.3. Driver behaviour questionnaire

Driver behaviours as part of human factors in driving describe the manner in which a driver chooses to drive. A number of
measurement scales such as Driver Anger Scale (Deffenbacher, GETTING, & Lynch, 1994), Driving Skill Inventory (zkan,
Lajunen, & Summala, 2006) and Driving Behaviour Questionnaire (Reason, Manstead, Stradling, Baxter, & Campbell, 1990)
have been designed to investigate the driver behaviour. Among these scales, the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire has been
extensively used to examine self-reported driving behaviour in many studies in transportation researches to understand
the nature of driver behaviours from different perspectives and across nations (Davey, Wishart, Freeman, & Watson,
2007; Harrison, 2011; Lei, Jianqiang, Furui, & Keqiang, 2009; Rowland, Freeman, Davey, & Wishart, 2007) such as the culture
comparison (zkan, Lajunen, Chliaoutakis, Parker, & Summala, 2006), age differences in driving behaviour (Akaateba &
Amoh-Gyimah, 2013), time saving bias, speed choices and driving (Peer, 2011), quantification method of driver characteris-
tics (Lei et al., 2009), organisational fleet setting (Davey et al., 2007), hemispheric preference (Gidron, Gaygsz, & Lajunen,
2014), meta-analysis (De Winter & Dodou, 2010), trip-focused organisational safety climate (z, zkan, & Lajunen, 2014) and
a profile of taxi drivers road safety attitude and behaviour (Rowland et al., 2007). DBQ has also been successfully applied in
some countries including Australia (Davey et al., 2007; Rowland et al., 2007), Turkey (Gidron et al., 2014) and among other
108 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121

countries. It could be seen that the majority of such analyses were concerned with developed countries; hence this study was
conducted in a developing country Ghana. According to Reason (1990) the two main types of driver behaviour are errors and
violations. Based upon the distinction between errors and violations, the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire was
established (Reason et al., 1990). There are evidences that driver errors, violations and slips and lapses are the three empir-
ically divergent categories of behaviour. According to Reason et al. (1990), errors are failure of planned actions to achieve
intended consequences. Violations are deliberate deviations from those practices believed necessary to maintain the safe
operation of a potentially hazardous system. Given that, when there is no prior intention to commit violations that is known
as unintended violation. Slips and lapses are attention and memory failures. Researches have shown that both errors and
violations are potentially dangerous and are the main contributing factors to a road crashes (Davey et al., 2007; De
Winter & Dodou, 2010; Rowland et al., 2007; z et al., 2014). The violation scale was expanded by Lawton, Parker,
Manstead, and Stradling (1997) with the addition of ordinary violations which comprises violations without any specific
aggressive aim. The extension depends on the reason why drivers violate. Majority of studies have used the items of viola-
tions, lapses and errors of DBQ to measure driver behaviour and attitudes while driving (af Whlberg, 2010; Stanojevic et al.,
2013).

1.4. Theory of plan behaviour

There are measures to address increasing death and injuries caused by inappropriate driving behaviours. These measures
have not corrected such behaviours completely and globally road crash is still a serious health trait to human live. For
instance Paris and Van den Broucke (2008) conducted study on measuring cognitive determinants on speeding based on the-
ory of planned behaviour. It was stated that despite measures to supress drivers inappropriate speeding behaviour, these
measures primarily induce external behaviour change of the driver behaviour but have no effect on the core motivation
of the drivers behaviour to respect the driving regulations. It has been argued that in trying to design effective interventions
to change driver behaviour, the first step is to understand the underlying factors that motivated the behaviour to violates the
normal driving rules (Warner & berg, 2008). These factors can be best comprehended by using preventive behaviour change
models (De Pelsmacker & Janssens, 2007; Trifiletti, Gielen, Sleet, & Hopkins, 2005). These attitude models have focused on
social psychological factors that predict preventive behaviour change that may serve as the drive of interventions.
In the field of traffic psychology a renowned validated model which has been used by many researchers as a measure in
explaining and predicting intentions in the road safety domain is the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991) which is an
extension of the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). For instance the theory has been applied to explain
pedestrians and drivers intentions to violate traffic rules (Holland & Hill, 2007), drivers intentions to drink and drive
(Chan, Wu, & Hung, 2010), predicting drivers speeding behaviour (Forward, 2009b; Peer, 2011; Warner & berg, 2008), dri-
vers behavioural decision making (Elliott, Armitage, & Baughan, 2005; Zhou, Wu, Rau, & Zhang, 2009), mass media campaign
to reduce speeding (Stead, Tagg, MacKintosh, & Eadie, 2005) and to predict intention not to ride with an intoxicated driver
(Moan, 2013). The modified versions of the TPB model has been used to predict the driving behaviour (De Pelsmacker &
Janssens, 2007). All these researchers have established that many driving behaviours are intentional, and intention to engage
in a particular driving behaviours is influenced by perceptions. This model state that choosing behaviour is to a large extent
determined by the intention to perform behaviour. According to Ajzen (1991), behavioural intentions are assumed to cap-
ture the motivational factors that influence a behaviour, which indicate how hard people are willing to try, how much effort
they are planning to exert in order to perform the behaviour.
The theory postulates that, behavioural attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control are based on beliefs,
which are connected to intentions. Attitude towards the behaviour is based on behavioural beliefs which determine ones
beliefs regarding the merits and demerits of performing the behaviour. Subjective norm is based on normative beliefs (per-
ceived social norms) with regard to the ones perception about how much others approve of behavioural performance which
are belief about how important others think of the behaviour, regarding the motivation to comply. Perceived behavioural
control is based on the control beliefs which inform persons beliefs concerning factors which may enhance or prevent per-
formance of behaviour. The intention is defined as willingness to perform a behaviour (Warner & berg, 2008). People carry
out their intention as soon as an opportunity is given. TPB improve understanding of motivational factors underlying the
behaviour (White, Hyde, Walsh, & Watson, 2010). The understanding of this could inform education and intervention pro-
grams. These studies have all shown that the theories whether in their original or modified forms are capable to explain and
predict drivers behaviour.
Based on Ajzen (2006) in this study, the behavioural belief is defined as the affirmative or undesirable evaluation of beha-
viour depending on the motivations. Normative beliefs refer to the perceived social influence to engage in the behaviour
based on motivation to comply with other people interest. Perceived control belief is the degree to which an individual
believes that the motivations will facilitate performance of intended behaviour.
Specifically, in Fig. 1, the direct measure of the theory transmutes to behavioural intention based on belief measures
(behavioural, normative and control beliefs) to determine the actual behaviour which is violations. Behavioural intentions
transform into actual behaviour (violations and mistake) based on motivational factors which influences the willing to per-
form the behaviour.
 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121 109

Fig. 1. A modified diagram representation of the theory of planned behaviour after (Ajzen, 2006).

2. Methodology

2.1. Participants

In this study, 450 randomly selected Ghanaian drivers who hold a valid driving license and using a car with features of
advance technology were the targeted participants. Out of the 450 questionnaires distributed, 354 were retrieved represent-
ing 79 percent of the total questionnaire administered. The volunteered drivers who participated in the study included 278
(78.5%) male and 76 (21.5%) female. Majority (47.5%) of the participants were within the productive age group between 25
and 35 years indicating that they are most affected people in the event of accidents. Most of the participants 258 (73%) were
married and 45% had up to senior high school level of education. They had different years of driving experiences with 39%
having a driving experience ranging from 6 to 10 years. Furthermore, majority of the drivers (44.6%) had driving licence C
which implies that they are qualified to drive. The size of vehicles that participants drive was divided into small (52%), med-
ium (41%) and large (7%) categories. The participants were asked to estimate how driving motivations (e.g. Advance technol-
ogy features, good road design, confidence and experience) influence their speeding and overtaking. Out of the total number
of participants, 228 (64%) indicated that motivations highly influence their speeding whiles 205 (58%) mentioned motiva-
tions has high influence on overtaking driving behaviour. Furthermore, 65% of the participants stated that road accident
is caused by wrong overtaking whiles 35% mentioned inappropriate speeding. For further detail see Table 1.

