Accident Analysis and Prevention 168 (2022) 106589

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

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

Analysis of risky driving behaviors among bus drivers in China: The role of
enterprise management, external environment and attitudes towards
traffic safety
Lianzhen Wang a, *, Yuping Wang b, Lingyun Shi a, Huizhi Xu a
a
School of Traffic and Transportation, Northeast Forestry University, Harbin 150040, China
b
Harbin Urban and Rural Planning and Design Research Institute, Harbin 150000, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Several studies have shown that enterprise management (e.g. culture, salary) and external environment (e.g.
Bus drivers traffic congestion) predict risky driving behaviors and accident involvement. However, this process has not been
Risky driving behaviors systematically investigated in bus drivers. The present study uses structural equation model to assess whether
Enterprise management
enterprise management and external environment are associated with risky self-reported driving behaviors both
External environment
Safety attitudes
directly and indirectly, through the effects of attitudes towards traffic safety in a large sample of bus drivers.
Three hundred and thirty-one bus drivers (mean age = 39.5, SD = 5.6 years) completed a structured and
anonymous questionnaire measuring enterprise management, external environment, attitudes toward traffic
safety, and self-reported risky driving behaviors (i.e., speeding, fatigue driving, running the light) in the last 6
months. Structural equation modeling analysis revealed that enterprise management, and external environment
were associated with risky driving behaviors both directly and indirectly. In particular both of them were directly
correlated with bus drivers’ attitudes toward traffic safety which, in turn, were related to the five types of self-
reported risky driving behaviors. The present findings suggest that measures related to the impact factors could
be carried out to reduce the probabilities of the risky driving behaviors among bus drivers, such as improving the
salary level of bus drivers, setting up bus lanes and priority signals to alleviate road congestion, optimizing shift
schedules, implementing effective safety education, etc. These findings can provide the empirical basis for
evidence-based road safety interventions in the context of public transport.

1. Introduction driving behaviors determine the safety level of public transportation

Public traffic is a sustainable mode of transportation. With the pro­
motion of bus priority strategy in China, urban public transportation has
become one of the main transportation modes for residents to travel, and
the number of public transportation trips continues to increase. Ac­
cording to statistics from the Beijing Public Transport Group, the annual
total number of passenger trips by public traffic in Beijing reached 3.017
billion in 2018. However, in recent years, road traffic accidents
involving buses have become more frequent, and buses have even been
dubbed “road killers”. The phenomenon of “road rage” also accounts for
a certain proportion among the bus drivers. The numerous residents
travel and the increasingly severe security situation make the safety
problem of public transportation be great concern. The bus drivers are
the most important part of the public transportation system, whose
service. Dimmer and Parker (1999) found that 27% of professional
drivers had experienced traffic accidents, while the proportion of ordi­
nary drivers was 18%, indicating that professional drivers had a rela­
tively higher risk of road traffic accidents. In the studies about bus traffic
accidents, passenger casualties (Albertsson and Falkmer, 2005; Yang
et al., 2009) and accident characteristics (Wåhlberg, 2002; Palacio et al.,
2009; Fu and Sayed, 2021) were mainly analyzed. The impacts of the
drivers, vehicles and environmental factors on accidents were also
investigated.
Risky driving behaviors such as fatigue driving, speeding, and
running red lights are common among bus drivers, which bring some
hidden dangers to the operation of public transportation. Although the
last decades witnessed a significant reduction of accidents in public
transportation, more focused research is needed on the risk factors for

