Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 994–1004

How important is vehicle safety in the new vehicle purchase process?

Sjaanie Koppel ∗ , Judith Charlton, Brian Fildes, Michael Fitzharris
Monash University Accident Research Centre, Building 70, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
Received 17 April 2007; received in revised form 12 November 2007; accepted 21 November 2007

Abstract
Whilst there has been a significant increase in the amount of consumer interest in the safety performance of privately owned vehicles, the role that
it plays in consumers’ purchase decisions is poorly understood. The aims of the current study were to determine: how important vehicle safety is in
the new vehicle purchase process; what importance consumers place on safety options/features relative to other convenience and comfort features,
and how consumers conceptualise vehicle safety. In addition, the study aimed to investigate the key parameters associated with ranking ‘vehicle
safety’ as the most important consideration in the new vehicle purchase. Participants recruited in Sweden and Spain completed a questionnaire
about their new vehicle purchase. The findings from the questionnaire indicated that participants ranked safety-related factors (e.g., EuroNCAP
(or other) safety ratings) as more important in the new vehicle purchase process than other vehicle factors (e.g., price, reliability etc.). Similarly,
participants ranked safety-related features (e.g., advanced braking systems, front passenger airbags etc.) as more important than non-safety-related
features (e.g., route navigation systems, air-conditioning etc.). Consistent with previous research, most participants equated vehicle safety with
the presence of specific vehicle safety features or technologies rather than vehicle crash safety/test results or crashworthiness. The key parameters
associated with ranking ‘vehicle safety’ as the most important consideration in the new vehicle purchase were: use of EuroNCAP, gender and
education level, age, drivers’ concern about crash involvement, first vehicle purchase, annual driving distance, person for whom the vehicle was
purchased, and traffic infringement history. The findings from this study are important for policy makers, manufacturers and other stakeholders to
assist in setting priorities with regard to the promotion and publicity of vehicle safety features for particular consumer groups (such as younger
consumers) in order to increase their knowledge regarding vehicle safety and to encourage them to place highest priority on safety in the new
vehicle purchase process.
© 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Vehicle safety; New vehicle purchases; Purchasing decisions; Safety ratings

1. Introduction the past decade (DesRosiers Automotive Reports, 2002; Dohring

In the past decade, there has been a significant increase in
the amount of consumer interest in the safety performance of
privately owned vehicles (Ferguson, 1992; Insurance Research
Council, 1990, 1999; Princeton Survey Research, 1994, 1995;
NHTSA, 1995, 1997). Despite the increasing importance of
vehicle safety, the role that it plays in consumers’ purchase
decisions is poorly understood (Ferguson, 1999).
Several studies have investigated the factors that influence
new vehicle purchasing decisions. The findings of relevant mar-
ket research conducted by vehicle manufacturers, the insurance
industry and university researchers indicate that the importance
of vehicle safety for privately owned vehicles has increased over
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 3 9905 4739; fax: +61 3 9905 4739.
E-mail address: Sjaanie.Koppel@muarc.monash.edu.au (S. Koppel).
Company, 2003; Stoffer, 2000). Despite this, vehicle safety
is generally not the primary consideration when purchasing a
privately owned vehicle. For example, in terms of desirable vehi-
cle factors, vehicle safety is consistently outranked by factors
such as price, appearance and dependability/reliability (Charles
River Associates Incorporated, 1998; DesRosiers Automotive
Reports, 2002; General Motors Corporation, 1994; J.D. Power
and Associates, 1993; Market & Opinion Research International
(MORI), 2005; Progressive Insurance Co., 2001).
Consumers appear to regard the purchase of a new vehi-
cle for private use as a major investment that merits doing at
least some homework (Charles River Associates Incorporated,
1998). However, fairly ‘low engagement’ methods of obtaining
information predominate: visits to dealers, consumer reports and
similar vehicle purchase guides, with consumers rarely seeking
crash test results (Charles River Associates Incorporated, 1998;
MORI, 2005).