2.2. Research survey design

The questionnaire that was developed for the study collected a variety of information relating to driving behaviour and
the intentions of the participants when under the influence of driving motivations (e.g., good road design and conditions,
advance in vehicle safety features, advance cruise control, experience and confidence among others). In this way, the rela-
tionship between the driving behaviour and the intentions of the participants with regards to speeding and overtaking under
the influence of motivations can be determined. To capture the potential motivations on drivers intentions to unsafe driving
behaviour, survey was conducted to collect the data. The questions were mainly closed ended ones where the participants
were asked to tick appropriate responses that suit them. The survey includes three sections.
The first part addresses the respondents demographic characteristics. The second section gathered information regarding
inappropriate driving behaviour (speeding and overtaking) using the Manchester driver behaviour questionnaire which has
been used extensively in studies in transportation research in developed countries. This has been proven to be useful tool to
understand the nature of driver behaviours in all driving conditions. The drivers responses were recorded on five point Likert
scale.
The third section comprised items relating to the impact of motivational factors on speeding and overtaking driving beha-
viour that may conform or violate the accepted norms of driving regulations. This section was designed to assess the beliefs
of the drivers when under the influence of these factors and their effects on road traffic crashes based on belief measure of
theory of planned (behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs and perceived control beliefs). The stated responses were divided
into five groups of alternative responses. This section also elicited information with respects to the intensions to involve in
speeding and overtaking violations when under influence of motivations.
110 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121

Table 1
Participants characteristics.

Items Freq. Per. (%)

1. Age
Below 25 years 26 7
2535 168 47.5
3645 122 34.5
46 above 38 11
2. Gender
Male 278 78.5
Female 76 21.5
3. Marital status
Married 258 73
Single 96 27
4. Education
<Junior High School 112 32
Senior High School 166 45
Bachelors 61 17
>Masters 15 4
5. Driving experience
Less than 2 years 44 12
25 years 108 31
610 years 138 39
Above 10 years 64 18
6. Class of license
B 135 38.1
C 158 44.6
D 48 13.6
F 13 3.7
7. Vehicle size
Small 184 52
Medium 145 41
Large 25 7
8. Motivations influence (speeding)
Never 53 15
Small 73 21
High 228 64
9. Motivations influence (overtaking)
Never 41 11.6
Small 108 30.5
High 205 58
10. Cause of road accidents
Speeding 124 35
Overtaking 230 65

2.3. Procedure

The on-site survey was adapted for this study. The random sampling technique was used in selecting drivers. In order to
determine the appropriate sample size for the study, pre investigation was conducted on the selected international work-
shops. It was revealed that a total population of approximately 2500 vehicles are serviced within a week. Based on those
numbers, the minimum statistically acceptable sampling size had been determined using the Kish method (Kish, 1965) to
justify the responsive sample size of the survey.
Prior to conducting the study, the questionnaire was pre-tested on few drivers at another international automobile dealer
repair workshops, which is not part of the sampling sites. This was done to assist in refining the items or questions on the
questionnaire to address the objective of the study. Furthermore, it also helped in removing any ambiguous questions and
determined the duration a respondent would use to complete the questionnaire.
In both the pilot stage and the main study, the managers of international workshops were contacted personally. This was
done to inform them about the aim and content of the study to allow the drivers who patronise their service to answer the
questionnaire. Contacting the workshop managements, they agreed to allow their customers (drivers) to participate in the
study. The drivers were then contacted individually and the questionnaire was given to them to answer after they have
agreed to participate. The respondents were informed about the confidentiality and anonymity. The participation was done
voluntary without any compensation. The participants who could not understand the questions were assisted by the
researchers to answer them correctly. This was done to increase the number of participants.
 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121 111

It should be noted that drivers who used vehicles with the features of advance technology (e.g. ABS, ACC, etc) were target
samples. The decision was taken based on the fact that, all drivers have access to the road conditions, human factors, and the
environmental conditions but not all drivers have vehicles with advance technology features. It was highly possible to get
drivers who use such vehicles to participate in the study from international auto workshop since these workshops deal with
new and modern vehicles, hence international automobile dealers repair workshop was selected for the study site. This
method helped to achieve the aim of the study. Additionally, all data were analysed in the aggregate to avoid individual par-
ticipants identification.

2.4. Measures

2.4.1. The driver behaviour questionnaire (DBQ)

In the work of Peer (2011) it was indicated that, DBQ is related to speeding behaviour. z et al. (2014) also stated that the
choice of driving speed can be included in driver behaviour. Others have also indicated that it is possible to use the DBQ with
minor modifications of items, or with the original versions of the items (z et al., 2014; zkan & Lajunen, 2005). Based on
this, it was therefore important to adjust the items of DBQ to measure the attitude of drivers towards speeding and inappro-
priate overtaking. The modifications were made to measure the drivers behaviours towards traffic and regulation contained
in the Ghana Highway Code. Self-reported survey was designed based on the validated variables from previous studies of
Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (Davey et al., 2007; Reason et al., 1990; zkan, Lajunen, Chliaoutakis et al., 2006; zkan,
Lajunen, Summala, 2006). A total of 25 items relevant to the Ghanaian driving context were presented in the questionnaire.
In the present study the deliberate violations, mistakes and unintended violations latent variables scales for both speeding
and overtaking violations were included.
Deliberate speeding violations were measured with seven items (e.g., deliberately drive very fast at night when the road
markings are reflective) with internal consistency Cronbachs alpha of 0.78. The deliberate overtaking violations were mea-
sured with six items (e.g., became impatient with a slow driver and accelerate hard to overtake on the inside) showing inter-
nal consistency Cronbachs alpha of 0.76.
Mistakes in speed violations (e.g. became frustrated and got into a wrong lane when speeding) and mistakes in overtaking
violations (e.g., underestimate the speed of an oncoming vehicle when overtaking on undivided road). Both mistakes in
speeding and overtaking violations were measured with three items each showing internal consistency Cronbachs alpha
of 0.71 and 0.82 respectively.
Unintended speed violations (e.g., check speedometer and realise you are unknowingly travelling faster than the legal
speed limit) and overtaking violations (e.g., miscalculate the speed of oncoming vehicle when attempted to overtake on
the main road) were both measured with three items each. The internal consistency Cronbachs alpha of 0.75 for speeding
and 0.73 for overtaking violations. As the lapses are mostly not critical for safety (Gidron et al., 2014; z et al., 2014) it was
not included. Each item was evaluated by the participants on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never, 5 = very often).

2.4.2. Theory of planned behaviour (TPB)

This study adopt the theory of planned behaviour model to predict self-reported driving behaviour which previous
research has demonstrated its validity to provide a reliable measure of intentions (Paris & Van den Broucke, 2008). In this
study, drivers intentions to engage in unsafe driving behaviour (i.e. speeding and overtaking violations) were measured
based on the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 2006; Elliott et al., 2005). The behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs
and perceived control beliefs latent variables were measured. An index of each construct was composed of beliefs and cor-
responding evaluations, compliance and perceived powers for each variable in speeding and overtaking (zkan, Lajunen, Dog
ruyol, Yldrm, & oymak 2012). In line with the TPB, the participants were asked to rate how each items influence their
beliefs in speeding and overtaking driving behaviour when under the influence of motivations.
The behavioural belief composites were composed of behavioural belief strength (e.g., with driving motivations, I see
nothing wrong with speeding/overtaking violations) and outcome evaluations (e.g., with the driving motivations, to see
nothing wrong with speeding/overtaking violations is very good/very bad). The belief strengths were scaled from strongly
disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5 and the outcome evaluations scaled from very bad = 1 to very good = 5. The behavioural
beliefs were measured with six items. The Cronbachs alpha for speeding and overtaking were .72 and .77 respectively.
The Normative beliefs composites were composed of normative beliefs strength (e.g., my friends think I should not/
should involve in excessive speeding/dangerous overtaking) and motivations to comply (e.g., when it comes to you involving
in excessive speeding/dangerous overtaking, how likely do you want to comply with what your friends think). The normative
beliefs were measured with four items adopted from Warner and berg (2008) and two inverted by the researchers scored as
very unlikely = 1 to very likely = 5. The Cronbachs alpha for over speeding was .76 and that of overtaking was .70.
The control beliefs composites were composed of control beliefs strength (e.g., when you drive vehicle with advance tech-
nology features how often do you think you will violate speeding/overtaking rules) scaled from 1 = never to 5 = very often
and control belief power (e.g., when I am driving vehicle with advance technology features it is very easy/very difficult
for me to violate speeding/overtaking rules) scaled from very difficult = 1 to very easy = 5. This elicited the information with
12 items with Cronbachs alpha of .83 for over speeding and .74 for overtaking.
The drivers intentions were finally measured as self-reported behaviour. The likelihood of the drivers to involve in inap-
propriate speeding and overtaking behaviours were also measured by six items. For instance, How likely do you intend to
112 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121

exceed the speed limit/overtake other vehicles on the road if you feel your car is capable to do so in any driving condition?,
How likely will you intend to disregard road signs when over speeding/overtaking on a road that is good, clear and of low
traffic?, and How likely will you intend to exceed the speed limits/overtake a slow leading car with little chance?. It was
scored as 1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely. The Cronbachs alpha for over speeding and overtaking were .83 and .75 respec-
tively. The result shows that the Cronbachs alpha for TPB components and DBQ variables were sufficiently reliable and could
be combined and used for the analysis.

