CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128Traffic and Road SafetyTransportation Planning and OptimizationUrban Transport and Accessibility

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 32 of the 33 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perceived risk and modal choice: Risk compensation in transportation systems

Noland, Robert B.·1995·Accident Analysis & Prevention
DOI 10.1016/0001-4575(94)00087-3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A transportation mode choice analysis is performed that examines behavioral responses to perceived risk in the choice of mode for daily commute trips. This methodology provides a technique for examining, by means of disaggregate individual level data, risk-compensating effects in transportation systems. Various measures of perceived risk are examined for explaining modal choice. Other studies have described how safety regulations have resulted in increases in "driving intensity." This study defines one component of driving intensity to be the increased probability of commuting by automobile. The results show that modal shifts occur when risk perceptions for a given mode are reduced. To demonstrate potential risk-compensating effects within the transportation system, an estimate of changes in accident fatalities due to commuting is derived using rough estimates of fatalities per person-mile travelled. It is shown that a given change in the perceived risk of commuting by automobile results in a less than proportionate change in net commuting fatalities. The relative magnitude is dependent on how objective reductions in risk translate into perceived reductions in risk. This study also shows that perceived safety improvements in bicycle transportation have an aggregate elasticity value that is greater than one. This means that bicycle safety improvements attract proportionately more people to bicycle commuting (i.e. a 10% increase in safety results in a greater than 10% increase…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0001-4575(94)00087-3

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Orr, 1982, Incentives and efficiency in automobile safety regulation, Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 22, 43

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 128

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Noland, R. B.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
Noland, Robert B.
ORCID
Noland, Robert B.
Venue
Accident Analysis & Prevention
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1995-08
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
503-521
ISSN
0001-4575 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0001-4575(94)00087-3
OpenAlex
W2079641705
Cited by
128
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
7.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Accident Analysis & Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Pennsylvania
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality › Traffic and Road Safety
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Transportation Planning and Optimization
  • Social Sciences › Transportation › Urban Transport and Accessibility
Keywords
risk perception, risk compensation, mode choice, commuting, bicycle commuting, cyclist safety, accident mortality, modal shift, safety regulations, transport safety
MeSH terms
Accidents, Traffic, Attitude to Health, Choice Behavior, Female, Humans, Male, Probability, Psychological Theory, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk-Taking, Safety, Transportation, Logistic Models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review