0001-4575/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.aap.2007.11.006
 S. Koppel et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 994–1004
Previous research has suggested that demographic factors
such as age and gender may also influence the importance of
vehicle safety in consumers’ decision making. For example,
EuroNCAP recently commissioned a survey across France, Ger-
many, Great Britain, Italy, Portugal, Czech Republic and Poland
to identify the most important aspects influencing consumer
choice when making a new vehicle purchasing decision (MORI,
2005). In their study, the authors argued that price and function
play a primary role in the choice made by consumers. Given this,
participants were asked to consider the most important aspects
that affect their new vehicle purchase decision once they had
found the appropriate type and price segment that suited their
needs. Once the price and function of the vehicle had been taken
into account, the findings suggest that safety was the most impor-
tant aspect influencing vehicle choice. Men and women appeared
to be equally interested in safety—however, male participants
were also more frequently responsible for choosing and pur-
chasing the vehicle (68%) compared with female participants
(34%). Finally, older participants (those over 75 years) were
slightly less influenced by vehicle ‘safety’ (82%) compared to
participants overall (94%). However it is not clear how partic-
ipants were recruited into the study and it is possible that the
inclusion/exclusion criteria may have resulted in response bias.
For example, the authors reported that 30% of their sample was
not responsible for choosing or purchasing their own vehicle
or had no regular use of a vehicle; therefore this group may
not accurately reflect consumers and driver views about vehicle
purchasing decisions.
Most recently, Johansson-Stenman and Martinsson (2006)
investigated Swedish participants’ perceptions of several vehicle
characteristics, including: safety, environmental, friendliness,
look, motor power, comfort, space, fuel consumption and reli-
ability, if they were to purchase a new vehicle. Strength of
preference was rated as ‘very important’, ‘fairly important’,
‘fairly unimportant’ and ‘not important at all’. The authors
reported that the characteristics most likely to be rated as ‘very
important’ were safety (85%), reliability (79%) and fuel con-
sumption (60%), whilst the characteristic least likely to be
reported as ‘very important’ was status (6%). When asked how
much they believed the average Swede would value these char-
acteristics, safety rated considerably lower (59%), whilst status
was valued higher (30%). To gain further insights about underly-
ing preferences and possible biases, the authors also telephoned
Swedish vehicle dealerships and asked them how the average
Swede would value the same vehicle characteristics. The authors
argued that vehicle dealers would have a more accurate per-
ception of this issue, since part of their success as car dealers
depends on their ability to judge what people really care about
when purchasing a vehicle. Consistent with participants’ own
self-reported preferences, vehicle dealers were most likely to
rate reliability (78%), fuel consumption (61%) and safety (54%)
as ‘very important’. Relative to the perception of vehicle dealers,
participants’ own self-reported perceptions of their preferences
differed significantly and positively for safety and negatively
for look and status. However, as noted for the EuroNCAP study
(MORI, 2005), the findings of this study may be vulnerable to
hypothetical bias (i.e., when an individual cannot or will not
995
consider questions in a manner which responds to how they
would treat the real situation). One way to lessen the hypothet-
ical bias is to survey participants who have recently purchased
a new vehicle (Dwyer Leslie, 1992). The reasoning here is that
those who have made a recent purchase are much more likely
to have considered actual vehicle factors or options, and there-
fore may be more able to consider the questions in a manner
which responds to how they would have acted in the ‘real’
situation.
Notwithstanding these findings, there are still several gaps
in the current state of knowledge regarding the role of vehicle
safety in the vehicle purchase process. For example, vehicle
purchase decisions often involve difficult trade-offs, such as
those between price, intended use, reliability and safety, however
there is limited information in relation to consumers’ willing-
ness to trade safety against other features. In addition, there
is little information available on what consumers believe or
understand about vehicle safety. Whilst there is some evidence
that suggests that the average consumer equates ‘safety’ with
specific vehicle features (Ferguson and Williams, 1996; J.D.
Power and Associates, 1993), it is not clear how consumers con-
ceptualise vehicle safety and whether they actually understand
how specific vehicle features operates to reduce their risk in a
crash.
The main aims of this study were to investigate: (i) the
importance of vehicle safety in the purchase process for new, pri-
vate vehicles; (ii) whether safety-related vehicle features/options
were more important to new vehicle purchasers compared to
convenience and/or comfort vehicle features; and (iii) how new
vehicle purchasers conceptualise vehicle safety. A further aim
of the study was to investigate whether various demographic
variables, such as the vehicle purchasers’ age, gender, and their
countrys’ road safety record, significantly influence the impor-
tance of vehicle safety in the new vehicle purchase process.
In order to investigate the influence of the national road safety
record on the importance of vehicle safety, this study was con-
ducted across two countries—in Sweden, which has a relatively
low road toll (fatality crash rate of 5.88 per 100,000 of the pop-
ulation) and Spain, which has a relatively high road toll (fatality
crash rate of 13.40 per 100,000 of the population) (Drive and
Stay Alive, 2003).
2. Method
2.1. Recruitment
In order to minimise hypothetical bias, participants were
recruited into the study if they were the main or joint decision
maker in the purchase of a new vehicle for private use within
the previous 18 months.
The recruitment procedures for participants in Sweden and
Spain differed slightly, as follows.
2.1.1. Sweden
Potential participants were identified by research staff at
Folksam Insurance in Stockholm, Sweden, who searched
through their insurance records for customers who had
996 S. Koppel et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 994–1004
purchased a new vehicle for private use within the previous 18
months.1
It had been anticipated that 300 new vehicle purchasers
would need to complete the questionnaire to ensure that statisti-
cally rigorous analyses could be performed. Assuming a modest
response rate (10%), letters of invitation and questionnaires were
distributed to approximately 3000 Folksam Insurance policy
holders who met the new vehicle purchase criterion. The age
and gender distribution of invited participants was representa-
tive of insurance policy holders for new vehicles in the Folksam
Insurance database.
2.1.2. Spain
Due to a number of practical constraints, the recruitment
procedure and identification of potential participants in Spain
was different to the recruitment procedure outlined above for
Sweden. In addition, since the Spanish component of the
study commenced immediately following the Swedish study,
an attempt was made to recruit the Spanish sample to match
as closely as possible, the age and gender composition of the
Swedish sample.
A consultant group, VI-VA, conducted the questionnaire. Par-
ticipants living in Madrid, Catalonia and Aragon were contacted
by telephone and invited to participate in a telephone survey.
Individuals who agreed to participate in the survey were asked
some preliminary questions: had they bought a new vehicle in
the previous 18 months, were they the main or joint decision
maker in the purchase decision and some other demographic
questions to ensure that the sample was similar to that recruited in
Sweden. Once eligibility criteria were confirmed, the full ques-
tionnaire proceeded. Those who declined to participate were
asked to indicate a reason for their non-participation. Interview-
ers recruited participants until they had interviewed 300 new
vehicle purchasers.
2.2. Questionnaire
The questionnaire was designed to gather information
about the importance of vehicle safety in the new vehi-
cle purchase process, the importance they place on safety
options/features relative to other convenience and comfort fea-
tures, and how consumers conceptualise vehicle safety. In
addition, a range of demographic factors and other variables
that may significantly influence the vehicle purchase decision
for purchasers were included in the questionnaire. The final ver-
sion of the questionnaire was translated into both Swedish and
Spanish.
2.3. Analyses
A number of descriptive analyses were undertaken to inves-
tigate the importance of vehicle safety in the new vehicle
purchase process. A series of t-tests and chi-squares analy-
1 Folksam Insurance membership is approximately 25% of the Swedish mar-
ket (http://www.folksam.se/engelsk/index.htm).
ses were conducted, where appropriate, to explore differences
between groups of participants based on country, gender, age and
other relevant variables. A Bonferroni correction was applied to
adjust for the number of comparisons being performed and to
protect against an inflated probability of type 1 errors (find-
ing a significant effect when it is due to chance). Logistic
regression analysis was also undertaken in order to identify
the relative contribution of variables in explaining ‘safe vehicle
purchase’.
3. Results
3.1. Recruitment rates
3.1.1. Sweden
Questionnaires were sent to 3044 new vehicle purchasers
who had been identified in the Folksam Insurance database. A
total of 1012 completed questionnaires were returned, yielding a
response rate of 33%. The highest response rates for the sample
were found amongst those aged 60 years and over (56%) and
the lowest response rates amongst those aged 39 years and under
(11%).
3.1.2. Spain
In order to obtain 300 completed questionnaires by telephone
interview, 926 eligible participants were contacted, yielding a
response rate of 32%.
3.2. Questionnaire results
This section of the paper describes the responses to the ques-
tionnaire for both countries. The first sub-section will describe
participants’ responses to the demographic and crash history
questions, while the second sub-section will describe partici-
pants’ responses to the vehicle purchase process questions.
3.2.1. Demographic information and crash involvement
The mean age of participants was 54.64 years (S.D. = 13.01
years, range = 19–96 years). Despite attempts to recruit
participants of similar ages from the two countries, Swedish par-
ticipants were significantly older (M = 56.30 years, S.D. = 13.00
years) than Spanish participants (M = 49.14, S.D. = 11.52),
t(548.98) = 9.15, p < 0.001. A summary of the participants’
demographic characteristics and their crash involvement is pre-
sented in Table 1.
As shown in Table 1, the groups were well matched on gen-
der, with males comprising approximately two-thirds of the two
groups. However, there was a significant difference across the
two groups in terms of age, education level and yearly household
income. For example, Swedish participants were more likely
to be in the oldest age group (45%) than Spanish participants
(17%), to have completed a degree or higher degree from Uni-
versity or college (24%) compared to Spanish participants (15%)
and the most commonly reported income for Sweden was over
50,000 Euro per year (27%), whereas for Spain the most com-
mon income bracket was 20,001–30,000 Euro per year (36%).
 S. Koppel et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 994–1004 997

