Next Article in Journal
Predicting Popularity of Viral Content in Social Media through a Temporal-Spatial Cascade Convolutional Learning Framework
Previous Article in Journal
New Insights on Robust Control of Tilting Trains with Combined Uncertainty and Performance Constraints
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Mathematics
Volume 11
Issue 14
10.3390/math11143058
mathematics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of a Front Braking Light for Improving Safety in Road Transport

by
Miloš Poliak
1,
Ján Dvorský
2,*,
Jan Zýka
3 and
Elvira Nica
4
1
Department of Road and Urban Transport, Faculty of Operational and Economics of Transport and Communications, University of Zilina, Univerzitná 1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia
2
Department of Economics, Faculty of Operational and Economics of Transport and Communications, University of Zilina, Univerzitná 1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia
3
Faculty of Business, Pan-European University, Spálená 76/14, 110 00 Prague, Czech Republic
4
Department of Administration and Public Management, Faculty of Administration and Public Management, Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Piața Romană, 010371 Bucharest, Romania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mathematics 2023, 11(14), 3058; https://doi.org/10.3390/math11143058
Submission received: 15 May 2023 / Revised: 7 July 2023 / Accepted: 8 July 2023 / Published: 11 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Engineering Mathematics)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of innovations in road safety is to contribute to the better protection of road users and to minimize damage to their property. The main objective of this article is to identify disparities in perceptions of a front braking light by examining the road safety of road users based on their type of employment and the number of kilometers driven per year. The research will evaluate the attitudes of selected groups of road users based on the number of kilometers driven in a calendar year and whether driving a motor vehicle is their main duty as part of their job. The analysis involved 239 respondents using a paper questionnaire. Disparities in perceptions of innovations, with regard to road safety, were evaluated using contingency tables, chi-square tests, non-parametric tests, and Cramer’s V. Road users feel much safer with a front braking light when crossing traffic comprising vehicles and pedestrians (71%), at pedestrian crossings (74%), when turning left (63.4%), as well as when crossing traffic comprising multiple vehicles (62.5%). Disparities between respondents based on the type of employment of the road user were not confirmed. Road users with a higher number of driven kilometers have a more positive perception of the front braking light at pedestrian crossings.

1. Introduction

Road transport includes the movement of people, goods, and vehicles on roads. This type of transport involves various means of transport, such as cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and bicycles, which travel on public roads, highways, and streets [1]. Road transport is an important part of modern transport infrastructure, which enables the movement of people and goods to different places [2]. This type of transport is often used for short and medium distances, and is usually more flexible, cheaper, and more accessible than other modes of transport, such as air or sea transport [3,4]. The problem with road transport is that it is less safe compared with other modes of transport [5,6]. Traffic accidents related to road transport are a serious social problem in every country [7]. Traffic accidents are associated with uncertainty and unpredictability [8]. These accidents are based on many causes that depend on various variables, such as a lack of information on the part of pedestrians, a lack of information on the part of drivers, speed not adapted to road conditions, and so on [9,10].
Reducing the number of traffic accidents and increasing road safety is not only the goal of the European Union, but of all states. According to statistical data from the World Health Organization, approximately 1.35 million people die on the roads each year, which means that more than 3700 deaths occur per day [11]. Road safety has been internationally recognized as a primary strategic goal in many countries [12,13]. Increasing road safety is an important political and social goal. For this reason, significant attention has been paid to innovations in road safety in recent times, which are key to improving road safety. Research is being conducted in the area of innovations in the form of autonomous vehicles [14], the implementation of intelligent transport systems [15], and electric safety systems [16].
Reducing uncertainty for road users is only possible through collaboration between various organizations and institutions, such as law enforcement agencies, transportation companies, and companies involved in technological innovations.
The novel aspect of our research concerns increasing road safety by reducing uncertainty for all road users through the installation of a front brake light. Pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers will gain information about the braking of the vehicle even when looking at the front of the vehicle. The implementation of a front braking light has the potential to enhance road safety in the following ways: (i) when crossing traffic comprising vehicles and pedestrians; (ii) when crossing traffic comprising multiple vehicles; (iii) when overtaking; (iv) at pedestrian crossings; (v) when turning left; (vi) when changing lanes on the highway; and (vii) when braking in queues.
The subject of the evaluation comprises the following scientific questions (RQs):
RQ1: Do participants in road traffic, whose primary role at their job involves driving motor vehicles, perceive the safety innovation (front brake light) more positively than participants who do not have a primary job role involving driving motor vehicles?
RQ2: Do participants in road traffic who have driven more than 60,000 km in a motor vehicle perceive the safety innovation (front brake light) more positively than participants who drive less than 60,000 km per calendar year?
The structure of the article is as follows. The introduction highlights the originality and uniqueness of the conducted quantitative research, and it presents the research questions. The theoretical part of the article reflects the most important aspects and factors of the front braking light in road traffic, as follows: road safety; positive economic consequences and impacts of using the front braking light; and socio–social interactions regarding population safety. The next part of the article defines the goals, research methodology, variable definition, formulation of statistical hypotheses, presentation, and justification of the selected statistical methods, as well as the structure of the selected sample of respondents. The following section presents empirical results, and it evaluates and verifies statistical hypotheses. The discussion summarizes the most significant findings of the research. Subsequently, practical consequences of the proposed front braking light in transportation were formulated. In conclusion, further phases of the conducted research were outlined, and the limits of the conducted case study were established.