2.5. Statistical analysis

The questionnaires were coded and entered into Statistical Package for Social Scientist (SPSS) version 20 Software.
Descriptive statistics was applied to investigate demographic characteristics of the respondents. Cronbach alpha was used
to investigate the internal consistency of the scales. Zero-order Pearson product-moment correlations were performed to
establish relationship between variables of DBQ and TPB regarding intentions. In order to predict the drivers intentions,
hierarchical multiple regression analyses were also performed. In addition, standard multiple regression analysis was also
used to identify variables in the behavioural beliefs, normative beliefs and control beliefs of TPB components that best pre-
dict the intentions to inappropriate speeding and overtaking.

2.6. Model framework

The factors of selected variables on drivers intentions towards inappropriate speeding and overtaking were modelled
with multiple linear regression models (MLRM). In this model the likelihood of a driver intension to involve in inappropriate
speeding and wrong overtaking was predicted. The functional relationship between independent and dependents variables
can easily be represented in the models. The general model framework is given below:
^ b bX
The conditional mean function is linear: Y 0

Y^ b0 b1 X 1 b2 X 2 b3 X 3 . . . bn X n
In this study, where
^ = Predicted value of the dependent variable; b0 = Intercept (Value of Y when all the X values are zero), X1n = various
Y
observable or independent variables, b1n = Regression coefficient. The goal of the regression was to arrive at the b values.
3. Results

This section comprises the results and the discussions based on the objectives of the study.

3.1. Correlations coefficient between the components of TPB and DBQ regarding intentions

In Tables 2 and 3 below the relationship between the components of Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), Driver Behaviour
Questionnaire (DBQ) variables in relation to drivers intentions to speeding and overtaking violation when under the influ-
ence of motivational factors was investigated using Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. Preliminary analyses
were performed to ensure no violation of the assumptions of normality, linearity and homoscedasticity.

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations between beliefs components of TPB and DBQ variables in relation to intentions: Speeding violations.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DBQ
1. Deliberate violations
2. Mistakes .52***
3. Unintended violations .50*** .60***
TPB
4. Behavioural beliefs .19*** .18** .15*
5. Normative beliefs .16** .15* .11* .36***
6. Control beliefs .33*** .22*** .11* .47*** .38***
7. Intentions .35*** .31*** .18** .36*** .42*** .76***
Mean 1.49 1.32 1.45 2.45 2.19 2.33 2.28
Std. deviation 0.41 0.50 0.60 0.82 0.81 0.74 1.00

A higher mean value indicate drivers were more likely to violate.

The correlations between the variables were scaled scores based on the average of items contained in each latent variable.
*
P < 0.05.
**
P < 0.01.
***
P < .001.
 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121 113

Table 3
Descriptive statistics and correlations between beliefs components of TPB and DBQ variables in relation to intentions: Overtaking violations.

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
DBQ
1. Deliberate violations
2. Mistakes .45***
3. Unintended violations .41*** .53***
TPB
4. Behavioural beliefs .09 .06 .05
5. Normative beliefs .02 .01 .03 .21***
6. Control beliefs .11* .07 .06 .80*** .29***
7. Intentions .13* .12* .09 .33*** .41*** .55***
Mean 1.37 1.24 1.42 2.68 2.32 2.40 2.27
Std. deviation 0.71 0.61 0.81 0.98 0.79 0.66 0.88

A higher mean value indicate drivers were more likely to violate.

The correlations between the variables were scaled scores based on the average of items contained in each latent variable.
*
P < 0.05 level (2-tailed).
***
P < .001 level (2-tailed).

Table 2 below show the correlation coefficients and descriptive statistics among the variables of TPB and DBQ in the case
of intentions to speeding violation. The result shows that, degrees of the correlation coefficients of all the independent vari-
ables with the behavioural intentions were positive, ranging from small to large. In the TPB components, the correlation
between the control beliefs and intention (r = .76, p < .001) was the strongest followed by normative beliefs (r = .42,
p < .001) and the behavioural beliefs (r = .36, p < .001). With regards to driver behaviour questionnaire variables, deliberate
violations (r = .35, p < .001) had the strongest correlation with intentions to speeding violations followed by Mistakes (r = .31,
p < .001). The unintended violations (r = .18, p < .01) weakly correlated with intention to speeding.
Table 3 below also shows the descriptive statistics and Pearson correlation coefficients between the TPB variables, DBQ
variables and intention to overtaking violations. The result shows that all the independent variables of TPB were significant
and positively correlated with intention to involve in dangerous overtaking with the associations between control beliefs
and intention (r = .55, p < .001) making the strongest correlation followed by normative beliefs (r = .40, p < .001) and the
behavioural beliefs (r = .32, p < .001). However, with regards to the DBQ, deliberate violations and Mistakes (r = .13, p < .05
and r = .12, p < .05 respectively) appears as weakly correlated with intentions to overtaking violation. We also found that,
there was no significant correlation within the variables of TPB and BDQ except for the relationship between control beliefs
and deliberate violations (r = .11, p < .05) which is significant but weakly correlated.

3.2. Predicting intentions towards speeding and overtaking violations using beliefs based TPB and DBQ

The hierarchical regression analysis was run to predict the behavioural intentions of drivers speeding and overtaking vio-
lations after controlling the effect of demographic variables age, gender and education entered at the first step. In the second

Table 4
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis of coefficients for variables of TPB beliefs components and DBQ variables predicting drivers intentions towards
speeding violation under the influence of motivations (N = 354).
P 2
Variables R DR2 Adj.R2 Fchange F B b SE
Step 1
Age .12 .09* .05
Gender .13 .11* .09
Education .09 .09 .08 11.31*** 11.31*** .25 .23*** .05
Step 2
Deliberate violations .16 .10* .06
Mistakes .23 .12** .08
Unintended violations .17 .08 .15 10.87*** 11.57*** .03 .02 .07
Step 3
Behavioural beliefs .04  01 .05
Normative beliefs .15 .12** .05
Control beliefs .64 .47 .63 150.03*** 67.66*** .90 .66*** .05

A negative association with intentions indicate that drivers under the influence of motivations were more likely to supressed aberrant driving behaviour
and chose appropriate driving behaviour while with the positive associations were more likely to violate the normal driving regulations.
*
P < 0.05.
**
P < .01.
***
P < .001.
114 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121

step deliberate violations, mistakes and unintended violations were entered. Finally, the behavioural, normative and control
beliefs were entered into the regression equation at the third step. The results for speeding and overtaking violations are
presented in Tables 3 and 4 below respectively.
As presented in Table 4, in the first step, age, gender and education had significant beta coefficients and accounted for 9%
of the variance in intentions. Age and gender (b = .09, p < .05 and b = .11, p < .05 respectively) were positively related to
higher intentions to violation whereas education (b = .25, p < .001) was related to lower number of intention to violate.
In the second step the model further explained 8% of the variance with deliberate violations and mistakes (b = .10,
p < .05; b = .12, p < .01, respectively) making the main predictor of drivers higher intentions to violate. The result further
shows that in the third step the model explains 47% variance to the predictions of intention with normative beliefs and con-
trol beliefs (b = .12, p < .01and b = .66, p < .001, respectively) significantly predicted drivers intention to speeding violations.
No significant prediction was found for the behavioural beliefs (b = .01). The model as a whole predicts 64% of variance in
drivers intentions to speeding violation when under influence of motivations.
Table 5 present the result of drivers intention to overtaking violation. The results indicated that in the first step gender
and education had significant beta coefficients and accounted for 3% of the variance in intentions. Gender and education
(b = .11, p < .01and b = .20, p < .001 respectively) were positively related to higher intentions to violate. In the second step
the model further contributed only 2% of the variance with deliberate violations (b = .10, p < .05) making the main predictor
of drivers intentions with small significant beta coefficients. It should be noted that the explained variance for demographic
variable in the prediction of overtaking violations was particularly low. Furthermore, in the third step behavioural, norma-
tive and control beliefs had significant beta coefficients and accounted for additional 38% variance to the predictions of
intention. The behavioural beliefs (b = .26, p < .001) were also positively related to higher number of intentions to violate
whereas normative beliefs were related to lower number of intention to violate (b = .28, p < .001). The model predicts
43% of variance in drivers intentions to overtaking violations when under the influence of motivations.