Table 1
Participants’ demographic characteristics and crash history by country
Demographic characteristics Sweden Spain Statistical difference

Age
Younger (18–30 year) 11 22 χ2 (2) = 82.23, p < 0.001
Middle (31–54 years) 44 61
Older (55+ years) 45 17
Gender
Male 69 68 χ2 (1) = 0.82, p > 0.5
Female 31 32
Education
Secondary school 29 24 χ2 (5) = 62.361, p < 0.001
Technical/commercial school 35 34
Some University or College training 8 24
Degree from University, College or higher degree 24 15
Now at University or College 1 1
Other 3 1
Household income (Euro)
<10,000 1 4 χ2 (5) = 81.28, p < 0.001
10,001–20,000 9 21
20,001–30,000 22 36
30,001–40,000 22 24
40,001–50,000 19 5
>50,001 27 12
Crash involved? 8 10 χ2 (1) = 1.14, p > 0.1

Younger participants (aged 18–30 years) were significantly
more likely to report being involved in a crash (17%) compared
to middle aged (aged 31–54 years) (8%) or older participants
(aged 55 years and older) (7%), χ2 (2) = 15.758, p < 0.001.
All new vehicle purchasers were asked to rate their level of
concern about the possibility of being in a motor vehicle crash
(where 1 = “not at all concerned” and 5 = “very concerned”) (see
Fig. 1).
Whilst most participants indicated a low level of con-
cern of being involved in a motor vehicle crash (29%),
there was a significant relationship between participants’ age
(younger/middle/older) and their concern about being involved
in a motor vehicle crash, χ2 (8) = 45.351, p < 0.0001. Older and
middle-aged participants were more likely to state that they were
‘not at all concerned’ about being involved in a crash (48% &
41%, respectively) than younger participants (11%). There was
also a significant relationship between gender and concern about
Fig. 1. Participants’ concern about the possibility of being involved in a motor
vehicle crash.
being involved in a motor vehicle crash, χ2 (4) = 19.878, p < 0.01.
Male participants were more likely to state that they were ‘not at
all concerned’ about being in a motor vehicle crash (25%) com-
pared to female participants (17%). Participants’ concern about
the possibility of being involved in a motor vehicle crash was
significantly different across the two countries, χ2 (4) = 337.898,
p < 0.001. Most Swedish participants indicated a low level of
concern (33%), however most Spanish participants indicated
that they were very concerned (31%) about the possibility of
being involved in a motor vehicle crash.
Interestingly, there was no significant relationship associated
with being involved in a motor vehicle crash over the past 3
years and participants’ concern about being involved in a motor
vehicle crash, χ2 (4) = 5.063, p > 0.10.
3.2.2. Vehicle purchase
The second section of questionnaire included a series of ques-
tions designed to elicit information about the particular vehicle
and vehicle characteristics purchased by the individual, the types
of information used in their purchase decision, the participants’
perception of vehicle safety and the importance of vehicle safety
features in the purchase decision.
In order to determine the safety rating of the new vehi-
cles purchased, vehicle star ratings were applied using the
official NCAP website (www.euroncap.com) (see Fig. 2). As
the questionnaire included vehicles purchased in the previous
18 months the latest NCAP rating for the given vehicle was
applied. Whilst this method of determining ratings is likely to
have some inherent inaccuracy, particularly for models that have
been updated within the last year, it is the best that can be
achieved without knowing build dates for purchased vehicles.
998 S. Koppel et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 994–1004

Fig. 2. Latest NCAP ratings for participants’ new vehicles. Fig. 3. Most important source of information used when purchasing their new
vehicle.

NCAP results are also based on standard base vehicles. It might

be assumed that a proportion of vehicle purchases will be of
a higher specification vehicle than base model vehicle, as the
survey was conducted for private purchases. Fleet sales tend
to make up the bulk of base model vehicle sales. Whilst this
may not necessarily mean the addition of extra safety features
in the vehicle, it is to be expected that some models will gain
extra safety equipment. Where NCAP ratings were not avail-
able for Europe, results from Australian NCAP were substituted
(www.aaa.asn.au/NCAP/ozindex.htm). Whilst vehicle specifi-
cation levels can be different in Europe and Australia, it is often
the case that European vehicles have standard safety features
that are either unavailable in Australia or as an optional extra.
Thus, the results presented will be somewhat conservative.
As shown in Fig. 2, most of the vehicles in the current sam-
ple had a 4- or 5-star NCAP rating (52%, 34%, respectively).
Swedish participants were significantly more likely to purchase a
4- or 5-star rated new vehicle (87%) compared to Spanish partici-
pants (81%), χ2 (1) = 7.472, p < 0.01. This finding is examined in
Section 4 in the context of differences in purchasing power par-
ity, and the relative cost of vehicles in Sweden and Spain. There
was however no significant relationship between purchasing a
4- or 5-star rated new vehicle and age (χ2 (2) = 1.293, p > 0.5) or
gender (χ2 (1) = 2.092, p > 0.1).
New vehicle purchasers were asked to indicate the most
important source of information they used when purchasing their
new vehicle (see Fig. 3). Most participants reported that the most
important information was sourced from the dealership (30%)
or from motoring magazines (23%).
Younger and middle-aged participants were significantly
more likely to cite the vehicle dealership as the most valuable
source of information (35% for each age group) compared to
older participants (21%, χ2 (2) = 23.040, p < 0.001). Older par-
ticipants were most likely to cite motoring magazines (28%).
Male and female participants were just as likely to cite vehicle
dealerships as the most valuable source of information (32%
& 30%, respectively, χ2 (1) = 0.441, p > 0.5). The most valuable
source of information used in the new vehicle purchase process
differed significantly across the two countries, χ2 (8) = 442.571,
p < 0.001. Swedish new vehicle purchasers cited motoring maga-
zines (32%) as the most valuable source of information, whereas
Spanish participants were more likely to list the vehicle dealer-
ship as the most valuable source of information.