2. Theoretical Background

Increasing road safety is a significant goal not only for the European Union, but also from a global perspective [17,18]. Several studies have pointed out various factors that cause traffic accidents and fatalities (e.g., [19]). This research has identified the following factors (apart from driver uncertainty) that contribute to accidents, as follows: environmental conditions, the state of infrastructure, and technical vehicle causes [20]. Moreover, fatigue [21], alcohol [22], emotional state, drowsiness, headaches [23], respiratory illnesses, and fever [24,25] are conditions that increase the likelihood of a traffic accident. Driving under the influence of alcohol is one of the most common issues that eventually leads to risky driving behavior [26,27,28]. According to Alonso et al. [29], significant personality factors, such as age, experience, fatigue, and health, also significantly affect road safety. Walton et al. [30] addressed research on policies concerning age restrictions and minimum age requirements for driver’s licenses.
The main causes of traffic accidents in Slovakia in 2021 include (41.95%) violation of the driver’s duties, (24.35%) illegal driving speed, (12.79%) alcohol, (4.40%) and incorrect driving at the intersection, followed by (16.51%) other causes of accidents. In this context, other important factors are also at play, such as human elements, road infrastructure, vehicle-related issues, and environmental conditions. The fast reactions of participants in road traffic (e.g., car drivers) during an unexpected road event in road traffic is key to enhancing safety. The front braking light can help transport users react quicker.
Research results have shown that the accident rate of young drivers is a significant problem in road traffic. Young drivers (aged 18–24) are much more prone to involvement in traffic accidents than other drivers [31]. The main causes of young driver accidents include incorrect risk behavior, lack of experience, and inattention [32,33,34]. Risky behavior includes, for example, speeding, driving under the influence of alcohol, and a failure to follow safety rules; this significantly increases the risk of accidents. As young drivers are in the early stages of their driving lives, they typically have less experience driving vehicles in various situations on the roads [35].
Additional studies also show that fatigue increases the risk of traffic accidents and reduces the ability to control a vehicle, which can lead to serious consequences [36]. Drivers affected by fatigue are more likely to make mistakes while driving, such as driving at inappropriate speeds, crossing lines, frequent braking, or poor reactions to traffic [37].
The impact of fatigue on drivers also increases the risk of health problems, such as obstructive sleep apnea, which can lead to daytime sleepiness and poor quality of sleep at night [38]. Obstructive sleep apnea occurs in 15 to 30% of the population, with 80% of cases remaining undetected and untreated [39]. Many drivers with obstructive sleep apnea are unaware that they have this disorder and they assume that their sleepiness is due to a lack of sleep [40].
According to statistical data from the World Health Organization, approximately 1.35 million people die in road traffic accidents every year; this means more than 3700 deaths occur per day [11]. Over the past 15 years, there has been a significant increase in the number of fatalities, as around 3000 people died on the world’s roads each day in 2007 [41]. These traffic accidents result in global economic losses; the estimated cost of damage regarding road traffic accidents amounts to USD 518 billion annually [11].
A highly common cause of traffic accidents is a lack of information for traffic participants. Studies show that inadequate information can lead to incorrect decision-making and it can worsen drivers’ abilities to predict and respond to risky situations on the road [42,43]. The proposed innovation in this research aims to reduce the lack of information for traffic participants. Innovations currently being implemented in road transport to reduce accidents can be divided into several groups. Regarding long-term innovations, autonomous vehicles may be mentioned. These vehicles are designed to be capable of driving without human intervention [14]. As a result, they can eliminate some human factors that cause accidents, such as fatigue, alcohol, or insufficient attention [44]. Another possible innovation that can be introduced into practice in the short-term is an intelligent transport system. These systems use information technology to monitor and manage road traffic [15]. They can, for example, monitor traffic, traffic signs, and traffic lights, thus improving traffic flow and safety on the roads [45].
Another option is an electronic vehicle safety system, which includes various technologies such as camera systems, radar sensors, and vehicle tracking. Systems such as automatic brakes or lane departure warning systems help improve safety and prevent accidents [16]. Increasing road safety can also be achieved through safer infrastructure by integrating new technologies into traffic signs or traffic lights at intersections [46]. Innovations in education also have a significant impact on road safety [47]. New technologies also enable improved road safety education. Interactive applications, virtual environments, or driving simulators can help with driver training and improve their reaction skills and safety on the roads. Innovations that reduce the uncertainty of road users are also very important, as several authors have noted. In this context, it is important to note that these features are not exclusive to electric vehicles, but rather, they have a broader application in improving safety for all types of vehicles.
Wu and Lu [48] deal with uncertainty in road traffic and its impact on the risk perception and safety of road users. The authors state that there are various factors that can cause uncertainty, such as bad weather, the unpredictable behavior of other road users, technical problems with vehicles, and so on. Cordellieri et al. [49] examine differences between the risk perceptions and behaviors of drivers and road users depending on gender. The authors state that women tend to perceive risks in road traffic more intensely than men and have lower risk tolerance. Mühl et al. [50] propose an integrated approach to reducing uncertainty in road traffic.
The innovation of the front brake light provides other road users with information about the braking of the vehicle. The front brake light is technically a green light [51], located at the front of the vehicle. The choice of the color green is due to the fact that there are certain colors of light that cannot be used, such as red for the rear brake light, blue for indicating the priority of passage, and orange for indicating the direction of travel of the vehicle. The green color of the front brake light also has significance in terms of the information it conveys. It indicates that the vehicle is braking, which reduces the stress of other road users who may not have information concerning whether a vehicle that does not have the right of way is braking.
Several authors reported that driver characteristics (e.g., driver age, driver gender, marital status [51,52,53]) and their experience with means of transport (attitude towards driving, number of kilometers driven, experience with a traffic accident) play a significant role in driving behavior [54].