* Corresponding author at: Room507, School of Traffic and Transportation, Northeast Forestry University, NO. 26, Hexing Rd., Harbin 150040, China.
E-mail address: rock510@163.com (L. Wang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2022.106589
Received 21 March 2021; Received in revised form 6 January 2022; Accepted 26 January 2022
Available online 9 February 2022
0001-4575/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Wang et al.
bus crashes to further improve public transportation safety.
The previous studies mainly focused on driver characteristics, such
as the drivers’ age, driving age or driving experience. Existing studies of
the factors affecting behaviors among bus drivers have consistently
shown that the driver’s individual factors play an important role in
predicting risky driving behaviors. Among these factors, drivers’ age has
been proved to be closely correlated with bus drivers’ behaviors. A study
(Goh et al., 2014) analyzing about 7000 Australian bus crashes showed
that bus drivers aged 60 and above or with less than two years of driving
experience are often liable to be the parties responsible for the accidents.
Strathman et al. (2010) also stated in their study that drivers aged 30
and above or with 33 service years had lower accident risk. However, an
early study made by Jovanis et al. (1991) pointed out that when driving
experience was taken into account, drivers’ age was negatively associ­
ated with the occurrence of traffic accidents, while gender had no sig­
nificant impact. Other factors such as personality traits, shift working
hours have also been examined in many fruitful studies. A study made by
Mallia et al. (2015) showed that personality traits were significantly
correlated with aberrant driving behavior. Altruism, excitement seeking
and normlessness directly affected the drivers’ attitudes towards traffic
safety, and safety attitudes were negatively correlated with three types
of self-reported aberrant driving behaviors (driving violations, lapses,
and errors). Pu et al. (2018) studied the impulsivity level of bus drivers
and its influencing factors, and the results showed that the impulsivity
level of bus drivers varied in age, working years and health status. Zhu
and Ye (2010) found that the gender, marital status, driving age and
other factors of bus drivers had significant impacts on safe driving be­
haviors. Wåhlberg (2004) identified that the working hours and ages of
the drivers were significantly correlated with the probability of traffic
accidents. In a subsequent study, a significant correlation between the
accident risk of bus drivers and driving duration was revealed (Wåhl­
berg, 2009). Tseng (2012) examined the traffic accidents in which tour
bus drivers were responsible, and found that their driving experience
and annual mileage were significant influencing factors, while age and
education level were not. Working experiences in the bus industry were
greatly related to the probability of accidents, and drivers with 3–6 years
of work experiences accounted for a higher proportion of accidents.
Kaplan and Prato (2012) showed that the drivers’ age, gender, working
conditions, shift working hours, driving experience, acceleration be­
haviors and choice of speed are all significant factors influencing the risk
of bus traffic accidents. Useche et al. (2017) pointed out that fatigue and
working pressure might be related to aberrant driving behaviors of BRT
drivers. In the study on the bus drivers in London, Maynard et al. (2021)
found that working overtime, sleepiness, shift schedule and working
pressure were significantly related to drivers’ fatigue driving. Han and
Zhao (2020) examined in their study that bus drivers in China who often
worked overtime were most likely to be involved in accidents.
In addition, a growing body of research has emphasized the role of
vehicle factors on risky driving and crash risk. Zegeer et al. (1993) found
in their study that accidents involving old buses accounted for a large
proportion of all commercial bus accidents occurring in five states in the
United States. Another study also showed that buses in service over 15
years had higher expected accident probabilities (Strathman et al.,
2010). Tseng (2012) indicated that the probability of at-fault accidents
in tour buses using the automatic vehicle positioning system was rela­
tively lower.
Nevertheless, there are also many useful researches on the environ­
mental factors. Albertsson and Falkmer (2005) analyzed the long-
distance bus accidents data in 8 European countries and explored the
relationship between bus traffic accidents and road environmental fac­
tors. The results showed that most traffic accidents occurred on urban
roads with a speed limit of 50 miles per hour in dry environment.
Chimba et al. (2010) found in their study that parking on the road
shoulders, the location of bus lanes, the speed limit prescribed by signs,
lane width, number of lane and traffic volume on urban roads were all
related to the increase in the number of bus traffic accidents and their
2
Accident Analysis and Prevention 168 (2022) 106589
severity of casualties. Goh et al. (2014) also showed that road type,
speed limit, traffic and lighting conditions, bus priority, bus age and
length were the significant influencing factors for the occurrence of bus
traffic accidents. Sam et al. (2018) investigated the roles of weekends,
no central road separation, night conditions, poor road topography
(curved, wet, and rugged roads) on severe bus/minibus traffic accident
outcomes and found that all the factors had significant impacts.
From another point of view, a certain number of studies explored the
impacts of factors related to the enterprise management on the profes­
sional drivers’ driving behaviors. Mokarami et al. (2019) examined the
relationship between corporate safety culture and the risky driving be­
haviors as well as traffic accidents, and the results showed that safety
culture had negative impacts on both of them. Mehdizadeh et al. (2019)
in their study on taxi drivers found that the monthly income level of taxi
drivers is negatively correlated with their violations, and the higher the
income level was, the lower the possibilities of traffic accidents were.
Another study on taxi drivers made by Wang et al. (2018) showed that
the heavy workload had positive correlation with the higher propensity
of crashing. Substantial efforts have also been made to explore the roles
of factors related to the enterprise management on truck drivers’ driving
behaviors. For example, several studies showed that the safety climate
and traffic safety culture positively affect truck drivers’ driving perfor­
mance (Zohar et al., 2014; Gehlert et al., 2014; Üzümcüoğlu and Özkan,
2019). Similar findings were reflected in an earlier study made by Caird
and Kline (2004): the organizational factors, such as company culture,
safety policies, and safety practices, were significantly related to the
driving safety of truck drivers. Besides, the work hours of truck drivers
and the health insurance provided by their companies had significant
impacts on their safety performance (Kudo and Belzer, 2019).
The previous studies mainly focused on the factors affecting the ac­
cidents involved with buses, including the drivers’ age, driving age, or
driving experience, personality and other individual attribute factors,
and some studies have also discussed the relationship between such
influencing factors and risky driving behaviors. These research results
better revealed the characteristics of bus drivers who are prone to traffic
accidents, which could provide a basis for the development of the access
conditions for bus drivers in the future. However, for the drivers who
have entered the bus industry, it is also worth exploring whether there
are other factors influencing their driving behaviors besides their per­
sonal attributes. The previous studies have proved that factors such as
traffic conditions, corporate culture, income, etc. had significant im­
pacts on professional drivers’ behaviors. However, to the best of our
knowledge, few studies have been made on the influence of enterprise
management and external environment on bus driver behaviors sys­
tematically. Based on this, the study intends to investigate the rela­
tionship between the risky driving behaviors of bus drivers and other
factors, such as enterprise management and external environmental
factors, and to quantify the influence of different factors on risky driving
behaviors. The findings can provide the empirical basis for evidence-
based road safety interventions in the context of public transport.
2. Method
2.1. Data analysis procedures
Structural equation model (Wang et al., 2011) is a multivariate sta­
tistical method used to describe the relationship between measurement
variables and latent variables. The so-called latent variable is the vari­
able that is difficult to observe directly in the research, and the variable
that can observe directly is called the measurement variable. According
to the interactions between variables, both latent variables and mea­
surement variables can be divided into endogenous variables and
exogenous variables. Structural equation model consists of measure­
ment model and structural model. The former is used to explain the
relationship between exogenous latent variables and exogenous mea­
surement variables, as well as the relationship between endogenous
L. Wang et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 168 (2022) 106589