Table 2
Three most important factors considered by participants when purchasing their new vehicle (tabled data are the percent of participants)
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Total Sweden Spain Total Spain Sweden Total Spain Sweden

Comfort 5 4 5 9 10 5 12 13 8
Design/style 5 3 13 7 4 14 11 11 11
Feeling when driving 1 1 1 3 3 1 4 5 1
Economy/value 4 4 1 4 5 0 3 4 2
Engine 2 0 10 1 0 6 1 1 6
Equip./tech./features 1 0 3 3 3 3 4 3 8
ESP 1 0 3 1 0 5 1 0 5
Fuel consumption 6 7 3 9 10 6 6 7 2
Maintenance/service 1 1 0 2 3 0 4 5 0
Make/model 3 2 8 3 2 6 2 1 6
Performance 1 0 3 3 1 8 2 1 6
Price 13 14 10 9 10 8 10 11 9
Reliability 5 6 1 3 3 1 3 4 1
Safety 32 36 19 20 22 13 10 12 11
Size 4 3 6 3 3 5 4 3 4
Space 2 1 5 3 3 4 4 3 6
 S. Koppel et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 994–1004
Fig. 4. Vehicle factors ranked as most important in the new vehicle purchase
decision.
Participants were asked to list the three most important factors
considered when deciding which vehicle to purchase.2 Partici-
pants were instructed to list the most important factor first (see
Table 2).
When considering the factors that were listed first (i.e., the
most important consideration), most participants listed safety
(32%), followed by price (13%). Several analyses were con-
ducted to examine the differences between participants who
listed ‘safety’ as the most important consideration compared
to those who did not. Swedish participants were significantly
more likely to list safety as their most important considera-
tion (36%) than Spanish participants (19%), χ2 (1) = 31.935,
p < 0.001. Older participants were more likely to list safety
as their most important consideration (36%) than younger or
middle-aged participants (29% for both groups) (χ2 (2) = 7.043,
p < 0.01). There was no significant relationship between gen-
der and listing safety as their most important consideration
(χ2 (1) = 2.931, p > 0.05).
From a list, participants were asked to rank the importance
of vehicle factors in their new vehicle purchase decision. Fig. 4
shows the items that participants ranked as the most important
factor in their new vehicle purchase decision.
As shown in Fig. 4, the three most commonly cited items
ranked as the most important factor were the vehicles’ EuroN-
CAP (or other) safety rating (16%), the vehicles’ reliability
(15%) and price (10%). There was no significant relationship
between ranking the vehicles’ EuroNCAP rating as the high-
est priority and consumers’ country of residence (χ2 (1) = 3.344,
p = 0.07), age (χ2 (2) = 0.006, p > 0.1) or gender (χ2 (1) = 2.029,
p > 0.1).
From a list, participants were asked to rank the importance
of vehicle features in their new vehicle purchase decision. Fig. 5
shows the items that participants ranked as the most important
feature in their new vehicle purchase decision.
As shown in Fig. 5, advanced braking systems (ABS) were
ranked as the most important feature by most participants (23%),
followed by front passenger airbag (15%) and stability control
systems (11%).
2 Note that this question was an open-ended (i.e., un-prompted) question.
999
Fig. 5. Vehicle features ranked as most important in the new vehicle purchase
decision.
Several analyses were then conducted to determine whether
participants were more likely to rank a safety vehicle feature as
their number one priority or a comfort/design/convenience fea-
ture. The vehicle features shown in Fig. 5 were broadly divided
into safety and non-safety features. Safety features included
active head restraints, advanced braking systems, cruise con-
trol with frontal distance warning, curtain airbags, driver airbag,
following distance sensor, front passenger airbag, lane warning
device, seatbelt reminder system, speed alert, side airbags, sta-
bility control systems, three-point belt in the centre rear seat
and vehicle specific child restraint. The remaining features were
classified as non-safety-related features.
Almost three-quarters of participants ranked a safety vehi-
cle feature as their highest priority (74%). Spanish participants
were significantly more likely to rank a safety feature as their
number one priority (90%) compared to Swedish participants
(67%), χ2 (1) = 54.298, p < 0.001. However, there was no sig-
nificant relationship between ranking a safety-related feature as
the highest priority and age (χ2 (2) = 4.688, p > 0.05) or gender
(χ2 (1) = 0.006, p > 0.5).
Participants were asked to list up to three factors that they
believe make vehicles safe. Participants were instructed to list
the most important factor first (see Table 3).
Overall, participants were most likely to list braking sys-
tems (29%) and airbags (25%) as the most important factors
in making a vehicle safe. There was no significant relationship
between listing braking systems as the most important factor
1000 S. Koppel et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 994–1004

Table 3
Factors that participants believe make a vehicle safe
Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Total Sweden Spain Total Spain Sweden Total Spain Sweden

Active head restraints 0 0 0 2 2 0 5 6 0

Airbags 25 29 14 29 32 21 27 29 22
Braking systems 29 27 33 26 26 27 19 18 21
Crash safety/test 7 9 0 2 3 0 1 2 0
Driver behaviour/skills 4 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 6
Seat belt 6 0 5 5 0 2 7 1 3
Stability control systems 13 8 2 17 5 4 18 7 8