3. Aims, Methodology, and Data

The main goal of the article is to identify disparities in perceptions of an innovative safety feature among road users, based on their type of employment and the number of kilometers driven per year.

3.1. Data Collection

The questionnaire was created in collaboration with the University of Žilina and the Institute for Legal and Traffic Psychology in Bonn. The Institute for Legal and Traffic Psychology in Bonn conducted a pre-study on the front brake light in a non-public space at Berlin Tegel Airport. Further information on the results of this study can be found in Monzel et al. [55]. As of 2023, the University of Žilina continues its research on real traffic in the Zilina and Trencín regions of Slovakia. In addition to the scientific researchers from the University of Zilina and the Institute for Legal and Traffic Psychology, practitioners also contributed to the questionnaire’s development, including transport companies operating bus services in both regions, as well as experts from a company operating freight transport in the Trencín region. The preparatory phase for processing the questionnaire lasted from September 2022 to November 2022.
The aim of the survey was to determine drivers’ opinions on front brake lights before their installation on vehicles. The goal was to obtain data on which sources of information were best utilized by drivers with regard to the front brake light. Another goal of the survey was to obtain drivers’ opinions on the impact of the front brake light on road safety before its installation on vehicles. The survey was processed in paper form, each driver was personally approached, and they filled out the questionnaire themselves. All completed questionnaires are archived at the University of Zilina. The research on the front brake light was conducted on a voluntary basis; participants applied by responding to a media call made between September and October 2022. Based on the total number of registered vehicles (3000), drivers who applied earlier were selected in order to evenly select drivers of heavy vehicles, buses, and personal vehicles. Despite the fact that drivers filled out the questionnaire in paper form under the supervision of an interviewer, out of the total number of 312 submitted questionnaires, only 239 were fully completed.