latent variables and endogenous measurement variables. The latter is Table 1

the causal model among latent variables. Structural equation model can The descriptions of model variables.
be used to examine the relationship between multiple dependent vari­ Latent variables Measurement Description of each variable
ables and independent variables, and has certain advantages for prob­ variables
lems where some variables cannot be directly observed. There are Enterprise Working schedule The operation schedules are arranged
different variables in this study, some of which can’t be directly management reasonably, and the drivers have enough
observed, and thus the SEM method is suitable for exploring the po­ rest time.
tential interactions between each other. Working pressure In view of the current enterprise
management system and working
environment, the bus drivers work
under moderate pressure.
2.2. Variables Salary system The enterprises have clear salary
systems, and the drivers are satisfied
with the reward and punishment system.
The existing research made a few explorations on the relationships
Safety education The enterprises regularly carry out
between some of the external environment factors and enterprise man­ safety training, and the effects are good.
agement factors (e.g., shift schedule, salary, culture) and driving be­ Enterprise culture The enterprises have clear corporate
haviors. All these studies have made some useful findings. However, cultures, and the drivers have good
they were not systematical, especially for bus drivers’ behaviors anal­ senses of belonging.
External Traffic congestion Traffic congestions along the bus routes
ysis. According to the existing studies and combined with the charac­ environment are serious.
teristics of the public transportation industry, we chose 4 latent Traffic management The illegal or violated driving behaviors
variables in the model, which were enterprise management, external can be effectively monitored, such as
environment, safety attitude towards traffic safety and risky driving speeding, running the light, driving on
the road markings, etc.
behavior, and the measurement variables of each latent variable were
Passenger The behaviors of the passengers in the
determined as well. For some variables that cannot be quantified, Likert performance buses may affect your driving behaviors,
scale was adopted for these measurements. leading to driving in anger.
Driver’s safety Attitude towards Traffic rules must be followed no matter
2.2.1. Enterprise management attitude traffic rules what the road or weather conditions are.
Attitude towards The speed limit for buses should be
Enterprise management was measured through the 5-item scale, speed limit raised.
including working schedule, working pressure, salary system, safety Attitude towards It is acceptable to go through the
education, enterprise culture. The responses of all the items were given traffic signals intersections at the yellow or even red
on 5-point Likert scales, from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” light.
Attitude towards It is acceptable to exceed the speed
(5). Higher scores in these measures indicated better management level.
speeding limits when you have many years of
driving experiences.
2.2.2. External environment Attitude towards Penalties for offences such as speeding
External environment was assessed using three facets, including penalty and running red lights should be stricter.
traffic congestion, traffic management and passenger performance. For Each variable in the table was scored using a 5-point scale: 1- strongly disagree,
external environment measures, the responses were given on 5-point 2- disagree, 3- neither agree nor disagree, 4-agree, 5- strongly agree.
Likert scales, from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).
Higher scores in the two measures (traffic congestion and passenger
performance) indicated worse environment conditions, and higher Table 2
scores in the measure of traffic management indicated better environ­ Self-reported risky driving behaviors.
ment conditions. Latent variables Measurement Description of each variable
variables
2.2.3. Safety attitude Risky driving Speeding The frequency of speeding
Attitudes towards traffic safety were measured through the 5-item behavior Fatigue driving The frequency of fatigue driving
attitudes scale. For attitude measures, the responses were given on 5- Running the light The frequency of running the light
including red and yellow lights
point Likert scales, from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree”
Distracted driving The frequency of distracted driving
(5). Higher scores in the two measures (attitude towards traffic rules and Forced lane change The frequency of forced lane change
attitude towards penalty) indicated more positive attitudes toward
Each variable in the table was scored using a 5-point scale: 1-never, 2-seldom, 3-
traffic safety, and higher scores in the three measures (attitude towards
sometimes, 4-often, 5-always.
speed limit, attitude towards traffic signals and attitude towards
speeding) indicated more negative attitudes toward traffic safety.
H1:Enterprise management has a direct impact on driver’s safety
2.2.4. Driving behavior attitude;
Bus drivers were also asked to indicate if, in the last six months, they H2:External environment has a direct impact on bus drivers’ safety
were involved in risky driving behaviors and the frequency of them attitude;
(never, seldom, sometimes, often, always). Higher scores indicate riskier H3:Drivers’ safety attitude has a direct impact on risky driving
driving behavior. behavior;
The descriptions of each variable were shown in Table 1 and Table 2. H4:Enterprise management has a direct impact on risky driving
behavior;
H5:External environment has a direct impact on risky driving
2.3. Hypotheses behavior;
H6:There is a covariant relationship between enterprise manage­
Enterprise management, external environment, safety attitude and ment and external environment.
risky driving behavior were selected as the core latent variables of the
model. The following six model hypotheses were proposed and the po­
tential relationships among the variables were shown in Fig. 1.

3
L. Wang et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 168 (2022) 106589

Enterprise
management

Driver's safety Risky driving

attitude behavior

External
environment

Fig. 1. The potential relationships among the variables.

2.4. Mathematical models
According to the theory of structural equation model (Wang, et al.,
2011), in this study, X was defined as exogenous measurement variable,
Y as endogenous measurement variable, ξ as exogenous latent variable,
and η as endogenous latent variable. The models describing the re­
lationships between variables X and ξ, Y and η were called as the mea­
surement models, and the model describing the relationship between
variables ξ and η was called as the structural model.
(1) Measurement Model
X(8×1) = ΛX (8×2) ξ(2×1) + δ(8×1)
average driving age is 16.66 years, and the standard deviation is 5.150
(between 6 and 27 years). All of them have more than 2 consecutive
years of working experience in bus enterprises. All the respondents were
aware of the purpose of this study and voluntarily participated in this
questionnaire survey.
2.6. Reliability test
Reliability test was made to examine the reliability of internal con­
sistency of all the proposed measures, and the results were shown in
Table 3. All the measures show acceptable internal consistency reli­
(1) ability (Cronbach α > 0.60).

Y(10×1) = ΛY (10×2) η(2×1) + ε(10×1) (2) 2.7. Model solution and verification

where, X is the vector consisting of 8 independent variables measure­
ments. ΛX is the component matrix of X to ξ. ξ is the vector consisting of 2
exogenous latent variables, namely enterprise management and external
environment. δ is the vector consisting of 8 measurement errors of X. Y is
the vector consisting of 10 dependent variable measurements. ΛY is the
component matrix of Y to η. Н is the vector consisting of 2 endogenous
latent variables, namely safety attitude and risky driving behavior. ε is
the vector consisting of 10 measurement errors of Y.
(2) Structural Model
η(2×1) = B(2×2) η(2×1) + Γ(2×1) ξ + ζ (3)
2×1 2×1
In this study, AMOS22.0 software is used to solve the model and test
its adaptability. The basic idea is to compare the proximity between the
covariance matrix implied in the model and the sample covariance
matrix (Wang, et al., 2011). The closer the two are, the higher the fitness
of the model is. The results of the SEM revealed adequate fit indices for
the tested model (χ 2/df = 1.920; CFI = 0.961; RMSEA = 0.056; SRMR =
0.034).
It can be seen that all the fitness test indices of the model accord with
the evaluation criteria well, indicating that the structural equation
model established in this study has a high fit with the survey samples
and can be used to identify and analyze the influencing factors of bus
drivers’ risky driving behaviors.