and age (χ2 (2) = 2.474, p > 0.1), gender (χ2 (1) = .411, p > 0.5)
or consumers’ nationality (χ2 (1) = 3.582, p > 0.05).
3.2.2.1. Key parameters associated with ranking ‘vehicle
safety’ as the most important consideration in the new vehi-
cle purchase. To determine the key parameters associated with
ranking ‘vehicle safety’ as the most important consideration in
the new vehicle purchase, a series of univariate logistic regres-
sion models were performed. Questionnaire variables with a
statistical significance value of p = 0.25 were accepted, recognis-
ing that whilst a particular variable may not be highly predictive
in the univariate sense, it may influence or moderate the effect
of another variable. The variables ‘consumers’ country of resi-
dence’, ‘age’ and ‘gender’ were ‘forced’ variables, that is, they
were determined important at the outset to enter into the statis-
tical predictive model, irrespective of statistical p-values. Other
variables included: income; crash history—whether involved
in a vehicle crash where the vehicle required towing from the
scene; whether EuroNCAP information was used to inform the
purchasing decision; whether the vehicle was purchased for the
spouse; kilometres driven on average per year; whether the vehi-
cle purchased was the first vehicle purchased; concern of the
possibility of being involved in a future motor vehicle acci-
dent, where a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Not at all’ to
‘Very concerned’ was used; infringement history, indicated by
the variable predictor ‘unbelted’, defined as ‘no traffic infringe-
ment’, ‘traffic infringement but not for being unbelted,’ and
‘traffic infringement for being unbelted’, and level of completed
education.
It is important to note that most variables suffered from miss-
ing data, resulting in participants being ‘dropped’ or excluded
from the statistical model. The implication being that the uni-
variate models are not matched on participants. Further, as the
pattern of missing data was not consistent across all questions,
the final number of cases used in the multivariable model is
two-thirds of the available survey sample.
The final predictive multivariable model of ranking ‘vehicle
safety’ as the most important consideration in the new vehicle
purchase involved the analysis of 881 participants (67% of the
total sample, n = 1312), with relevant odds ratios presented in
Table 4 (and Table 5 for education/gender comparisons).
The multivariable logistic regression model was strongly pre-
dictive of those stating vehicle safety was the most important
factor in the vehicle purchase, χ2 (20) = 105.5, p ≤ 0.001, with
the Hosmer–Lemeshow Goodness-of-fit suggesting good model
fit, p ≥ 0.05. The model was seen to correctly classify 71.2% of
participants, with the ROC curve indicating ‘acceptable’ dis-
crimination (71%) (Hosmer and Lemeshow, 2000). In arriving
at the model, plausible interactions were tested, with only a
gender by education interaction being statistically significant;

Table 4
Odds ratios (95% CI) for key parameters associated with ranking ‘vehicle safety’ as the most important consideration in the new vehicle purchase
Predictor Referent OR 95% CI lower–upper p