3.2. Questionnaire and Variables

Regarding the survey, we did not investigate the reasons why the questionnaire was not fully completed. However, the skipping of some questions can be attributed to inattention during the completion of the questionnaire. The comprehensibility of the questionnaire questions was tested on doctoral students at the University of Žilina and professional drivers from the University of Žilina. Based on feedback, the questions were reformulated to be more understandable. Since all the drivers who participated in the survey were drivers of Slovakian transport companies, the questionnaire was distributed only in Slovakian. However, there was also an English version of the questionnaire that was reviewed by the Bonn Institute of Psychology. The questionnaire contained closed questions, except for filtering questions in which drivers answered how long they have held a driver’s license and how long they have been working as drivers. To prevent the computer automatically filling the questionnaire, the questionnaire was only distributed in paper form. For checking the consistency of respondent attitudes, the questionnaire also included control questions.
The respondent had time to fill in the questionnaire in accordance with their own needs. In larger companies, several drivers were instructed together on how to fill in the questionnaire; then, the drivers filled it out themselves. In companies with a small number of drivers, interviewers visited drivers individually and instructed them on how to fill in the questionnaire; then, the drivers filled it out without assistance. The time to complete the questionnaire was not recorded, and each respondent handed it in when the driver determined that they had answered all the questions.
The questionnaire contained the following statements aimed at assessing the respondents’ attitudes towards the front brake light: V0: Have you ever heard of the front brake light?
V1: When the brake pedal is pressed, the front brake light illuminates so that other road users can see from the front if the vehicle is braking. Please state your opinion on what impact the front brake light will have on the following traffic situations: V1_1: When crossing traffic comprising vehicles and pedestrians; V1_2: When crossing traffic comprising multiple vehicles; V1_3: When overtaking; V1_4: At pedestrian crossings; V1_5: When turning left; V1_6: When changing lanes on the highway; V1_7: When braking in queues.
Respondents had to answer the above statements (V1_1; …, V1_7) by selecting one of 5 options (Likert scale): 1—much more dangerous; …; 5—much safer.

3.3. Statistical Methods

The following hypotheses were formulated to evaluate the main goal of the article:
H1: With regard to the implementation of an front brake light in road traffic, there are statistically significant differences in attitude between selected groups of respondents, based on the type of employment contract of the respondent, towards selected traffic situations (V1_1, …, V1_7).
H2: With regard to the implementation of an front brake light, in road traffic, there are statistically significant differences in attitude between selected groups of respondents, depending on the number of kilometers driven, in selected traffic situations (V1_1, …, V1_7).
The following statistical methods were applied to evaluate the formulated statistical hypotheses: Pearson’s chi-square test, Z-score, Cramer’s V, and the non-parametric Mann–Whitney test.
The Pearson chi-square test is used to determine statistically significant differences between two or more selected groups. Prior to this, it is necessary to calculate the characteristics of descriptive statistics (descriptive characteristics—absolute and relative frequency; see Table 1). Their contribution lies in (a) presenting the basic structure of respondents’ answers to selected statements; and (b) their subsequent use in applying tests. To determine the descriptive statistics of selected statements in accordance with the selected criteria (number of kilometers driven and type of employment contract of the respondent), the method of simple sorting was used— sorting using two statistical characters. The results are summarized in clear contingency tables (e.g., see Table 2).
The formula for calculating the test statistic (TS) for the Chi-square test is found in several scientific, professional, and educational publications [56,57]. Before calculating the TS for the Chi-square test, it is necessary to calculate the expected (theoretical) frequencies. A prerequisite for applying the Chi-square test is that all respondent groups meet the minimum required expected frequency of 5 [58]. The critical region for testing is determined based on the test’s significance level and degrees of freedom. The significance level (α) is set at 0.05 (5%). The degrees of freedom (v) are determined as the product of (r-1) and (s-1), where (r-1) is the number of levels of the first statistical characteristic minus one, and (s-1) is the number of levels of the second statistical characteristic minus one [59]. When applying the Chi-square test, the degrees of freedom were determined to be v = 2. If the calculated value of the test statistic is lower than the critical region of testing, then the null hypothesis cannot be rejected [60]. The Chi-square test was used to determine whether there are statistically significant differences in attitude between respondents to selected statements based on the chosen criterion. The statistical method is suitable for scaling the attitudes of the selected sample of respondents [61]. The power of the test [57,62] depends on the appropriate distribution of actual and expected frequencies.
The strength of the relationship between selected statements and the period of data collection was calculated using Cramer’s V. The categories of Cramer’s V and their interpretations are described by several authors [63]. The criteria for applying the selected mathematical and statistical methods are (i) random sampling of the sample; and (ii) a sufficiently robust number of respondents in the selected groups. These assumptions were accepted. All calculations were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics ver. 28 statistical software.