where, B is the structure coefficient matrix composed of 2 endogenous 3. Results

latent variables, which reflect the effects of endogenous latent variables
on other endogenous latent variables in the model. Γ is the structure The participants responded to all the questions in the questionnaire,
coefficient matrix of the exogenous potential variable ξ, which reflect and, thus, there were no missing data on the measured variables of the
the effect of the exogenous potential variable ξ on the endogenous latent study. Table 4 reports the descriptive statistics of the measures used in
η. ζ is the error vector of the model. the study.
The critical ratios (C.R.) of both Skewness and Kurtosis were below
1.96. According to Fang and Huang’s (2010) study, it could be
2.5. Participants
concluded that all the variables conformed to the normal distribution
and could be used for further analysis.
Four hundred male bus drivers participated in the study. Participants
were recruited through a convenience sampling procedure in public
transport state owned companies of four big cities in China (Harbin, Table 3
The reliability analysis results.
Dalian, Shenyang, Jinan) by trained research associates from Northeast
Forestry University. After eliminating invalid samples which had Dimensions Cronbach’s α Items number
incomplete information in the questionnaire submitted, 331 valid Enterprise management 0.866 5
questionnaires were finally obtained, with an effective rate of 82.75%. External environment 0.893 3
The respondents were all male drivers, with a mean age of 39.53 years Safety attitude 0.931 5
Driving behavior 0.915 5
and a standard deviation of 5.621 (ranging from 28 to 50 years old). The

4
L. Wang et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 168 (2022) 106589

Table 4
The descriptive statistical analysis results of each measurement variable in the model.
Latent variables Measurement variables Mean SD Skewness C.R. Kurtosis C.R.

Enterprise management Working schedule 3.38 0.614 − 0.39 0.42 0.02 0.32
Working pressure 2.60 1.111 0.10 − 1.54 − 1.24 − 1.94
Salary system 2.37 0.878 − 0.06 0.03 − 0.70 − 0.96
Safety education 2.96 0.953 − 0.88 − 1.43 − 0.25 0.85
Enterprise culture 2.59 0.757 − 0.08 0.65 − 0.88 − 1.04
External environment Traffic congestion 3.11 0.731 − 1.09 − 1.13 1.35 − 0.91
Traffic management 2.48 1.001 0.12 0.74 − 1.06 0.71
Passenger performance 3.28 0.844 − 0.77 1.94 0.12 0.27
Safety attitude Attitude towards traffic rules 3.24 1.403 − 0.11 0.31 − 1.24 1.85
Attitude towards speed limit 3.71 0.898 − 0.46 1.28 − 0.60 1.35
Attitude towards traffic signals 3.93 0.882 − 1.00 − 1.57 1.44 1.02
Attitude towards speeding 3.85 0.759 0.18 1.35 − 0.74 0.25
Attitude towards penalty 3.07 1.350 0.06 0.59 − 1.21 0.94
Driving behavior Speeding 2.84 0.655 − 0.28 1.01 − 0.23 − 0.02
Fatigue driving 2.73 0.637 − 0.32 0.63 − 0.91 0.95
Running the light 2.29 0.514 − 0.47 − 1.20 − 0.78 1.25
Distracted driving 2.97 0.785 − 0.51 0.33 − 0.62 1.64
Forced lane change 3.14 1.446 0.04 0.25 − 1.31 − 0.60

The value range of all variables in the table is 1–5.

The score distribution of each measurement variable in the model are

Table 6
shown in Table 5. About 41.93% of the bus drivers believed that they
The frequency of risky driving behaviors of bus drivers.
had reasonable working schedules and could have good rest. However,
46.45% of the drivers reported relatively high level of working pressure, Frequency Speeding Fatigue Running Distracted Forced
driving the light driving change of
and 56.86% of them were dissatisfied with their income. 26.59% of the
lane
drivers thought that the safety education organized by the companies
Never 11.48% 10.57% 14.50% 9.06% 6.95%
had better effects, and only 18.96% of them had a sense of identity with
Seldom 28.10% 12.99% 48.94% 22.66% 21.15%
their companies’ culture. 53.97% of the bus drivers experienced severe Sometimes 36.25% 69.18% 29.61% 39.58% 35.05%
traffic congestions during their duties, and 53.99% of them believed that Often 13.29% 7.25% 6.95% 19.34% 24.47%
some of their illegal or violated driving behaviors could not be effec­ Always 10.88% 0.00% 0.00% 9.37% 12.39%
tively monitored along their operating routes. 58.66% of the drivers Total 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%

reported that they had been affected, even enraged by the passengers.
41.99% of the bus drivers agreed that traffic rules must be obeyed
anyway and 36.12% of them thought that illegal or violated driving
behaviors should be subject to more severe punishment. However,
71.18% of the bus drivers thought that running the light could be
acceptable, 68.26% of them had the same attitudes towards speeding,
and 50.89% of them considered that the operation speed of buses should
be improved, higher than 40 km/h.
The self-reported risky driving behaviors of bus drivers are presented
in Table 6. Just as the results shown, 88.52% of the drivers have the
experience of driving faster than the prescribed speed of the bus. At
present, the speed limit for buses in China is generally 40 km/h. 89.43%
of the drivers have felt sleepy during the driving process. Since the one-
way driving time is generally more than 1 h, bus drivers often drive for
more than 2 h continuously to complete a circle of driving tasks, which is
one of the reasons for the common fatigue of bus drivers. 85.50% of bus
drivers reported that they had experienced running red light or yellow
light signals during driving, which was mainly performed by speeding
through the intersection at the end of the green light or flashing yellow
light, or crossing the stop line in advance at the end of the red light.
90.94% of bus drivers have engaged in distracted driving (i.e., chatting
with passengers, listening to the radio, receiving, or making phone
calls). 93.05% of drivers said that they had forced lane change behaviors
during driving, such as changing lanes without turning on left or right
signals or occupying the straight lane when turning left at the
intersection.
The normalized path coefficients of the model are shown in Fig. 2. As
can be seen from Fig. 2, the factor loading coefficients (absolute value)
between each latent variable and its corresponding measurement vari­
able are in the range of 0.24 to 0.87, and all meet the significance level of
0.05, indicating that the selected measurement variables have certain
explanatory ability to their corresponding latent variables. Significant
correlations were also found among the latent variables, which verified
all the hypotheses proposed in this study.