Country Sweden Spain 1.35 0.83–2.2 0.2

Age >55 years ≤55 years 1.45 1.03–2.04 0.03
Income D 20,000–40,000 <D 20,000 1.69 0.98–2.91 0.06
D 40,000+ <D 20,000 1.77 0.98–3.21 0.06
Kilometres driven Medium (15,001–25,000) Low (<15,000) 1.54 1.08–2.18 0.02
High (25,001) Low (<15,000) 0.87 0.54–1.41 0.6
Purchased for For spouse Not for spouse 0.26 0.07–0.97 0.046
First vehicle? First vehicle Not first vehicle 1.61 1.00–2.57 0.049
Info. source EuroNCAP info. used Not used 2.77 1.93–4.00 ≤0.001
Infringement Infringement, not unbelted No infringement 0.78 0.56–1.11 0.2
Detected unbelted No infringement 0.37 0.17–0.79 0.01
Crash history Tow-away crash No tow-away 1.26 0.89–1.78 0.2
Concern for having a traffic crash Rating of 2 of 5 Not concerned 1.27 0.82–1.96 0.3
Rating of 3 of 5 Not concerned 1.56 1.01–2.42 0.04
Concerned (4)/very concerned (5) Not concerned 1.85 1.11–3.11 0.02
 S. Koppel et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 994–1004
Table 5
Odds ratios (95% CI) for rating safety as the most important factor in vehicle purchasing choice, by gender and level of education
Completed education Gender
Males
OR 95% CI lower–upper
Secondary 1.0 (reference)
Technical 0.92 0.58–1.47
Tertiary 0.47 0.29–0.78
this effect is presented in Table 5 and discussed in Section
4.
Table 4 presents the odds ratios for key parameters asso-
ciated with participants rating safety as their most important
consideration in the new vehicle purchase process. For exam-
ple, those over 55 years of age were significantly more likely to
rank vehicle safety as the most important consideration in the
purchasing decision. Specifically, those in the older age group
were 45% more likely to make this judgement (OR: 1.45, CI:
1.03–2.04, p = 0.03). There was no difference between partic-
ipants from Sweden or Spain in making this same judgement
(p = 0.2).
As noted above, there was a statistical interaction between
gender and education, meaning that the likelihood of males and
females rating safety as the most important factor in the new
vehicle purchase process is dependent upon level of education.
Table 5 presents the odds ratios for combinations of gender and
level of education relative to males with a secondary school level
education. With one exception, none of the comparisons are
statistically significant, indicating no difference in the tendency
to rate safety as the most important factor when compared to
secondary school educated males. The one notable exception is
the finding that males with a tertiary education were 53% less
likely than their secondary school educated counterparts to rate
safety as the most important consideration when purchasing a
new vehicle, OR: 0.47, CI: 0.29–0.78, p = 0.003.
Further analysis of the interaction effect at each level of edu-
cation indicated differences among similarly educated males and
females in their predisposition to rate safety as the most impor-
tant consideration in the new vehicle purchase process. At the
secondary school level, there was no difference between males
and females. Similarly, there was no difference between males
and females with a technical level education. However, among
those who had completed, or were undergoing a tertiary edu-
cation, females were 2.5 times more likely than males to rate
safety as their most important factor.
4. Discussion
4.1. How important is vehicle safety in the new vehicle
purchase process?
The first aim of this study was to examine the impor-
tance of vehicle safety in the new vehicle purchase process.
Previous research has demonstrated that whilst vehicle safety
has become increasingly important, in terms of desirable
1001
Females
p OR 95% CI lower–upper p
0.85 0.39–1.83 0.7
0.7 1.20 0.70–2.06 0.5
0.003 0.98 0.55–1.75 0.9
vehicle factors, it is consistently outranked by price, appear-
ance and dependability/reliability (Charles River Associates
Incorporated, 1998; DesRosiers Automotive Reports, 2002;
General Motors Corporation, 1994; J.D. Power and Associates,
1993; Market & Opinion Research International (MORI), 2005;
Progressive Insurance Co., 2001). However, participants in the
current study were most likely to list safety as the most impor-
tant factor considered in the new vehicle purchase process (in
an open-ended format). Similarly, when participants were pre-
sented with a list of vehicle factors (such as price, design
fuel, consumption), they were most likely to rank the vehicles’
EuroNCAP (or other) safety rating as the highest priority in the
purchase process. One possible explanation for the discrepancy
between the current study and previous research (e.g., MORI,
2005; Johansson-Stenman and Martinsson, 2006) is that partic-
ipants were only recruited into this study if they had recently
purchased a new vehicle. The reasoning here is that those who
have made a recent purchase are much more likely to have con-
sidered actual vehicle factors or options, and therefore may be
more able to consider the questions in a manner which responds
to how they acted in the ‘real’ situation.
The findings from the current study showed that Swedish par-
ticipants were more likely to list safety as their most important
consideration than Spanish participants. These findings are not
surprising, given the well-documented vehicle safety culture in
Sweden (for example, see Whitelegg and Haq, 2006). A further
important consideration in the interpretation of these national
differences in purchasing patterns and relative rankings of safety
features is the relative value of vehicles and the general wealth
of the economy. This relates to the ability and in some sense the
willingness, of consumers to pay for vehicle safety features. It is
notable that vehicle price was the third most important vehicle
factor in the purchase of new vehicles. In terms of the general
economic wealth, the GDP per capita purchasing power par-
ity (PPP) for Sweden is higher than Spain, ranked 25th and 38th
respectively, globally (CIA, 2007). Taking a single 5-star EuroN-
CAP vehicle that is available in both countries (Peugeot 407,
2.0i Sport; http://www.peugeot.es/, http://www.peugeot.se/), the
purchase price: GDP ratio can be derived, and by extension
the affordability difference for the same vehicle in Sweden and
Spain can be calculated. This calculation shows that adjusted for
GDP per capita PPP, the same 5-star EuroNCAP vehicle is 18%
more affordable in Sweden than in Spain. This difference in cost,
albeit for a single vehicle, is reinforced by Datamonitor stating
that ‘new cars are more expensive in Spain than in many other EU
countries, but they are considered a sound investment as their
1002 S. Koppel et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 994–1004
value decreases at a slower rate’ (Datamonitor, 2004, p. 13).
Whilst participants from both countries appear equally sensitive
on price, the purchase of vehicles with safety features that tend to
add to the vehicle price, or fitted as options, are more affordable
in Sweden; this is reflected in the finding that a higher propor-
tion of Swedish participants purchased a 4- or 5-star vehicle
than their Spanish counterparts. It may be the case that whilst a
higher proportion of Spanish participants consider vehicle safety
features to be most important in their purchasing decision, this
consideration is balanced against affordability. That is, despite
apparent concern for safety, the ability for Spanish purchasers to
pay for a vehicle with superior safety equipment is constrained
by price. Whilst it is accepted that vehicle price and safety are
linked, the PPP analysis indicates that Swedish purchasers are
at a relative purchasing advantage due to both purchasing power
and local market sensitivities.
Previous research has also suggested that demographic fac-
tors such as age may also significantly influence the importance
of vehicle safety in the new vehicle purchase process (e.g.,
MORI, 2005). When the data from both countries was pooled,
older participants tended to be more likely to list ‘safety’ as their
most important consideration in the new vehicle purchase pro-
cess compared to middle aged and younger participants. These
findings are consistent with the findings from the US Department
of Transportation (Charles River Associates Incorporated, 1998)
who reported that older consumers were significantly more inter-
ested in vehicle safety and appeared to be more willing to admit
to personal vulnerability than younger participants. These find-
ings are also consistent with previous research in the area of
risk perception. For example, several studies have reported that
whilst older adults tend to overestimate the risk of a crash or
provide higher estimates of traffic risk (Rafaely et al., 2006;
Sivak et al., 1989; Trankle et al., 1990), while younger adults
(under 25 years of age) tend to underestimate the risk of an
accident (Finn and Bragg, 1986; Trankle et al., 1990) and are
prone to optimistism bias, that is, they tend to perceive their
own risk as lower than that of their peers (Finn and Bragg,
1986; Matthews and Moran, 1986). However these findings are