3.4. Structure of Respondents

Structure of the selected sample of respondents (n = 239) in accordance with the following characteristics: gender of the respondent—male: 213 (89.1%); female: 26 (10.9%); age of the respondent—less than or equal to 40 years: 64 (26.7%); from 41 to 50 years: 63 (26.4%); from 51 to 60 years: 80 (33.5%) and over 60 years: 32 (13.4%); type of employment contract—professional driver (main employment in transport): 156 (65.3%); occasional driver (without employment in transport)—83 (34.7%); number of kilometers driven per year—less than 10,000 km: 38 (15.9%); from 10,001 to 30,000 km: 78 (32.6%); 30,001—60,000 km: 47 (19.7%); 60,001 km—100,000 km: 29 (12.1%); more than 100,000 km: 47 (19.7%); source of information about the front brake light: company, colleagues, work supervisor—126 (52.7%); media—TV, internet, radio—113 (47.3%); respondent’s attitude towards complete information about the front brake light—yes: 173 (72.4%); no: 43 (18.0%); I don’t know: 23 (9.6%).

4. Empirical Results

Out of the total number of 239 (100%) respondents, 216 (90.37%) respondents already knew about (or had experience with) the front brake light, and 23 (9.63%) respondents did not know about, and had not heard of, the innovative, novel front brake light.
The aim of the statistical analysis is to analyze the attitudes of respondents who already had experience with the front brake light (n = 216). Out of the aforementioned number of respondents, 173 (80.1%) stated that they were well informed about the front brake light, and 43 (19.1%) respondents stated that they needed further information about the front brake light.
Table 1 contains the results of the descriptive characteristics of the selected variables (V1_1; …; V1_7) of the case study.
The following tables (see Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6, Table 7 and Table 8) evaluate selected traffic situations (V1_1, …, V1_7) with the implementation of the front brake light in road traffic, in accordance with the following characteristics: type of employment (main employment—138 (63.9%); no employment—78 (36.1%)) and the number of kilometers driven (up to 60,000 km—152 (70.4%); more than 60,000 km—64 (29.6%)).
The structure of respondents’ perceptions, with regard to the front braking light in road transport, in the case of traffic comprising crossing vehicles and pedestrians, is as follows: (1 + 2)—27 (12.5%) respondents; (3)—35 (16.2%) respondents; and (4 + 5)—154 (71.3%) respondents. The comparison of respondents’ attitudes towards V1_1 is the subject of Table 2.
Type of employment is not a statistically significant characteristic of respondents when evaluating the front brake light in the case of traffic comprising crossing vehicles and pedestrians (see Table 1; p-val. = 0.820). Hypothesis H1_V_1 was rejected. There are statistically significant differences in the attitudes of respondents when evaluating the front brake light in the case of traffic comprising crossing vehicles and pedestrians in accordance with the number of kilometers driven. The influence of this characteristic is weak (Cramer’s V = 0.146). Hypothesis H2_V_1 was accepted at a significance level of 10%.
The structure of respondents’ perceptions, with regard to the front braking light in road traffic, in the case of traffic comprising crossing multiple vehicles, is as follows: (1 + 2)—25 (11.6%) respondents, (3)—56 (25.9%) respondents, and (4 + 5)—135 (62.5%) respondents. The comparison of respondents’ attitudes regarding V1_2 is the subject of Table 3.
Type of employment contract is not a statistically significant characteristic of the respondent when evaluating the front brake light when crossing traffic with multiple vehicles (see Table 2; p-val. = 0.678). Hypothesis H1_V_2 was rejected. The number of kilometers driven by the respondent is a statistically significant characteristic when evaluating the front brake light when crossing traffic with multiple vehicles. The influence of this characteristic is moderately strong (Cramer’s V = 0.150). Hypothesis H2_V_2 was accepted.