Table 5
The score distribution of each measurement variable in the model.
Variables Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree Total

Working schedule 4.02% 10.94% 43.12% 26.88% 15.05% 100.00%

Working pressure 26.30% 20.15% 26.67% 21.00% 5.88% 100.00%
Salary system 21.58% 35.28% 30.19% 10.47% 2.48% 100.00%
Safety education 8.50% 19.72% 45.19% 20.47% 6.12% 100.00%
Enterprise culture 24.49% 18.53% 38.03% 11.42% 7.54% 100.00%
Traffic congestion 14.78% 20.28% 10.97% 47.09% 6.88% 100.00%
Traffic management 39.72% 14.27% 15.68% 18.94% 11.39% 100.00%
Passenger performance 18.97% 8.77% 13.60% 42.62% 16.05% 100.00%
Attitude towards traffic rules 9.53% 9.80% 38.67% 31.12% 10.88% 100.00%
Attitude towards speed limit 0.81% 1.12% 47.18% 28.04% 22.85% 100.00%
Attitude towards traffic signals 1.56% 5.90% 21.36% 40.35% 30.84% 100.00%
Attitude towards speeding 1.62% 10.68% 19.44% 37.59% 30.67% 100.00%
Attitude towards penalty 0.45% 41.61% 21.82% 22.73% 13.39% 100.00%

5
L. Wang et al. Accident Analysis and Prevention 168 (2022) 106589

Working pressure 0.54**

-0.34**
Working schedule 0.65*

0.81** Enterprise
Salary system Speeding
management
0.47** Traffic rules Speed limit 0.45*
Safety education 0.40*
0.35* 0.63* -0.48** Fatigue driving
0.61*
Enterprise culture -0.80* Driver's safety -0.89* Risky driving 0.26*
0.16* Traffic signal Running the light
attitude behavior
0.84*
0.32*
Traffic congestion -0.87** -0.42** 0.39** Distracted driving
0.70*
0.48* External Speeding Penalty Forced lane change
Traffic management
environment
-0.24**
Passenger performance
-0.54*

Fig. 2. Parameter estimation results (* for p < .05, ** for p < .001).

Just as shown in Fig. 2, the influence coefficient of salary system on
enterprise management reaches 0.81(p<.001), followed by working
schedule (β = 0.65, p=.017) working pressure (β = 0.54, p<.001) and
safety education (β = 0.47, p<.001), while the enterprise culture (β =
0.35, p = .042) has a lower impact on enterprise management. The re­
sults show that good enterprise management level can be reflected by
reasonable salary system, reasonable time schedule, relaxed working
state, effective safety education and characteristic enterprise culture.
External environment is significantly associated with traffic manage­
ment (β = 0.48, p = .012), traffic congestion (β = − 0.87, p<.001) and
passenger performance (β = − 0.24, p<.001).
The results also show that, the bus drivers’ safety attitudes are
closely related to their attitudes towards traffic rules (β = 0.63, p = .033)
and towards penalty (β = 0.39, p<.001), and significantly correlated
with their attitudes towards speed limit (β = − 0.48, p = .002), towards
traffic signals (β = − 0.80, p = .020), and towards speeding (β = − 0.42, p
= .003).
The results about the occurrence frequency of risky driving behaviors
indicate that distracted driving (β = 0.84, p = .043) and forced lane
change (β = 0.70, p = .038) are the two most significant indicators.
Speeding (β = 0.45, p = .046), fatigue driving (β = 0.40, p = .037) and
running the light (β = 0.26, p = .048) could also represent risky driving
behaviors to a certain extent.
The impacts of each latent variable on risky driving behaviors are
shown in Table 7. The safety attitudes of bus drivers have the greatest
influence on the occurrence probability of risky driving behaviors (β =
0.89, p = .011). Enterprises management also has a significant associ­
ation with the drivers’ risky behaviors (β = 0.88, p < .001), and the total
impact of external environment on risky driving behaviors is 0.82 (p =
.025).
4. Discussion
Previous studies have mainly focused on the influences of drivers’
age, gender, driving age and personality characteristics on risky driving
behaviors and the probabilities of road traffic accidents. These research
results better revealed the characteristics of the drivers who are prone to
Table 7
The effect of latent variables on the frequency of risky driving behavior.
Effect Enterprise External Safety
management environment attitude
Direct effect − 0.34 − 0.54 − 0.89
Indirect − 0.54 − 0.28 – hicles. In the field survey, it was found that about 49% of bus drivers
effect
Total effect − 0.88 − 0.82 − 0.89
p 0.000 0.025 0.011
risky driving behaviors as well as high probabilities of traffic accidents,
and could provide a basis for the entry criteria establishment for bus
drivers in the future. However, for the drivers who have entered the bus
industry, it is also worth exploring whether there are other factors
influencing their driving behaviors besides their personal attributes. The
aim of this study is to explore the impacts of enterprise management and
external environment factors on the risky driving behaviors of bus
drivers, and to provide theoretical reference for road safety intervention
in public transportation industry.
According to the survey results in this study, driving behaviors such
as speeding, fatigue driving, running the light, distracted driving and
forced lane change, which have great influences on road traffic safety,
were prevalent among bus drivers. 93.05% of the bus drivers reported
that they had forced lane change behaviors during driving. 90.94% of
them had distracted driving behaviors during driving, which mainly
includes chatting with passengers, listening to the radio, receiving, or
making phone calls and so on. Existing studies have shown that
distracted driving usually caused drivers to pay less attention to the road
environment and deteriorate their driving performances (Zhang et al.,
2020; Strayer et al., 2011; Liang and Lee, 2010; Kaber et al., 2012) and
25%–30% of the traffic accidents in the US were related to distracted
driving (Ma et al., 2016). 89.43% of the bus drivers experienced fatigue
during driving. Maynard et al. (2021) in their study drew a similar
conclusion: all investigated bus drivers experienced drowsiness during
driving. Zhang et al. (2018) pointed out in their study that the possi­
bilities of drowsiness or fatigue driving among professional drivers were
greatly increased because of the reasons such as long-time driving, the
lack of rest time and bad sleep quality. Anund et al. (2018) found that
working irregular or shift work as well as high working pressure might
lead to serious drowsiness and risky driving behaviors in this group. This
study also verified that the working hours of the drivers had a significant
impact on the occurrence of fatigue driving behaviors. Through the
investigation, it was found that the bus drivers generally drove for more
than 2 h continuously to complete one circle of driving tasks. In addi­
tion, no guarantee of rest time was one of the reasons for the common
fatigue of bus drivers. Therefore, optimizing the shift working schedules
may alleviate the drivers’ fatigue during their driving. At present, the
limit value of conventional bus running speed in China is generally set at
40 km/h. If the drivers drive beyond this speed, there will be an alarm in
the bus. The survey results showed that 88.52% of the bus drivers re­
ported the experience of driving faster than the bus operating speed
which was permitted. Boontob et al. (2018) examined the traffic acci­
dent data of buses and trucks in Thailand and found that overspeed
driving was the main reason for the accidents of these two types of ve­
were speeding in the survey spot. Kulanthayan et al. (2012) found in
their survey of buses in Malaysia that 54.2% of the bus drivers were