3.3. Variables in the constructs of belief measure of TPB predicting intentions towards inappropriate speeding and overtaking

Table 6 below shows the items in the components of beliefs measure of TPB that best predict intentions towards speeding
and overtaking violations.

3.3.1. Behavioural beliefs

In the prediction of intention to speeding violation, the respondents rated Not risky as thought to exceed the speed limit
as the most likely influence (M = 2.78, SD = 1.45) followed by Increases comfort in speeding (M = 2.72, SD = 1.46), with
Increases confidence in speeding and Makes speeding to be more exciting scoring the same mean and standard deviation
(M = 2.70, SD = 1.38) to be among the highest four most likely influences on drivers inappropriate speeding behaviour.
Among all these items they rated Nothing wrong to exceed the speeding limit (M = 1.82, SD = 0.95) as the least likely influ-
ence. With that of overtaking, the drivers rated Increases confidence in overtaking as the highest likely influence (M = 2.84,
SD = 1.46) followed by Overtaking can be more frequent without any problem or hazards, Increases comfort in overtak-
ing and Makes overtaking to be more exciting with their mean and standard deviations as (M = 2.80, SD = 1.50), (M = 2.77,
SD = 1.48) and (M = 2.57, SD = 1.38) respectively to be among the highest four most likely influences on driver overtaking
violations. Not risky as thought to overtake (M = 2.54, SD = 1.42) had the least rating.

Table 5
Summary of hierarchical regression analysis of coefficients for variables of TPB beliefs components and DBQ variables predicting drivers intentions towards
overtaking violation under the influence of motivations (N = 354).
P 2
Variables R DR2 Adj.R2 Fchange F B b SE
Step 1
Age .02 .01 .06
Gender .13 .11** .09
Education .03 .03 .02 3.27* 3.27* .19 .20*** .05
Step 2
Deliberate violations .14 .10* .07
Mistakes .11 .07 .09
Unintended violations .05 .02 .03 2.57* 2.94* .03 .02 .08
Step 3
Behavioural beliefs .25 .28*** .06
Normative beliefs .29 .26*** .05
Control beliefs .43 .38 .41 75.97*** 28.55*** .92 .69*** .09

A negative association with intentions indicate that drivers under the influence of motivations were more likely to supressed aberrant driving behaviour
and chose appropriate driving behaviour while with the positive associations were more likely to violate the normal driving regulations.
*
P < 0.05.
**
P < .01.
***
P < .001.
 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121 115

Table 6
Summary of standard multiple regression analysis coefficients of variables in the three constructs (behavioural, normative, and control beliefs) of TPB belief
measures predicting intentions towards speeding and overtaking violations.

Variables Over speeding Overtaking

Mean b Rank I, r Mean b Rank I, r
(SD) (SD)
1. Behavioural beliefs
Estimate the extent motivational factors influence your beliefs in the following
Nothing wrong to exceed the speed limit/overtaking 1.82 .07 5 .14** 2.55 .01 5 .17**
(0.95) (1.44)
Makes speeding/overtaking to be more exciting 2.70 .28*** 3 .36*** 2.57 .22** 4 .24***
(1.38) (1.38)
Not risky as thought to exceed speed limit/overtake 2.78 .15* 1 .26*** 2.54 .02 6 .16**
(1.45) (1.42)
Increases confidence in speeding/overtaking 2.70 .06 3 .16** 2.84 .20** 1 .28***
(1.38) (1.46)
Increases comfort in speeding/overtaking 2.72 .25*** 2 .32*** 2.77 .08 3 .22***
(1.46) (1.48)
Excessive speeding/overtaking can be more frequent without any problem 1.98 .07 4 .08 2.80 .16* 2 .26***
or hazards (0.96) (1.50)

2. Normative beliefs
Estimate how likely the following people or groups of people would approve of your involvement in speeding and overtaking while driving
Family members (wife, husband, children, brothers and sisters) 2.00 .07 5 .22*** 2.02 .11* 5 .26***
(1.14) (1.19)
Partner/boyfriend/girlfriend 2.36 .19** 2 .34*** 2.33 .08 3 .25***
(1.40) (1.32)
Relatives (male and female relatives) 2.27 .15* 3 .33*** 2.26 .04 4 .22***
(1.34) (1.34)
Friends (male and female friends) 2.70 .19** 1 .36*** 2.71 .05 2 .26***
(1.38) (1.32)
Drivers in front and behind you 2.12 .03 4 .23*** 2.94 .29*** 1 .40***
(0.93) (1.44)
Police 1.67 .06 6 .17** 1.67 .06 6 .09*
(0.89) (0.89)

3. Control beliefs
Estimate the extent the following motivational factors influence youre speeding and overtaking when driving
Provision of advance technology features 2.38 .47*** 6 .78*** 2.46 .12* 8 .44***
(1.51) (1.32)
Advance in-vehicle safety devices 2.68 .01 4 .36*** 2.57 .08 5 .24***
(1.44) (1.38)
Size and robustness of the car 1.86 .02 12 .10* 1.83 .07 12 .03
(0.94) (0.93)
***
Experience in driving 2.89 .03 1 .42 2.84 .02 1 .28***
(1.49) (1.46)
Confidence and high esteem in driving 2.00 .01 9 .25** 2.77 .04 3 .22***
(1.14) (1.48)
Feeling in control and excitement 2.83 .02 2 .36*** 2.80 .11* 2 .26***
(1.48) (1.50)
Achieving comfort and satisfaction 1.96 .02 10 .21** 2.00 .01 9 .04
(0.95) (0.96)
Good road surface 2.69 .37*** 3 .80*** 2.53 .26*** 6 .51***
(1.61) (1.41)
Good road signs and markings 2.67 .32*** 5 .76*** 2.63 .21*** 4 .52***
(1.57) (1.45)
Availability of wider road 2.05 .03 7 .36*** 1.96 .02 10 .13*
(0.93) (0.95)
Clear or good weather condition 1.89 .02 11 21** 2.50 .20*** 7 .48***
(0.95) (1.40)
Provision of light on road 2.04 .02 8 34** 1.89 .03 11 .01
(0.89) (0.95)

Mean and standard deviations in bracket, a higher mean value indicate drivers were more likely to violate driving regulations under influence of
motivations.
I, r Indicate the correlations between the belief set of items and intentions.
*
P < 0.05.
**
P < .01.
***
P < .001.
116 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121

In the behavioural beliefs components, the model explained 21.2% of variance in intentions with three of these composite
having significant b weight. Make speeding to be more exciting (b = .28, p < .001) made a strongest unique contribution to
the prediction of intentions towards inappropriate speeding when under the influence of motivations followed by Increases
comfort in speeding (b = .25, p < .001) and Not risky as thought to exceed the speed limit (b = .16, p < .05) while in over-
taking violations, the model explained 13% of variance in intention with Make overtaking to be more exciting (b = .22,
p < .05) making the strongest significant contributions to the prediction of intention to involved in dangerous overtaking
when under the influence followed by Increases confidence in overtaking and Overtaking can be more frequent without
any problem or hazards (b = .20, p < .05; b = .16, p < .05, respectively).