The structure of the respondents’ perception of the front braking light in road transport when overtaking is as follows: (1 + 2)—40 (18.5%) respondents; (3)—85 (39.4%) respondents, and (4 + 5)—91 (42.1%) respondents. The comparison of the respondents’ attitudes towards V1_3 is the subject of Table 4.
Type of employment and the number of kilometers driven are not statistically significant characteristics of the respondent when evaluating the front brake light when overtaking (see Table 3; p-val. = 0.106 and p-val. = 0.782). Hypotheses H1_V_3 and H2_V_3 were rejected.
The structure of the respondents’ perceptions of the front braking light in road transport at pedestrian crossings is as follows: (1 + 2)—31 (14.4%) respondents; (3)—25 (11.6%) respondents, and (4 + 5)—160 (74.1%) respondents. The comparison of respondents’ attitudes towards V1_4 is the subject of Table 5.
Type of employment contract is not a statistically significant characteristic of the respondent when evaluating the front brake light at pedestrian crossings (see Table 4; p-val. = 0.661). Hypothesis H1_V_4 was rejected. The number of kilometers driven by the respondent is a statistically significant characteristic that is important when evaluating the front brake light on pedestrian crossings. The influence of this characteristic is moderately strong (Cramer’s V = 0.153). Hypothesis H2_V_4 was accepted.
The structure of the respondents’ perceptions of the front braking light in road transport when turning left is as follows: (1 + 2)—24 (11.1%) respondents; (3)—55 (25.5%) respondents, and (4 + 5)—137 (63.4%) respondents. The comparison of the respondents’ attitudes towards V1_5 is the subject of Table 6.
Type of employment contract and the number of kilometers driven are not statistically significant characteristics of the respondent when evaluating the front brake light when turning left (see Table 5; p-val. = 0.452 and p-val. = 0.842). Hypotheses H1_V_5 and H2_V_5 were rejected.
The structure of the respondents’ perceptions of the front braking light in road transport when changing lanes on a highway is as follows: (1 + 2)—40 (18.5%) respondents; (3)—73 (33.8%) respondents; and (4 + 5)—103 (47.7%) respondents. The comparison of respondents’ attitudes towards V1_6 is the subject of Table 7.
Type of employment contract and the number of kilometers driven by the respondent are not statistically significant characteristics when evaluating the front brake light during a lane change on a highway (see Table 6; p-val. = 0.887 and p-val. = 0.479). Hypotheses H1_V_6 and H2_V_6 were rejected.
The structure of respondents’ perceptions of the front braking light in road transport during braking in traffic is as follows: (1 + 2)—21 (9.7%) respondents; (3)—53 (24.6%) respondents; and (4 + 5)—142 (65.7%) respondents. The comparison of respondents’ attitudes towards V1_7 is the subject of Table 8.
The type of employment contract or the number of kilometers driven are not statistically significant characteristics of the respondent when evaluating the front brake light when braking during deceleration in traffic jams (see Table 6; p-val. = 0.887 and p-val. = 0.479). Hypotheses H1_V_6 and H2_V_6 were rejected.
The results obtained in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 were also verified using the non-parametric Mann–Whitney test (see Table 9).
The results above (see Table 8) confirmed statistically significant differences between respondents based on the number of kilometers driven per year when perceiving V1_1 (M–W test: p-val. = 0.058), V1_2 (M-W test: p-val. = 0.076), and V1_4 (M-W test: p-val. = 0.053), at a significance level of 0.1. These results are identical to those obtained from the Chi-square test.