6
L. Wang et al.
speeding at the survey spots. According to these researches, it can be
concluded that speeding is common among bus drivers at home and
abroad, and its harm is also obvious. During the investigation in our
study, some drivers said that the speed limit value of the buses was a
little low. Due to the serious traffic congestion in some sections, the
completion of daily operation tasks would be affected. Therefore, the
speed limit value could be appropriately increased. Running the light is
a serious illegal driving behavior. However, 85.50% of the bus drivers in
this study said that they had experiences of running the light during
driving, which was mainly represented by speeding through the inter­
section at the end of the green light or when the yellow light was flashing
in the passing direction, or crossing the stop line in advance at the end of
the red light. Running the light behaviors generally occurred at in­
tersections with long signal cycles, where the bus drivers must wait a
long time for obtaining the next right of way. Therefore, in order to
reduce traffic delays, some bus drivers would choose to run the signal to
pass the intersection as soon as possible. For such intersections, bus
priority signals can be set to reduce the delays of the buses, then to
alleviate the occurrence of signal running. In the study on public mini­
bus drivers in Hong Kong, Wong et al. (2008) found that running red
lights and speeding are common illegal driving behaviors among mini­
bus drivers, leading to high traffic accident rates in this group (traffic
accidents involving public minibuses account for about 6% of the total
traffic accidents). Through the stated preference survey (SP), it was
found that strengthening the punishment was important to reduce the
red-light running behaviors of the minibus drivers.
The findings of the study showed that drivers’ safety attitude, en­
terprise management and external environment all had significant im­
pacts on risky driving behaviors. This was verified by the research
results of Mallia et al. (2015): different from personality characteristics,
safety attitude was relatively flexible and could be changed by external
intervention. Therefore, positive attitudes of the bus drivers towards
traffic safety may be improved by implementing effective measures, e.g,
enhancing enterprise management. Our study has proved that enterprise
management had a significant impact on safety attitude.
The enterprise management was significantly reflected through 5
measurements, including working pressure, working time, compensa­
tion mechanism, safety education, and enterprise culture. The results
showed that the higher the enterprise management level was, the more
positive the safety attitudes of the bus drivers were, and the lower the
probabilities of risky driving behaviors were. The working pressure
among bus drivers was high (Zhu et al., 2014). That may be because the
bus drivers should try their bests to complete the operation tasks safely
and on schedule, while must face emergencies such as passenger com­
plaints from time to time. Thus, working pressure was one of the main
factors that significantly affect the risky driving behaviors, which was
also verified by the research results of Maynard et al. (2021) and Useche
et al. (2017). The influence of bus drivers’ working time arrangement on
their driving behaviors was also significant. Studies have shown that
drivers under time pressure would commit more violations than under
no pressure, especially speeding (Adams-Guppy and Guppy, 1995). In
this regard, Kaplan and Prato (2012) also drew a similar conclusion:
shift working time was one of the factors affecting the occurrence of bus
traffic accidents. Maynard et al. (2021) also pointed out those factors
such as shift schedule was significantly correlated with the driving fa­
tigue behavior of the bus drivers. The salary system of the bus enter­
prises also showed a significant influence on the risky driving behaviors
of bus drivers. Through investigation, it was found that the current
salary system of the bus enterprises required them to complete as many
operation tasks as possible every day in order to obtain more labor
remuneration. Therefore, in the condition of serious congestions, the bus
drivers might have some risky driving behaviors (e.g, running the light
or speeding) in order to save more time. Mehdizadeh et al. (2019) in
their study on taxi drivers found that the more the monthly income was,
the lower the possibility of illegal driving behaviors and traffic accidents
were. Thus, increasing the income level of the bus drivers might be
7
Accident Analysis and Prevention 168 (2022) 106589
helpful to reduce the working pressure of this occupational group, and
then improve their professional responsibility. Safety education had a
significant impact on the drivers’ driving behaviors by influencing their
safety attitudes. Therefore, effective safety education could strengthen
the safety awareness of the bus drivers, then to improve the safety level
of bus operation. According to Hang (2020), the safety level of public
transportation in Changzhou has been significantly improved through
experiential safety education for the bus drivers, passengers and other
groups (in 2019, the total number of accidents involved buses has
decreased by 15.04%, the number of the injured has decreased by
33.78%, the number of fatal accidents has decreased by 28.57% and the
accident cost has decreased by 20.35%). Enterprise culture had a sig­
nificant influence on the driving behaviors of the professional drivers as
well, which was basically consistent with the research results of
Mokarami et al. (2019): there was a significant negative correlation
between the corporate safety culture and the drivers’ unsafe behaviors
and accidents. Nævestad et al. (2019) also pointed out that aggressive
driving behaviors were related to national safety culture: the aggressive
driving behaviors of bus drivers in Greece were more prominent than
those in Norway, and positive safety culture could reduce aggressive
driving behaviors. Wills et al. (2006) found that there was a significant
relationship between the drivers’ driving behavior and enterprise safety
atmosphere such as safety rules, the managers’ commitment to safety,
etc. Based on the results, we also believed that the good corporate cul­
ture was conducive to increasing the bus drivers’ sense of belonging to
the enterprise, reducing the demission rate, and then stabilizing the
drivers’ team, strengthening their responsibility, and ensuring the
operation order of the public transport.
External environment mainly indicated by traffic congestion, traffic
management and passengers’ performances, also had significant impacts
on safety attitudes and risky driving behaviors both directly and indi­
rectly. Shinar and Compton (2004) found in their study on the driving
behaviors of general drivers that in the case of high traffic jams, the
drivers’ stress and aggressive violations were significantly higher than
those in the case of low traffic jams. As an external environmental factor,
traffic congestion would significantly affect the drivers’ emotions, and