3.3.2. Normative beliefs

Table 6 further shows how important people in the lives of drivers would approve speeding and overtaking violations
when there is availability of driving motivations. In prediction of intentions to speeding, the drivers rated Friends (male
and female friends) as the most likely to approve speeding (M = 2.70, SD = 1.38) followed by Partner/boyfriend/girlfriend
(M = 2.36, SD = 1.40). In addition, Relatives (male and female relatives) (M = 2.27, SD = 1.34) and Drivers in front and
behind (M = 2.12, SD = 0.93) were rated third and fourth respectively to be among the highest people likely to approve
speeding. In all the normative beliefs items Police (M = 1.67, SD = 0.89) had the least likely to approve speeding violation
behaviour even when the conditions permit it. With regards to overtaking, the drivers rated Drivers in front and behind as
the highest likely people to approve overtaking intentions (M = 2.94, SD = 1.44) with Friends (male and female friends)
rated as the second highest likelihood of people (M = 2.71, SD = 1.32) followed by Partner/boyfriend/girlfriend, and Rela-
tives (male and female relatives) (M = 2.33, SD = 1.32) and (M = 2.26, SD = 1.34) respectively. The Police was rated as the
least (M = 1.67, SD = 0.89) among the variables. It implies that among the social peers its only police who will not approve of
aberrant driving behaviour.
In the normative beliefs components, the model explained 19.4% of variance in intentions to speeding and 18.9% variance
in overtaking with some of these composite having significant b weight. Partner/boyfriend/girlfriend and Friends (male
and female friends) made a significant contribution of (b = .19, p < .05) to the prediction of likelihood of important people
approving the drivers intention towards speeding violations when under the influence of motivations whereas as in over-
taking Drivers in front and behind (b = .29, p < .001) made the strongest significant contribution to the prediction of inten-
tions. The Family members (wife, husband, children) was low (b = .11, p < .05) indicating that, it made less statistical
unique contributions to the prediction of intentions.

3.3.3. Control beliefs

As presented in Table 6, the results further show the extent driving motivations impact on drivers behaviour with regards
to speeding and overtaking violations. The result indicated that the respondents ranked Experience in driving and Feeling
in control and excitement as the most two highest motivations likely to influence their behavioural intentions to speeding
(M = 2.89, SD = 1.49; M = 2.83, SD = 1.48 respectively) and overtaking violations (M = 2.84, SD = 1.46; M = 2.80, SD = 1.50
respectively). The Good road surface (M = 2.69, SD = 1.61) and Advance in-vehicle safety devices (M = 2.68, SD = 1.44
were rated high followed by Good road signs and markings (M = 2.67, SD = 1.57) and Provision of advance technology fea-
tures (M = 2.38, SD = 1.51) to be among the valuable motivations to influence drivers intentions to involved speeding vio-
lation behaviour. The Size and robustness of the car (M = 1.86, SD = 0.94) was rated as the least motivations among the
observable variables. Furthermore, in overtaking violations, they also rated Confidence and high esteem in driving and
Good road signs and markings (M = 2.77, SD = 1.48; and M = 2.63, SD = 1.45 respectively) as being among the highest moti-
vations likely to influence intentions to involve in overtaking violations. Advance in-vehicle safety devices (M = 2.57,
SD = 1.38), Good road surface (M = 2.53, SD = 1.41), Clear or good weather condition (M = 2.50, SD = 1.40) and Provision
of advance technology features (M = 2.46, SD = 1.32) were also rated as potentials motivations whiles Size and robustness
of the car (M = 1.83, SD = 0.93) had the lowest influence.
In the components sets of control beliefs the model could explained 82.7% of variance in intentions to speeding violation
and 43.9% of the variance in intention to overtaking violation with a number of these composite having significant b
weights. Provision of advance technology features (b = .47, p < .001), Good road surface (b = .37, p < .001), and Good road
signs and markings (b = .32, p < .001) all made a significant contribution with the Provision of advance technology features
making the strongest prediction likely to influence drivers intention to speeding violations while in overtaking violation,
Good road surface (b = .26, p < .001) made the strongest prediction to influence intentions followed by Good road signs
and markings (b = .21, p < .001) and Clear or good weather condition (b = .20, p < .001). The Provision of advance technol-
ogy features, and Feeling in control and excitement (b = .12, p < .05; b = 11, p < .05, respectively) made less significant con-
tribution to the prediction drivers intentions to involve in dangerous overtaking.

4. Discussion

The present study results indicated that, with the intentions to speeding violations, all the independent variables in the
TPB were significant and positively correlated with the behavioural intentions with the association between control beliefs
and intentions being the strongest. This finding established that drivers who belief in the availability of driving motivations
 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121 117

are more likely to violate speeding regulations. Thus, it is possible that the more the influence of motivational factors, the
more the drivers intentions to violate the acceptable speed limit. With regards to DBQ variables, deliberate violations
and mistakes made moderate and positive correlations with speeding intentions. In accordance with previous studies
(Elliot, Mccoll et al., 2003; Elliot, Armitage, & Baughan et al., 2003) this means that speeding intentions could reasonably pre-
dict drivers aberrant behaviour. However unintended violations weakly correlated with intention to speeding indicating
that any negative attitude towards acceptable speed limit is deliberate and could be attributed to internal or external factors
that ride with them.
Regarding overtaking violations, TPB variables correlated positively with the intentions to overtaking violations. This
implies that the drivers when overtaking, overestimate the assistance of driving motivation available to them and perceived
that inappropriate overtaking can be made safely. In accordance with previous studies (Forward, 2009b), this confirmed that
drivers may find it difficult to stay behind a leading car and found it harder to obey the driving rule even in dangerous driving
zone when perceived to be in control. It is obvious that with the provision of driving motivations, drivers intentions towards
overtaking violations could be positive. Furthermore, the aberrant behaviour variables (deliberate violation and mistakes)
appear to be weakly correlated with intentions to overtaking violations. Thus, overtaking violations are less likely among
Ghanaians drivers. However, it seems drivers rather tend to engage in wrong overtaking when they perceived driving moti-
vations available to them will enhance the performance of the behaviour to achieve the target. In support of this findings
Edquist et al. (2009) found that the conditions of road surface affect the drivers perceptions in choosing appropriate lane
changing. Therefore, any road crashes as a result of overtaking could be attributed to the influence of driving motivations
(e.g. good road surface conditions) on driver behaviour. In consistent with previous result (Peer, 2011) it appears that
DBQ is more related to speeding behaviour and not overtaking since there was no significant correlation found between vari-
ables of TPB and BDQ except for the relationship between control beliefs and deliberate violations which was weak.
Generally, it seems that TPB variables appeared to be more strongly correlated with intentions than the DBQ variables.
This suggests that for intervention of crash preventions, the focus may have been too much on the drivers behaviour in
terms of violations. Therefore, drivers who intend to commit speeding and overtaking offences were more comfortable based
on their beliefs in the driving motivations. In explaining the variance in drivers scores on the intentions to violate, the asso-
ciation between intention and control beliefs were the strong for speeding 57.8% and overtaking violations 30.3%. Most
importantly, this study explained that the more the ability a driver suppresses the influence, the weaker the intention to
involve in speeding and overtaking violations. Therefore, the drivers who reported favourable positive attitude towards
behaviour had a weaker relationship between the variable and intention towards inappropriate speeding and overtaking
when under influence of driving motivations. Forward (2009b) revealed that, the theory of planned behaviour variables cor-
relates more strongly with intentions than each other. This was confirmed with speeding violations but not with overtaking
violations since control belief shows stronger correlation with behavioural beliefs than intentions. Similar to this results,
Forward (2009b) found subjective norm to have stronger relationship with attitude than intentions.
With respect to the prediction of intentions to speeding violations, the model as a whole predicted 64% of variance in
drivers intentions to inappropriate speeding when under influence of motivations which is little lower than 71% variance
in intentions reported by (Forward, 2009b). In line with Nordfjrn, Jrgensen, and Rundmo (2010) it was found that, age
and gender were related to higher intentions to violation whiles education was related to lower number of intention to vio-
late. These suggest that age and gender is a potential factor to aberrant driving behaviour in Ghana. In the second step, delib-
erate violations and mistakes were the main predictor of drivers higher intentions to speeding. This illustrate that intenders
are likely to deliberately deviate from accepted speed limit and may fail to achieve the intended planned actions thus,
increase the possibility of road crashes occurrences. In corroboration with findings from Warner and berg (2008), the nor-
mative beliefs and control beliefs made significant contribution in the third step of the model. However the variance
explained 47% in the present study is higher than that of Warner and berg (2008) (44%) variance to the prediction of inten-
tion to exceed the speed limit. More so, in congruent with Warner and berg (2008) findings, the control beliefs made the
strongest predictor of intentions to speeding violation. In combination, the above results suggest that the drivers who
intended to violate the speed limit were influenced by driving motivations which they belief will enhance the performance
of their behaviour and therefore, had positive attitude towards speeding violations that important people to them would
approve.
The results also highlighted the prediction of intentions to overtaking violations, gender and education made significant
contribution in step one. However, the variance explained was very small. It was somehow surprising that age did not make
unique contribution in predicting intentions to overtaking violations. The effects of age cut-off point may have been slightly
underestimated (46 years and above) in the study since most studies used 50 years and above. Furthermore, among the DBQ
variables only deliberate violation made very small significant contribution. In contrast with Lund and Rundmo (2009) find-
ings, this indicate that, drivers in Ghana show less willingness to take risks in terms of overtaking. Furthermore, similar to
previous studies (Forward, 2009b) behavioural, normative and control beliefs of TPB made significant contribution and
accounted for 38% variance to prediction of overtaking violations intentions. However the variance explained is slightly
higher than figure 33% presented in previous study (e.g., Forward, 2009b). The control beliefs which translate to perceive
behavioural beliefs was related to higher intentions to violation which is in accordance with previous report (e.g., Parker,
Manstead, Stradling, & Reason, 1992). This result may suggest that, drivers beliefs with driving motivations overtaking
can be made easily without any hazards. In such situations drivers are more likely to engage in risky driving behaviour.
Moreover, normative belief was related to lower number of intention to violate indicating that the important people to
118 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121