5. Discussion

The empirical results of the research presented interesting findings. More than 70% of respondents stated that the implementation of the innovative feature has a positive impact on the crossing of traffic between vehicles and pedestrians. Respondents who drove less than 60,000 km per year perceived the innovative feature as more useful (72.4%) compared with respondents who drove more than 60,000 km per year. The implementation of the innovative feature in road traffic had a positive impact in the case of traffic comprising multiple crossing vehicles, as reported by 62.5% of respondents. Respondents with a lower number of kilometers driven per year perceived the impact of the innovative feature (63.8%) more positively compared with respondents who had driven a higher number of kilometers (59.4%). Approximately 42% of respondents considered the innovative feature as having a positive impact, increasing safety in road traffic during overtaking. Disparities among respondents, depending on type of employment and number of kilometers driven per year, were not confirmed. Another interesting finding concerns the fact that respondents who drove more than 60,000 km per year (79.8%) considered the innovative feature to have a positive impact on pedestrian crossings in terms of making road traffic much safer, as compared with respondents who had driven fewer than 60,000 kilometers per year (71.7%).
When the front braking light is used in road traffic, it has a positive impact on safety when turning left for 63.4% of respondents, when changing lanes on a highway for 47.7% of respondents, and when braking in a queue for 65.7% of respondents. Disparities between respondents, in accordance with their employment contract type or the number of kilometers driven per year, were not confirmed with regard to their perceptions of the safety impact of the front braking light when turning left, changing lanes on a highway, or braking in a queue.
The results of the questionnaire show that only 22% of road users considered the innovative feature of the front brake light to be unnecessary. On the other hand, as many as 54% of road users considered the implementation of the innovative feature to be necessary or very necessary in road traffic.
In Slovakia, this is a unique study, as it is the first study conducted in real traffic. The study of the front brake light was conducted by Monzel et al. [56] at Berlin airport. The difference between our study and the study by Monzel et al. [56] study is that our German colleagues conducted the study in a non-public area. The study provides empirical evidence of the increased safety of road traffic due to the installation of the front brake light [56]. However, the authors point out the need for research in real-world conditions, as field research at the airport can exhibit false positive and negative signals of the impact of the front brake light with regard to safety. Moreover, 77% of professional drivers in Slovakia believe that the front brake light will increase road safety and they would be satisfied if the front brake light were installed on all vehicles. Differences in respondents’ perceptions of the impact of the front braking light on pedestrian crossings were not confirmed.

6. Theoretical and Practical Implications

The theoretical implications and impact of this research is that there is a new front braking light to enhance road safety. The front brake light is the element that has the potential to improve road safety.
Innovation in the form of a front brake light has the potential to reduce traffic accidents in the following cases:
  • Left turn—when two vehicles meet in traffic, and one is turning left while giving way to the vehicle continuing straight ahead, there is a certain degree of uncertainty for the driver continuing straight ahead as to whether the turning vehicle is giving way [64]. If the turning vehicle begins to brake, the front brake light will light up, and the oncoming vehicle will be informed that the turning vehicle is braking.
  • Lane change—when changing lanes, the driver often works with a high degree of uncertainty in terms of whether the driver in the lane they intend to move into has noticed the turn signals of the vehicle and whether the driver can safely change lanes [65]. If the vehicle in the lane slows down to allow the other vehicle to merge, the front brake light will light up. The driver changing lanes will see the illuminated front brake light, reducing their uncertainty as they have information that the vehicle is allowing them to merge into the next lane.
  • Narrow road—a similar situation arises when the road narrows, and only one vehicle can travel on a particular stretch of road. If a vehicle has information that the oncoming vehicle is braking or has stopped due to a lit front brake light, it means that the driver can continue driving on the narrow section of the road.
  • Pedestrian crossing—pedestrians often work with a high degree of uncertainty because they do not know if drivers have seen them and given them right of way. A pedestrian often waits for eye contact with the driver [66], which is often not possible; for example, at night or in periods of reduced visibility. The illumination of the front brake light means that the driver has perceived the pedestrian and has started to brake.