then affect their safety attitudes, thus leading to the occurrence of risky
driving behaviors. Therefore, measures to provide special right of way
for bus operation, such as bus lanes and priority signals, could be carried
out to alleviate the congestion of bus operation lines and reduce the
impact of this factor on the drivers’ risky driving behaviors. Besides,
studies have shown that when there were passengers in the car, the
drivers would exhibit relatively safe driving behaviors (Shinar and
Compton, 2004; Baxter et al., 2011). Therefore, we could believe that
passengers in the bus would increase the bus drivers’ sense of re­
sponsibility to a certain extent, thus constraining them to take careful
driving behaviors. However, some passengers might have conflicts with
the drivers in the process of riding, which would affect the safety atti­
tudes of the drivers and lead to risky driving behaviors for some drivers.
Whether the road traffic management measures were complete or not
determined whether the illegal or violations of driving behaviors could
be effectively supervised. According to the survey, at the intersections
where video surveillances were not installed or failed, or where there
was no traffic police enforcement, some drivers might run red or yellow
lights or drive in the wrong lanes. Thus, we could believe that effective
traffic management measures would have a significant effect on
reducing the risky driving behaviors of bus drivers.
5. Conclusions
This paper explored the relationships among enterprise manage­
ment, external environment, safety attitudes and risky driving behaviors
of the bus drivers. The results showed that enterprise management and
external environment both had significant impacts on drivers’ safety
attitudes, and enterprise management, external environment, safety
attitudes were all closely related to risky driving behaviors among bus
L. Wang et al.
drivers as well. Measures related to the influencing factors could be
carried out to reduce the probabilities of the risky driving behaviors. For
example, improving the salary level of bus drivers, setting up bus lanes
and priority signals to alleviate road congestion, optimizing shift
schedules, implementing effective safety education, etc. The current
findings provide new insights into the identification of influencing fac­
tors on bus drivers’ risky driving behaviors and may be used to develop
intervention strategies for enterprises and management organizations in
public transport industry.
The present study is not free of limitations. It is related to the use of a
self-reported measure for driving behaviors, which may be susceptible to
reporting or recall biases. However, because the investigation is anon­
ymous, this might ensure the accuracy of data to a certain extent.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest to this
work.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant NO.: 71701041), Natural Science Foundation of Hei­
longjiang Province (Grant NO.: LH2019E007), Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (Grant NO.: 2572019BG02), and the
China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant NO.: 2015M581412).
The authors wish to thank the editors and the reviewers for their helpful
comments.
References
Adams-Guppy, J.R., Guppy, A., 1995. Speeding in relation to perceptions of risk, utility
and driving style by British company car drivers. Ergonomics 38 (12), 2525–2535.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139508925284.
Albertsson, P., Falkmer, T., 2005. Is there a pattern in European bus and coach incidents?
A literature analysis with special focus on injury causation and injury mechanisms.
Accid. Anal. Prev. 37 (2), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2004.03.006.
Anund, A., Fors, C., Ihlström, J., Kecklund, G., 2018. An on-road study of sleepiness in
split shifts among city bus drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 114, 71–76. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aap.2017.05.005.
Baxter, J., Manstead, A.S.R., Stradling, S., Campbell, K.A., 2011. Social facilitation and
driver behavior. Br. J. Psychol. 81 (3), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8295.1990.tb02366.x.
Boontob, N., Hongthong, S., Kawkerd, W., Charoennapharat, K., 2018. PW 2536
Speeding behaviour of bus and van drivers on major highways in Thailand. Safety
2018. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprevention-2018-safety.257.
Caird, J., Kline, T., 2004. The relationships between organizational and individual
variables to on-the-job driver accidents and accident-free kilometres. Ergonomics 47
(15), 1598–1613. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140130412331293355.
Chimba, D., Sando, T., Kwigizile, V., 2010. Effect of bus size and operation to crash
occurrences. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42 (6), 2063–2067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2010.06.018.
Dimmer, A. R., Parker, D., 1999. The accidents, attitudes and behavior of company car
drivers. Behavioural Research in Road Safety Ix. Pa3524/99, 78-85.
Fang, M., Huang, Z.F., 2010. Processing of non-normal distribution data under structural
equation model. Chinese J. Health Statistics. 27 (01), 84–87.
Fu, C.Y., Sayed, T., 2021. Bayesian dynamic extreme value modeling for conflict-based
real-time safety analysis. Anal. Methods Acc. Res. 34, 1–24. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.amar.2021.100204.
Gehlert, T., Hagemeister, C., Özkan, T., 2014. Traffic safety climate attitudes of road
users in Germany. Transp. Res. Part F: Psychol. Behav. 26, 326–336. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trf.2013.12.011.
Goh, K., Currie, G., Sarvi, M., Logan, D., 2014. Factors affecting the probability of bus
drivers being at-fault in bus-involved accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 66, 20–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.12.022.
Han, W.L., Zhao, J.Y., 2020. Driver behaviour and traffic accident involvement among
professional urban bus drivers in China. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav.
74, 184–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TRF.2020.08.007.
Hang F.B., 2020. Practice and Thinking of Experiential Safety Education in Public
Transport. Urban Public Transport. 266(08), 63-64+66.
Jovanis, P.P., Schofer, J.L., Prevedouros, P., Tsunokawa K., 1991. Analysis of bus transit
accident: Empirical, methodological and policy issues.
Kaber, D.B., Liang, Y., Zhang, Y., Rogers, M.L., Gangakhedkar, S., 2012. Driver
performance effects of simultaneous visual and cognitive distraction and adaptation
behavior. Transp. Res. Part FTraffic Psychol. Behav. 15 (5), 491–501. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.trf.2012.05.004.
8
Accident Analysis and Prevention 168 (2022) 106589
Kaplan, S., Prato, C.G., 2012. Risk factors associated with bus accident severity in the
United States: a generalized ordered logit model. J. Saf. Res. 43 (3), 171–180.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2012.05.003.
Kudo, T., Belzer, M.H., 2019. The association between truck driver compensation and
safety performance. Saf. Sci. 120, 447–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssci.2019.07.026.