the drivers are likely to disapprove the intentions to overtaking violations. In such situations, the drivers intentions to over-
taking violations will be suppressed.
Specifically, with regards to prediction of intentions to speeding and overtaking violations, the model was more likely to
predict intentions to speeding violations R2 = .64, F (9, 344) = 67.66, p < .001 than overtaking violations R2 = .43, F (9, 344)
= 28.55, p < .001. In accordance with previous study, this finding confirmed that, independent variables of TPB are more
likely to predict intentions to speeding (Newnam, Watson, & Murray, 2004). In comparing the two models, the variables
accounted for 21% more variance in prediction of intentions to speeding violations than overtaking violations. In line with
previous studies, this implies that excessive speeding attitude is the most frequent driving violations compared to overtaking
(Shams, Shojaeizadeh, Majdzadeh, Rashidian, & Montazeri, 2011; Stanojevic et al., 2013).
The variables in the beliefs measure of TPB components that best predict intentions towards speeding and overtaking vio-
lation was finally examined. From the analysis, the items in behavioural beliefs revealed that, most of the drivers perceived
speeding and overtaking violations to be normal and acceptable driving behaviour and dont see it as serious traffic offences.
They also belief with the provisions of driving motivations they can exceed the speed limit and do wrong overtaking without
leading to road crash. To a large extent perceived gains related to traffic violation influences drivers behaviour towards
intentions to violate. This finding agrees with previous results which indicated that behavioural beliefs variables such as
making driving more fun, getting to the destination quicker and being more comfortable significantly motivate intentions
to commit traffic violations (Warner & berg, 2008). The result shows that, inherent motivation which is one of the compo-
nents of human factors could best predict the drivers intentions towards speeding and overtaking violations.
Furthermore, with the normative beliefs the results indicate that drivers perceived friends, partners and other drivers
they shear the road with highly approve speeding and dangerous overtaking behaviour which may be the important factors
that influence their behaviour regarding violations. However, closed relations and police disapproved of speeding and over-
taking violations. In accordance with previous studies, this suggested that speeding and overtaking is perceived as socially
acceptable driving behaviour that many think their peers approve of such behaviour (Holland & Hill, 2007). However, drivers
may be coerced to exhibit favourable driving behaviour towards traffic safety when closed relations are on board. Further-
more, aberrant driving behaviour would be impaired when drivers perceived to be monitored and are more likely to be
booked by police. This is not surprising because in Ghana, majority of drivers observed traffic rules strictly in the vicinity
they are under police observation and begin to violate as soon as they passed the police observation site.
Finally, in the control beliefs, the result shows that drivers who beliefs in their driving ability are more likely to under-
estimate road situations and engage in speeding and overtaking violations. In accordance with previous studies, perhaps
experience drivers violate because they underestimate the negative consequences for themselves and others and perceived
to be less likely to have crash as a driver than their average peer (Hatfield & Job, 2006; Machin & Sankey, 2008). However, in
contrast of this findings, Tronsmoen (2008) and Tronsmoen (2010) indicated that drivers with more professional lessons are
less likely to overestimate their driving ability. Combining the control beliefs variables, vehicle factors made the strongest
predictions of intentions towards speeding violations whereas in overtaking violations, road factors made the strongest pre-
diction of intentions. This established that human factor which has been proven to be the greatest contributor to road
crashes could be as a result of drivers over reliance on motivations from vehicle and road factors. According to Shinar
(2007) the introduction of safety measures into vehicles and highway does not only change the vehicle and roadways char-
acteristics, but also changes drivers behaviour in response to them. Therefore, it can be said that these factors influence dri-
ver perception to overestimate or underestimate driving situations and engage in uncharacteristic driving behaviours.
This study has created awareness and understanding effect of the beliefs influencing drivers intentions towards speeding
and overtaking violations. It has also demonstrated that by using the beliefs components of TPB, the beliefs influencing dri-
vers intentions to speeding and overtaking violations could be identified to inform the developmental for interventions
towards reducing road crashes. Additionally, the study has shown why sometimes drivers violate and why sometime they
do comply with the driving regulations. Furthermore, the findings have also clearly shown the applicability of the compo-
nents of TPB and DBQ in relation to drivers intentions towards violations. More so the study has provided foundations
for future investigations into the factors influencing aberrant driving behaviours most especially in the region of developing
country, Ghana using components of theory of planned and driver behaviour questionnaire. Notwithstanding the extensive
contributions, the present study has some limitations: The results were obtained based on self-reported behaviour. This data
collection technique may lead to the possibility of collecting imbalanced data due to the drivers wary to fully disclose per-
sonal information. However, the anonymous and confidentiality nature of the questionnaire hopefully minimized this poten-
tial. Furthermore, the present study focused on only drivers using cars with features of advance technologies. Therefore, the
sampling might have been compromised. However, this approach was chosen based on the fact that all drivers and vehicles
have access to road, human and environmental conditions but not all drivers have vehicles with advance technological fea-
tures. Therefore, the decision was taken to avoid bias in the responses. Moreover, this study was not aimed at investigating
all possible motivational factors on driver intentions to violations rather considered vehicle, human, road and environmental
factors. There might still be some unidentified factors and drivers characteristics influencing speeding and overtaking vio-
lations. Aside the limitations, the study has identified factors associated with drivers intentions to unsafe driving behaviours
which have informed the developmental countermeasures to promote road safety in Ghana.
 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121 119

4.1. Practical interventions

Future interventions should attempt to focus on the underlying beliefs for all categories of drivers on the importance of
regarding road traffic regulations. The results from this study show that the components of PTB correlate strongly with
intentions. It better predicts drivers intentions to speeding and overtaking violations than the variables of driver behaviour
questionnaire when under the influence of driving motivations. In the prediction of drivers intentions, the model explained
more variance in speeding violations than overtaking violations. Throughout the study the control belief consistently has
been the strongest predictor of intentions among the variables. It could therefore be argued that the drivers who intended
to commit speeding and overtaking violations had strong beliefs in the motivations. In short, drivers who intend to commit
speeding and overtaking offences were more comfortable based on their beliefs in the driving motivations. This implies that
future interventions should attempt to increase measures to control beliefs perceptions which contribute to drivers inten-
tions and actual speeding and overtaking violation behaviour. However, considerable parts of inappropriate driving may be
as a result of drivers wrong behaviour. The interesting situation is that, the majority of the traffic offences are often concen-
trated on highways which are hard to identify and supress. This then implies that changing the behaviour would not be an
easy task. The reason being that speeding and overtaking violations are closely related to the drivers past beliefs. For
instance, the perception that advance technology enhances vehicle to move faster is closely related to behavioural beliefs
that speeding and overtaking can be more comfortable without any hazards influenced drivers violations. In line with
Warner and berg (2008) drivers perceived good roads as measures that make it easier to exceed the speed limits. According
to Forward (2009b), in change model, people would resist change when they have no intentions to change their behaviour.
This is because people are comfortable with the behaviour that is consistent with their beliefs. Given that, if a person starts to
become aware of the problem would hold the beliefs which are in conflict with their new intention towards the behaviour. In
accordance with Meng and Siren (2012) this suggests that in terms of changing drivers aberrant behaviour, the only possible
means is to persuade drivers to change their own inappropriate driving behaviour. This could be done by creating effective
awareness and understanding for all categories of drivers on the importance of regarding traffic regulations. In trying to for-
mulate interventions for attitudinal change requires different strategies and measures to enhance the understanding of the
effect of accident and monitoring of inappropriate behaviours. In attempt to reduce violations, the behaviour which is
regarded as normal and acceptable that influences the drivers positive attitude towards violations should be discouraged
and be regarded as inappropriate. This could be done by apportioning serious punishment and increasing the booking fine
for road traffic offenders.
In Ghana law enforcement agencies concentrate more on observing violations on roads within urban and residential. The
violations on non-residential roads are left out. Therefore, drivers find it more comfortable committing offences and per-
ceived it to be useful. In addition, when drivers regard traffic rule in area they perceived to be booked for any violations, they
later involve in frequent violations (e.g., speeding and overtaking violations) to compensate for the lost time in area per-
ceived not to be under observation. Therefore, enforcement such as frequent police presence and speed cameras mounted
especially on highways for observation of inappropriate behaviours could make it harder for drivers to involve in speeding
and overtaking violations. More so, knowledge and understanding of main fundamental causes of road traffic crashes should
also be area of concentration to inform the development of relevant interventions. Drivers should be made to understand and
accept the fact that despite the availability of driving motivations, positive behaviour in driving plays an important role in
reducing road traffic crashes.
This study has provided unique insight regarding practical implications for interventions by stakeholders of road crash
preventions to enhance positive attitudinal change in intentions to violations. It is believed that the results from this study
can serve as guidelines when implementing traffic safety measures.