not consistent with the findings recently reported by EuroNCAP
(MORI, 2005) who found that older participants were less likely
to consider ‘safety’ in their new vehicle purchase process com-
pared to all other participants. As noted above, it is not clear
how participants in the EuroNCAP study were recruited and
their findings may be limited by the fact that 30% of partici-
pants indicated that they were not responsible for choosing or
purchasing a new vehicle or that they had no regular use of a
vehicle.
Whilst older participants were significantly more likely than
younger and middle-aged participants to list safety as the most
important consideration in the vehicle purchase process, it was
interesting to note that they were significantly less concerned
about being in a crash compared to the younger participants. One
possible explanation for this finding could be that they are less
concerned about being in a crash because they believe they have
purchased a ‘safe’ vehicle. Alternatively, there is a growing body
of evidence suggesting that many older drivers adapt their driv-
ing patterns to match age-related changes in functional abilities
by self-regulating when, where and how they drive. For example,
older adults typically choose to reduce their exposure by driving
fewer annual kilometres, making shorter trips and making fewer
trips by linking different trips together (Benekohal et al., 1994;
Rosenbloom, 1995, 1999). Older drivers have also been found
to avoid complex traffic manoeuvres that require high cogni-
tive demands (Charlton, Oxley, Fildes, Oxley, Newstead, O’Hare
and Koppel; Charlton et al., 2006a,b; Hakamies-Blomqvist and
Wahlström, 1998; Ball et al., 1998), limit their peak hour and
night driving, restrict long distance travel, take more frequent
breaks and drive only on familiar and well lit roads (Ernst and
O’Connor, 1988; Smiley, 1999). This evidence suggests that at
least some older adults are able to compensate well for limita-
tions in their abilities in such a way that is likely to minimise
exposure to difficult driving situations to reduce their crash
risk.
4.2. What importance consumers place on safety
options/features relative to other convenience and comfort
features?
Vehicle purchase decisions often involve difficult trade-offs,
however there is limited information in relation to consumers’
willingness to trade safety against other features. The results of
the current study show that participants are significantly more
likely to rank a safety-related vehicle feature (e.g., advanced
braking systems, front passenger airbag etc.) as their number
one priority than a non-safety-related feature (e.g., route navi-
gation system, air-conditioning). Interestingly, participants from
Spain (90%) were significantly more likely to list a safety-
related vehicle feature compared to participants from Sweden
(67%); conversely, a higher proportion of Swedish participants
rated non-safety features such as route navigation systems as
being most important. This finding is consistent with the find-
ing that Spanish participants were significantly more likely to
be concerned about the possibility of being involved in a crash
compared to Swedish participants. It is possible that the priority
placed on broad safety factors by Swedish participants’ might
be explained by the ‘long-held and deep-rooted safety culture’
in Sweden. In addition, there may be an expectation by Swedish
consumers that safe vehicle features come as standard, whilst
in Spain, there is a need for consumers to be more vigilant and
selective in choosing specific vehicle features that contribute to
the overall safety of the vehicle. However, the availability of
such features in Spain is not clear.
4.3. How consumers conceptualise vehicle safety?
When asked to list up to three factors that make a vehi-
cle safe, participants in the current study were most likely to
list braking systems such as ABS and airbags. These findings
are consistent with earlier research conducted by Ferguson and
Williams (1996) and the Ford Motor Company (J.D. Power and
Associates, 1993) who reported that participants are more likely
to equate vehicle safety with the presence of specific vehicle
safety features or technologies rather than the vehicles’ crash
safety/test results or crashworthiness.
 S. Koppel et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 994–1004
4.4. Key parameters associated with ranking ‘vehicle
safety’ as the most important consideration in the new
vehicle purchase
Using regression analysis, it was possible to explore the
relative importance of a number of variables in determining
consumers’ priority rating assigned to safety. As tabled below,
the analysis showed that vehicle safety priority was influenced
by several variables, including: use of EuroNCAP, gender and
education level, age, drivers’ concern about crash involvement,
first vehicle purchase, annual driving distance, person for whom
the vehicle was purchased, and traffic infringement history.
More likely Less likely
Used EuroNCAP as an information Purchased vehicle for spouse
source
Females with a higher education Previous traffic infringements
(compared with males) (unbelted)
Aged over 55 years Males with a higher education
(compared to other males)
Concerned about crashes
Purchased first vehicle
Driving a moderate number of
kilometres per annum
The findings of this analysis suggest that there is still some work
to do in terms of educating different consumer groups about the
importance of vehicle safety in the new vehicle purchase process.
4.5. Limitations
Some limitations of this study are noted. Firstly, the response
rate for this survey was moderately low (33%), so those who
chose to volunteer may not be representative of the Swedish or
Spanish new vehicle purchasing population. In addition, since
the Spanish component of the study commenced immediately
following the Swedish study, an attempt was made to recruit the
Spanish sample to match as closely as possible, the age and gen-
der composition of the Swedish sample. Adequate matching was
achieved for gender but the Swedish sample was considerably
more biased towards older participants. Consequently, the sam-
ple may not be representative of the general Spanish purchasing
population. Secondly, due to a number of practical constraints,
the procedure for recruiting and surveying participants was dif-
ferent in each country. For example, the survey was conducted
using mail questionnaires in Sweden and telephone interviews in
Spain. The different elicitation techniques might have influenced
the results. In addition, it should be noted that the surveys were
translated into two different languages (Swedish and Spanish). It
is possible that this may have affected the meaning and interpre-
tation of questions, however, every attempt was made to ensure
that the translations were as similar, whilst still using culturally
relevant language. Thirdly, the findings from the current study
are purely based on the responses of the participants, rather than
being verified by another source such as a vehicle dealer (e.g.,
Johansson-Stenman and Martinsson, 2006), and therefore it is
important to note that participants in research about behaviours
that are not socially acceptable have been shown to minimise
the extent of their negative behaviours (Swann et al., 2005).
1003
Therefore, we avoided any reference to safety in the introductory
information about the survey and also embedded safety-related
questions in the survey in such a way as to avoid over-emphasis
on safety. Nevertheless, it is possible that some participants may
have surmised that the research aim was related to safety, and
may have over-reported the importance of vehicle safety in the
new vehicle purchase process.
Whilst this study has been successful in exploring the impor-
tance of vehicle safety in the new vehicle purchase process, the
findings could be enhanced by use of other survey methods such
as willingness-to-pay. These techniques offer greater potential
as they involve the use of in-depth questioning and trade-off
scenarios to get behind what is really important in consumers’
buying strategies. For example, Andersson (2005) reported that
Swedish vehicle consumers were willing to spend more money
on vehicles with a higher estimated safety level, i.e., consumers
paid a safety premium for safer cars.
5. Conclusions
The findings of the current study indicate that vehicle safety
is the most important consideration in the purchase process for
private new vehicle consumers. Overall, participants were most
likely to select a safety-related factor (e.g., EuroNCAP rating)
and a safety-related feature (e.g., ABS) as their highest priorities
in the new vehicle process. Consistent with previous research,
most participants equated vehicle safety with the presence of
specific vehicle safety features or technologies rather than the
vehicles’ crash safety/test results or crashworthiness.
Whilst the overall results demonstrate that vehicle safety is
the most important consideration in the new vehicle purchase
process, it was interesting to note that several key parame-