Kulanthayan, S., Ang, B., Hayati, K., 2012. Determinants of speeding among bus drivers
in Malaysia. Injury Prevention. 18(Supplement 1), A159-A159. doi:10.1136/
injuryprev-2012-040590m.17.
Liang, Y., Lee, J.D., 2010. Combining cognitive and visual distraction: less than the sum
of its parts. Accid. Anal. Prev. 42 (3), 881–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2009.05.001.
Ma, Y.L., Gu, G.F., Gao, Y.E., Ma, Y., 2016. Driver distraction judging model under in-
vehicle information system operation based on driving performance. China J.
Highway Transport. 29 (04), 123–129. https://doi.org/10.19721/j.cnki.1001-
7372.2016.04.015.
Mallia, L., Lazuras, L., Violani, C., Lucidi, F., 2015. Crash risk and aberrant driving
behaviors among bus drivers: the role of personality and attitudes towards traffic
safety. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 79, 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2015.03.034.
Maynard, S., Filtness, A., Miller, K., Pilkington-Cheney, F., 2021. Bus driver fatigue: A
qualitative study of drivers in London. Appl. Ergon. 92, 103309. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apergo.2020.103309.
Mehdizadeh, M., Shariat-Mohaymany, A., Nordfjaern, T., 2019. Driver behaviour and
crash involvement among professional taxi and truck drivers: light passenger cars
versus heavy goods vehicles. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 62, 86–98.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.12.010.
Mokarami, H., Alizadeh, S.S., Pordanjani, T.R., Varmazyar, S., 2019. The relationship
between organizational safety culture and unsafe behaviors, and accidents among
public transport bus drivers using structural equation modeling. Transp. Res. Part F:
Traffic Psychol. Behav. 65, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.07.008.
Nævestad, T.O., Phillips, R.O., Laiou, A., Bjørnskau, T., Yannis, G., 2019. Safety culture
among bus drivers in Norway and Greece. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 64,
323–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.05.006.
Palacio, A., Tamburro, G., O’Neill, D., Simms, C.K., 2009. Non-collision injuries in urban
buses-strategies for prevention. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.aap.2008.08.016.
Pu, M.H., Chen, W., Xue, H.B., Zhou, J., Zhang, A.J., Zhang, D.J., 2018. The relationship
among impulsivity, fatigue and coping style in bus drivers. China J. Health Psychol.
4, 573–577. https://doi.org/10.13342/j.cnki.cjhp.2018.04.025.
Sam, E.F., Daniels, S., Brijs, K., Brijs, T., Wets, G., 2018. Modelling public bus/minibus
transport accident severity in Ghana. Accid. Anal. Prev. 119, 114–121. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.07.008.
Shinar, D., Compton, R., 2004. Aggressive driving: an observational study of driver,
vehicle, and situational variables. Acc. Anal. Prevent. 36 (3), 429–437. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0001-4575(03)00037-X.
Strathman, J.G., Wachana, P., Callas, S., 2010. Analysis of bus collision and non-collision
incidents using transit ITS and other archived operations data. J. Saf. Res. 41 (2),
137–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2010.02.003.
Strayer, D.L., Watson, J.M., Drews, F.A., 2011. Cognitive distraction while multitasking
in the automobile. Psychol. Learning Motivation. 54, 29–58. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-0-12-385527-5.00002-4.
Tseng, C.M., 2012. Social-demographics, driving experience and yearly driving distance
in relation to a tour bus driver’s at-fault accident risk. Tour. Manage. 33 (4),
910–915. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2011.09.011.
Useche, S.A., Ortiz, V.G., Cendales, B.E., 2017. Stress-related psychosocial factors at
work, fatigue, and risky driving behavior in bus rapid transport (BRT) drivers. Acc.
Anal. Prevent. 104, 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.04.023.
Üzümcüoğlu, Y., Özkan, T., 2019. Traffic climate and driver behaviors: explicit and
implicit measures. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 62, 805–818. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2019.03.016.
Wåhlberg, A.E.A., 2002. Characteristics of low speed accidents with buses in public
transport. Accid. Anal. Prev. 34 (5), 637–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575
(01)00063-X.
Wåhlberg, A.E.A., 2004. The stability of driver acceleration behavior, and a replication of
its relation to bus accidents. Accid. Anal. Prev. 36 (1), 83–92. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00130-6.
Wåhlberg, A.E.A., 2009. Hourly changes in accident risk for bus drivers. J. Risk Res. 12
(2), 187–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802488891.
Wang, Y., Li, L., Prato, C.G., 2018. The relation between working conditions, aberrant
driving behaviour and crash propensity among taxi drivers in China. Acc. Anal. Prev.
126, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.03.028.
Wang, J.C., Wang, X.Q., Jiang, B.F., 2011. Structural Equation Models: Methods and
Applications. Higher Education Press.
Wills, A.R., Watson, B., Biggs, H.C., 2006. Comparing safety climate factors as predictors
of work-related driving behavior. J. Saf. Res. 37 (4), 375–383. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jsr.2006.05.008.
Wong, S.C., Wong, C.W., Sze, N.N., 2008. Attitudes of public light bus drivers to penalties
to combat red light violations in Hong Kong. Transp. Policy 15 (1), 43–54. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.009.
Yang, J., Peek-Asa, C., Cheng, G., Heiden, E., Falb, S., Ramirez, M., 2009. Incidence and
characteristics of school bus crashes and injuries. Acc. Anal. Prev. 41 (2), 336–341.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2008.12.012.
Zegeer, C.V., Huang, H.F., Stutts, J.C., Rodgman, E.A., Hummer, J.E., 1993.
Characteristics and Solutions Related to Bus Transit Accidents. University of North
Carolina, Southeastern Transportation Centre.
L. Wang et al.
Zhang, X.X., Wang, X.S., Ma, Y., Ma, Q.B., 2020. International research progress on
driving behavior and driving risks. China J. Highway Transp. 33 (06), 5–21. https://
doi.org/10.19721/j.cnki.1001-7372.2020.06.001.
Zhang, W., Zhang, X., Feng, Z., Jing, L., Zhou, M., Wang, K., 2018. The fitness-to-drive of
shift-work taxi drivers with obstructive sleep Apnea: an investigation of self-reported
driver behavior and skill. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 59, 545–554.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.12.004.
Accident Analysis and Prevention 168 (2022) 106589
Zhu, C.Y., Wang, Y.H., Liu, Z.H., Bu, S.Q., 2014. Relationship among personality, traffic
accidents and occupational stress of bus drivers. J. Qiqihar Med. Univ. 35 (3),
324–326.
Zhu, Z.Z., Ye, M.L., 2010. The factors of influence of bus drivers’ safe driving behavior.
Psychol. Res. 03 (6), 63–66.
Zohar, D., Huang, Y.H., Lee, J., Robertson, M., 2014. A mediation model linking
dispatcher leadership and work ownership with safety climate as predictors of truck
driver safety performance. Acc. Anal. Prev. 62, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2013.09.005.