5. Summary and conclusion

The present study assessed the influence of motivational factors (safety measures) on drivers intentions to speeding and
overtaking violations of randomly selected drivers in Ghana. The results from this study show that, the belief components of
TPB and DBQ are able to predict drivers intentions towards speeding and overtaking violations when under the influence of
driving motivations. The components of TPB made the larger contribution to the prediction of drivers intentions in speeding
and overtaking violations than the variables of driver behaviour. In the prediction of drivers intentions, the model explained
more variance in speeding violations than that of overtaking violations. Control belief was the most consistent strongest pre-
dictor of intentions in both speeding and overtaking violations. The majority of the findings are found to be supporting pre-
vious researches.
In conclusion, the key finding that emerged from the present study is that drivers under the influence of motivations are
more likely to involve in speeding and overtaking violations based on their beliefs. Therefore, in order to achieve road safety,
the study suggests that the aberrant behaviours the drivers perceived to be normal and acceptable should be discouraged.
The result suggested that, the interventional measures should focus on beliefs of all categories of drivers. These findings
would help in designing education that would enhance understanding and knowledge of behavioural change in achieving
road safety.
120 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121

This study is not an end in itself as there is the need for further studies. For future research, effort should be made to
involve all drivers using all categories of vehicles in order to get a more complete view of drivers speeding and overtaking
behaviours. The present study has indicated that gender, age and education may be important factors to influence drivers
intentions and behaviour. Therefore, it should be an area of interest for future researchers to study.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their deep appreciation to the Laboratory of Intelligent Transportation System Research
Center & Engineering Research Center of Transportation Safety, Ministry of Education (Wuhan University of Technology) for
their support. This research is supported by Chinese Scholarship Council (CSC) under the Grant Numbers 2014GXZ714 and
National Nature Science Foundation of China (61603282, 51178364, 61104158).

References

af Whlberg, A. E. (2010). Social desirability effects in driver behavior inventories. Journal of Safety Research, 41(2), 99106.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179211.
Ajzen, I. (2006). Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire. Available at <people.umass.edu/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf>.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour.
Akaateba, M. A., & Amoh-Gyimah, R. (2013). Driver attitude towards traffic safety violations and risk taking behaviour in Kumasi: The gender and age
dimension. International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, 3(4), 479494.
Ball, P. (2012). Why society is a complex matter: Meeting twenty-first century challenges with a new kind of science. Springer Science & Business Media.
Bener, A., Crundall, D., Haigney, D., Bensiali, A. K., & Al-Falasi, A. S. (2007). Driving behaviour stress, error and violations on the road: A cross-cultural
comparisons study. Advances in Transportation Studies, 12, 514.
Bijleveld, F., & Churchill, T. (2009). The influence of weather conditions on road safety: An assessment of precipitation and temperature.
Boufous, S., Ivers, R., Senserrick, T., Stevenson, M., Norton, R., & Williamson, A. (2010). Accuracy of self-report of on-road crashes and traffic offences in a
cohort of young drivers: The DRIVE study. Injury Prevention, 16(4), 275277.
Brookhuis, K. A., De Waard, D., & Janssen, W. H. (2001). Behavioural impacts of advanced driver assistance systemsan overview. European Journal of
Transport and Infrastructure Research, 1(3), 245253.
Bureau & Australian Transport Safety (2006). Characteristics of fatal road crashes during national holiday periods. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Chan, Daphne C. N., Wu, Anise M. S., & Hung, Eva P. W. (2010). Invulnerability and the intention to drink and drive: An application of the theory of planned
behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(6), 15491555.
Damsere-Derry, J., Ebel, B. E., Mock, C. N., Afukaar, F., & Donkor, P. (2010). Pedestrians injury patterns in Ghana. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42(4),
10801088.
Davey, J., Wishart, D., Freeman, J., & Watson, B. (2007). An application of the driver behaviour questionnaire in an Australian organisational fleet setting.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 10(1), 1121.
De Groot, S., Ricote, F. C., & De Winter, J. C. F. (2012). The effect of tire grip on learning driving skill and driving style: A driving simulator study.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15(4), 413426.
de Oa, J., de Oa, R., Eboli, L., Forciniti, C., & Mazzulla, G. (2014). How to identify the key factors that affect driver perception of accident risk. A comparison
between Italian and Spanish driver behavior. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 73, 225235.
De Pelsmacker, P., & Janssens, W. (2007). The effect of norms, attitudes and habits on speeding behavior: Scale development and model building and
estimation. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(1), 615.
De Winter, J. C. F., & Dodou, D. (2010). The Driver Behaviour Questionnaire as a predictor of accidents: A meta-analysis. Journal of Safety Research, 41(6),
463470.
Deffenbacher, J. L., GETTING, E. R., & Lynch, R. S. (1994). Development of a driving anger scale. Psychological Reports, 74(1), 8391.
Edquist, J., Rudin-Brown, C., & Lenne, M. G. (2009). Road design factors and their interactions with speed and speed limits. Monash University Accident
Research Centre, 30.
Elliot, M.A., Mccoll, V. A., & Kennedy, J. V. (2003). Road design measures to reduce drivers speed viapsychologicalprocesses: A literature review (No.
TRL564): Transport Research Laboratory.
Elliott, M. A., Armitage, C. J., & Baughan, C. J. (2003). Drivers compliance with speed limits: An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88(5), 964.
Elliott, M. A., Armitage, C. J., & Baughan, C. J. (2005). Exploring the beliefs underpinning drivers intentions to comply with speed limits. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(6), 459479.
Forward, S. E. (2009a). An assessment of what motivates road violations. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(3), 225234.
Forward, S. E. (2009b). The theory of planned behaviour: The role of descriptive norms and past behaviour in the prediction of drivers intentions to violate.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(3), 198207.
Fuller, R. (2005). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37(3), 461472.
Fuller, R., Bates, H., Gormley, M., Hannigan, B., Stradling, S., Broughton, P., ... .ODolan, C. (2006). Inappropriate high speed: Who does it and why. Paper
presented at the Behavioural Research in Road Safety: Sixteenth Seminar.
Fuller, R., Bates, H., Gormley, M., Hannigan, B., Stradling, S., Broughton, P., ... Odolan, C. (2008). The conditions for inappropriate high speed: A review of the
research literature from 1995 to 2006. London: Department for Transport.
Fuller, R., Hannigan, B., Bates, H., Gormley, M., Stradling, S., Broughton, P., ... ODolan, C. (2008). Understanding inappropriate high speed: A qualitative analysis.
Department for Transport.
Gidron, Y., Gaygsz, E., & Lajunen, T. (2014). Hostility, driving anger, and dangerous driving: The emerging role of hemispheric preference. Accident Analysis
& Prevention, 73, 236241.
Hakkert, A. S., & Gitelman, V. (2014). Thinking about the history of road safety research: Past achievements and future challenges. Transportation Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 25, 137149.
Harrison, W. (2011). Psychometric and Rasch analysis of the driver behaviour questionnaire (DBQ): Implications for its use as an evaluation tool with novice
drivers. Paper submitted for publication. Retrieved from <http://warrenharrison.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/free-access-to-psychometric-and-rasch-
analysis-of-thedbq.pdf on>, 12, 08-12.
Hatfield, J., & Job, R. F. S. (2006). Beliefs and attitudes about speeding and its countermeasures. Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Report B, 2001.
Holland, C., & Hill, R. (2007). The effect of age, gender and driver status on pedestrians intentions to cross the road in risky situations. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 39(2), 224237.
Horvath, C., Lewis, I., & Watson, B. (2012). Peer passenger identity and passenger pressure on young drivers speeding intentions. Transportation Research
Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15(1), 5264.
Kish, L. (1965). Survey sampling. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
 C. Atombo et al. / Transportation Research Part F 43 (2016) 104121 121