ters were associated with ranking vehicle safety as the most
important vehicle factor. These parameters included: use of
EuroNCAP, gender and education level, age, drivers’ concern
about crash involvement, first vehicle purchase, annual driving
distance, person for whom the vehicle was purchased, and traffic
infringement history. These parameters could be used to assist
policy makers, manufacturers and other stakeholders in setting
priorities with regard to the promotion and publicity of vehicle
safety. For example, younger new vehicle consumers could be
targeted with regards to increasing their knowledge regarding
vehicle safety, encouraging them to place highest priority on
safety in the new vehicle purchase process and educating them
about where to locate objective information about vehicle safety,
such as NCAP ratings. In addition, vehicle safety information,
such as NCAP ratings, need to be promoted more widely and
effectively so that they play a more prominent role in their new
vehicle choices. For example, in the US the new “Stars on Cars”
rule requires that NHTSAs’ 5-star safety ratings be displayed on
car window stickers beginning with the 2008 model year if the
vehicle has been tested. The new vehicle price stickers will con-
tain NHTSA safety ratings in three areas: front and side crash
tests and rollover tests. Such knowledge will also help dispel any
misconceptions relating to safety, the value of safety features and
their role in reducing the risk of injury/death.
1004 S. Koppel et al. / Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (2008) 994–1004
Acknowledgements
The research team wishes to thank the European Federation
of the Insurance Industry CEA for funding this research project.
We would also like to thank a number of organisations and indi-
viduals for their assistance with various aspects of the research.
In particular we would like to thank Ana Olona Solano and
Juan-Luis de Miguel Miranda (Centro-Zaragoza) and Anders
Kullgren and Anders Ydenius (Folksam Insurance) for their
assistance with establishment of the projects and recruitment.
We also thank Klaus Langwieder and all the SARAC members
for their support and feedback. We acknowledge the expert sta-
tistical advice of Stuart Newstead (MUARC) and Anthony Clark
(MUARC) for his assistance in determining the star ratings for
purchased vehicles. Lastly, we thank the consumers who gen-
erously gave their time and consideration in responding to the
questionnaire.
References
Andersson, H., 2005. The value of safety as revealed in the Swedish car mar-
ket: an application of the hedonic pricing approach. J. Risk Uncertainty 30,
211–239.
Ball, K., Owsley, C., Stalvey, B., Roeneker, D., Sloane, M., Graves, M., 1998.
Driving avoidance and functional impairment in older drivers. Accid. Anal.
Prev. 30 (3), 313–322.
Benekohal, R., Michaels, R., Shim, E., Resende, P., 1994. Effects of aging on
older drivers’ travel characteristics. Transp. Res. Rec. 1438, 91–98.
CIA, 2007. The World Factbook, 2007. Washington DC: US Central Intelli-
gence Agency, accessed 1st August, 2007 at https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/index.html.
Charles River Associates Incorporated, 1998. Consumer Acceptance of Auto-
motive Crash Avoidance Devices—A Report of Qualitative Research. US
Department of Transportation, Boston, Massachusetts.
Charlton, J.L., Oxley, J., Fildes, B., Oxley, P., Newstead, S., 2006a. Character-
istics of older drivers who adopt self-regulatory driving behaviours. Transp.
Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 9 (5), 367–373.
Charlton, J.L., Oxley, J., Scully, J., Koppel, S., Congiu, M., Muir, C., Fildes, B.,
2006b. Self-regulatory driving practices amongst older drivers in the ACT
and NSW. MUARC Report No. 254.
Charlton, J.L., Oxley, J., Fildes, B., Oxley, P., Newstead, S., O’Hare, M., Koppel,
S., 2003. An Investigation of Self-Regulatory Behaviours of Older Drivers.
Report No. 208. Monash University Accident Research Centre, Melbourne.
Datamonitor, 2004. Automobile Manufacturers in Spain: Industry Profile, Ref-
erence Code: 0180-2010. New York: Datamonitor.
DesRosiers Automotive Reports, 2002. The Need for Dialogue: A Perspective
on Vehicle Safety. Volume 16 (9), ISSN 0841-9957.
Dohring Company, 2003. Dohring Study: Americans Drivers Love Safety
Equipment and Incentives, accessed on 27th August, 2003 at http://
www.dohring.com/press.
Drive and Stay Alive, 2003. International Road-Crash Fatality Rates,
accessed on 14th August 2006 at http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%
20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2003.htm.
Dwyer Leslie, 1992. Willingness to Pay for Vehicle Safety Features. Phase 1
Report: Methodology and Survey Techniques (CR 102). Federal Office of
Road Safety, Canberra.
Ernst, R., O’Connor, P., 1988. Report on accident countermeasures focusing on
elderly drivers. Road Safety Division, South Australian Department of Road
Transport.
Ferguson, S.A., 1992. Survey of New Car Buyers. Insurance Institute for High-
way Safety, Arlington, VA.
Ferguson, S.A., 1999. Consumer demand. Recovery 10 (4), 11–13.
Ferguson, S.A., Williams, A.H., 1996. What safety means to consumers
and its role in the purchase decisions? J. Traffic Med. 24 (3–4), 83–
89.
Finn, P., Bragg, B.W.E., 1986. Perception of the risk of an accident by young
and older drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 18 (4), 289–298.
General Motors Corporation, 1994. Continuous Automotive Market Information
Program Buyer Behaviour. General Motors Corporation, Detroit, US.
Hakamies-Blomqvist, L., Wahlström, B., 1998. Why do older drivers given up
driving? Accid. Anal. Prev. 30 (3), 305–312.
Hosmer, D.W., Lemeshow, S., 2000. Applied Logistic Regression, second ed.
John Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.
Insurance Research Council, 1990. Public Attitude Monitor: A Survey of Public
Attitudes on Auto Safety Issues. Insurance Research Council, Oakbrook,
Illinois.
Insurance Research Council, 1999. Public Attitude Monitor 1999: Vehicle Safety
Issues. Insurance Research Council, Malvern, PA.
J.D. Power and Associates, 1993. Automotive Consumer Profile Study. J.D.
Power and Associates, Agoura Hills, CA.
Johansson-Stenman, O., Martinsson, P., 2006. Honestly, why are you driving a
BMW? J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 60, 129–146.
Market & Opinion Research International (MORI), 2005. Euro NCAP Consumer
Car Buying Survey 2005, available at www.euroncap.com/content/media/
press releases/november 29 2005 survey1.html.
Matthews, M.L., Moran, A.R., 1986. Age differences in male drivers’ perception
of accident risk: the role of perceived driving ability. Accid. Anal. Prev. 18
(4), 299–313.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1995. Customer Satisfaction
Survey, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. U.S. Department
of Transportation, Washington DC.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1997. Customer Satisfaction
Survey, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. U.S. Department
of Transportation, Washington DC.
Princeton Survey Research, 1994. Auto Safety in America. Princeton Survey
Research Associates, Emmaus, PA.
Princeton Survey Research, 1995. Auto Safety in America. Princeton Survey
Research Associates, Emmaus, PA.
Progressive Insurance Co., 2001. Safety takes a back seat when shopping for
a new car, accessed on 21st August, 2003 at http://www.progressive.com/
newsroom/new car.asp.
Rafaely, V., Meyer, J., Zilberman-Sandler, I., Viener, S., 2006. Perception of traf-
fic risks for older and younger adults. Accid. Anal. Prev. 38 (6), 1231–1236.
Rosenbloom, S., 1995. Travel by the elderly. In: Office for Highway Infor-
mation Management (Ed.), Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey,
Demographic Special Reports, (pp. 3-1 to 3-49). Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
Rosenbloom, S., 1999. The mobility of the elderly: there’s good news and bad
news. In: Paper presented at the Transportation in An Aging Society; A
Decade of Experience Conference.
Sivak, M., Soler, J., Trankle, U., Spanghol, J.M., 1989. Cross-cultural differences
in driver risk perception. Accid. Anal. Prev. 21 (4), 355–362.
Smiley, A., 1999. Adaptive strategies of older drivers. In: Paper Presented at the
Conference on Transportation in an Aging Society: A decade of Experience.
Transportation Research Board, Maryland, USA.
Stoffer, H., 2000. Safety steps into the spotlight. Automot. News 5864 (March),
3.
Swann, A.A., Matthews, C.E., Ebbeling, C.B., Moore, C.G., Cunningham,
J.E., Fulton, J., Hebert, J.R., 2005. The effect of social desirability and
social approval on self-reports of physical activity. Am. J. Epidemiol. 161,
389–398.
Trankle, U., Gelau, C., Metker, T., 1990. Risk perception and age specific crashes
of younger drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 22, 119–125.
Whitelegg, J., Haq, G., 2006. Vision Zero: Adopting a Target of Zero for Road
Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries. The Stockholm Environment Institute,
Stockholm, Sweden.