Koornstra, M. J. (2009). Risk-adaptation theory. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(1), 7790.
Krivda, V. (2013). Use of video-apparatus during monitoring of conflict situations in road traffic on roundabout in the Czech Republic. PROMET-Traffic &
Transportation, 25(3), 295303.
Lawton, R., Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., & Stradling, S. G. (1997). The role of affect in predicting social behaviors: The case of road traffic violations. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 27(14), 12581276.
Lei, Z., Jianqiang, W., Furui, Y., & Keqiang, L. (2009). A quantification method of driver characteristics based on Driver Behavior Questionnaire. Paper presented at
the Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2009 IEEE.
Lund, I. O., & Rundmo, T. (2009). Cross-cultural comparisons of traffic safety, risk perception, attitudes and behaviour. Safety Science, 47(4), 547553.
Machin, M. A., & Sankey, K. S. (2008). Relationships between young drivers personality characteristics, risk perceptions, and driving behaviour. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 40(2), 541547.
Malik, H., & Rakotonirainy, A. (2008). The need of intelligent driver training systems for road safety. Paper presented at the Systems Engineering, 2008.
ICSENG08. 19th International Conference on.
McEvoy, S. P., Stevenson, M. R., & Woodward, M. (2007). The prevalence of, and factors associated with, serious crashes involving a distracting activity.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(3), 475482.
Meng, A., & Siren, A. (2012). Cognitive problems, self-rated changes in driving skills, driving-related discomfort and self-regulation of driving in old drivers.
Accident Analysis & Prevention, 49, 322329.
Moan, I. S. (2013). Whether or not to ride with an intoxicated driver: Predicting intentions using an extended version of the theory of planned behaviour.
Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 20, 193205.
Musselwhite, C. (2006). Attitudes towards vehicle driving behaviour: Categorising and contextualising risk. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(2), 324334.
National Transport Safety Board (2015). The Use of Forward Collision Avoidance System to Prevent and Mitgate Rear- End Crashes. Highway Special
Investigation Report Washington, DC NTSB: SIR-15/01.
Newnam, S., Watson, B., & Murray, W. (2004). Factors predicting intentions to speed in a work and personal vehicle. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic
Psychology and Behaviour, 7(4), 287300.
Nordfjrn, T., Jrgensen, S. H., & Rundmo, T. (2010). An investigation of driver attitudes and behaviour in rural and urban areas in Norway. Safety Science, 48
(3), 348356.
National Road Safety Commission (NRSC) (2011). Annual Report: Ministry of Transportation, Ghana Government.
National Road Safety Commission (NRSC) (2014). Annual Report: Ministry of Transportation, Ghana Government.
Organization, World Health. (2009). Global status report on road safety: Time for action: World Health Organization.
z, B., zkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2014). Trip-focused organizational safety climate: Investigating the relationships with errors, violations and positive driver
behaviours in professional driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 26, 361369.
zkan, T., & Lajunen, T. (2005). A new addition to DBQ: Positive driver behaviours scale. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 8(4),
355368.
zkan, T., Lajunen, T., Chliaoutakis, J. El., Parker, D., & Summala, H. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in driving skills: A comparison of six countries. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 38(5), 10111018.
zkan, T., Lajunen, T., Dogruyol, B., Yldrm, Z., & oymak, A. (2012). Motorcycle accidents, rider behaviour, and psychological models. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 49, 124132.
zkan, T., Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (2006). Driver behaviour questionnaire: A follow-up study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 38(2), 386395.
Paris, H., & Van den Broucke, S. (2008). Measuring cognitive determinants of speeding: An application of the theory of planned behaviour. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 11(3), 168180.
Parker, D., Manstead, A. S. R., Stradling, S. G., & Reason, J. T. (1992). Determinants of intention to commit driving violations. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 24
(2), 117131.
Peer, E. (2011). The time-saving bias, speed choices and driving behavior. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 14(6), 543554.
Performance audit report of the Auditor-General on Road Safety. Accra, Ghana. (2010). Ref No AG.10/109/Vol.2/29.Available at: http://www.ghaudit.org/
reports/NATIONALROADSAFETY.pdf.
Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press.
Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and violations on the roads: A real distinction? Ergonomics, 33(1011),
13151332.
Rowland, B. D., Freeman, J. E., Davey, J. D., & Wishart, D. E. (2007). A profile of taxi drivers road safety attitudes and behaviours: Is safety important?
Schmidt-Daffy, M., Brandenburg, S., & Beliavski, A. (2013). Velocity, safety, or both? How do balance and strength of goal conflicts affect drivers behaviour,
feelings and physiological responses? Accident Analysis & Prevention, 55, 90100.
Shams, M., Shojaeizadeh, D., Majdzadeh, R., Rashidian, A., & Montazeri, A. (2011). Taxi drivers views on risky driving behavior in Tehran: A qualitative study
using a social marketing approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 646651.
Shinar, D. (2007). Traffic safety and human behavior (Vol. 5620). Elsevier.
Siaw, N. A., Duodu, E., & Sarkordie, S. K. (2013). Trends in road traffic accidents in Ghana; Implications for improving road user safety. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science Invention, 2, 3135.
Simons-Morton, B., Lerner, N., & Singer, J. (2005). The observed effects of teenage passengers on the risky driving behavior of teenage drivers. Accident
Analysis & Prevention, 37(6), 973982.
Stanojevic, P., Jovanovic, D., & Lajunen, T. (2013). Influence of traffic enforcement on the attitudes and behavior of drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 52,
2938.
Stead, M., Tagg, S., MacKintosh, A. M., & Eadie, D. (2005). Development and evaluation of a mass media Theory of Planned Behaviour intervention to reduce
speeding. Health Education Research, 20(1), 3650.
Summala, H. (2007). Towards understanding motivational and emotional factors in driver behaviour: Comfort through satisficing Modelling driver behaviour in
automotive environments. Springer.
Trifiletti, L. B., Gielen, A. C., Sleet, D. A., & Hopkins, K. (2005). Behavioral and social sciences theories and models: Are they used in unintentional injury
prevention research? Health Education Research, 20(3), 298307.
Tronsmoen, T. (2008). Associations between self-assessment of driving ability, driver training and crash involvement among young drivers. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 11(5), 334346.
Tronsmoen, T. (2010). Associations between driver training, determinants of risky driving behaviour and crash involvement. Safety Science, 48(1), 3545.
Warner, H. W., & berg, L. (2008). Drivers beliefs about exceeding the speed limits. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 11(5),
376389.
White, K. M., Hyde, M. K., Walsh, S. P., & Watson, B. (2010). Mobile phone use while driving: An investigation of the beliefs influencing drivers hands-free
and hand-held mobile phone use. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 13(1), 920.
Wu, H., & Malipeddi, S. (2011). Influential factors for severe traffic crashes. Paper presented at the Vehicular Electronics and Safety (ICVES), 2011 IEEE
International Conference on.
Zhang, G., Yau, K. K. W., & Chen, G. (2013). Risk factors associated with traffic violations and accident severity in China. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59,
1825.
Zhou, R., Wu, C., Rau, P. P., & Zhang, W. (2009). Young driving learners intention to use a handheld or hands-free mobile phone when driving. Transportation
Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12(3), 208217.
Zuckerman, M. (2007). Sensation seeking and risk. American Psychological Association.