7. Conclusions

The main goal of the article was to identified disparities in perceptions of an innovative safety element among road users based on their employment status and the number of kilometers driven per year.
Type of employment contract among road traffic participants is not statistically significant when evaluating the selected situations involving the front brake light. Scientific hypothesis 1 (RQ1) was rejected. Almost 75% of respondents considered the innovative feature (front brake light) to increase safety for pedestrians when crossing. Respondents who drove more than 60,000 km per year considered the positive impact of a front braking light in the traffic situations (when crossing traffic comprising vehicles and pedestrians; when crossing traffic comprising multiple vehicles; at pedestrian crossings) to be significantly more important than respondents who drove fewer than 60,000 km per year. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that respondents with fewer kilometers driven (60,000 km) perceived the front brake light significantly more positively in situations concerning traffic comprising crossing vehicles and pedestrians as well as in multi-vehicle traffic situations. Disparities between respondents based on the number of kilometers driven were not confirmed with regard to perceptions of the front brake light in traffic situations such as overtaking, turning left, changing lanes on the highway, and braking in columns. Scientific hypothesis 2 (RQ2) was partially confirmed.
The main users of these research results are the state or public administrative bodies which approve technical requirements for motor vehicles. The maximum effect of improving road safety through the installation of front brake lights can be achieved by making it mandatory for all motor vehicles. However, it is also possible to consider alternatives to mandatory installation on new vehicles and voluntary installation on vehicles already in use. By taking this approach, we would achieve the maximum effect of installing front brake lights over a longer period of time.
The conducted case study has certain limitations. One of them is that data collection was conducted in only one Central European country (Slovak Republic). The initial phase of the research, which involved a pilot analysis, involved 239 respondents. Respondents subjectively evaluated selected statements in the questionnaire, which can also lead to certain biases. The authors applied several statistical tools to verify the outputs. The main phase of research will involve a more robust sample of respondents in future.
Further research should focus on the effect of installing front brake lights on motorcycles, as our research only focused on front brake lights that were installed on cars, trucks, and buses. Additional studies should also focus on the optimal configuration of the front brake light with regard to light intensity and height placement on the vehicle. During our research, the lights were placed on the front of the vehicle in accordance with the technical possibilities, but further research should determine the maximum height for brake light placement.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.P.; methodology, M.P.; validation, J.D.; formal analysis, J.D.; investigation, M.P.; resources, M.P., E.N. and J.D.; data curation, M.P.; writing—original draft preparation, M.P. and J.D.; writing—review and editing, M.P. and J.Z.; visualization, M.P.; supervision, M.P. and E.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is an output of the project NFP313011BWN6 “The implementation framework and business model of the Internet of Things, Industry 4.0 and smart transport”.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Shen, X.; Wei, S. Application of XGBoost for hazardous material road transport accident severity analysis. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 206806–206819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kliestik, T.; Hrosova, L.; Valaskova, K.; Svabova, L. Do Firm in the Tourism Sector Manage Earnings? The Case of the V4 Countries. J. Tour. Ser. 2022, 13, 120–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Inanloo, B.; Tansel, B. A transportation network assessment tool for hazardous material cargo routing: Weighing exposure health risks, proximity to vulnerable areas, delay costs and trucking expenses. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2016, 40, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Vatankhah, S.; Zarra-Nezhad, M.; Amirnejad, G. An empirical assessment of willingness to accept “low-cost” air transport services: Evidence from the Middle East. J. Tour. Ser. 2019, 10, 79–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kliestik, T.; Novak Sedlackova, A.; Bugaj, M.; Novak, A. Stability of profits and earnings management in the transport sector of Visegrad countries. Oeconomia Copernic. 2022, 13, 475–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Shen, X.; Wei, S. Severity analysis of road transport accidents of hazardous materials with machine learning. Traffic Inj. Prev. 2021, 22, 324–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Cioca, L.; Ivascu, L. Risk indicators and road accident analysis for the period 2012–2016. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Savolainen, P.; Mannering, F.; Lord, D.; Quddus, M. The statistical analysis of highway crash-injury severities: A review and assessment of methodological alternatives. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 1666–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Kumar, S.; Toshniwal, D. A data mining framework to analyze road accident data. J. Big Data 2015, 2, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Janovská, K.; Vozňáková, I.; Besta, P.; Šafránek, M. Ecological and economic multicriteria optimization of operating alternative propulsion vehicles within the city of Ostrava in the Czech Republic. Equilibrium Q. J. Econ. Econ. Policy 2021, 16, 907–943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. WHO. Global Status Report on Road Safety 2018; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018; p. 403. ISBN 9789241565684. [Google Scholar]
  12. Najaf, P.; Thill, J.C.; Zhang, W.; Fields, M.G. City-level urban form and traffic safety: A structural equation modeling analysis of direct and indirect effects. J. Transp. Geogr. 2018, 69, 257–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pauer, G. Development potentials and strategic objectives of intelligent transport systems improving road safety. Trans. Telecommun. J. 2017, 18, 15–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Elliott, E.M.; Bell, R.; Gorin, S.; Robinson, N.; Marsh, J.E. Auditory distraction can be studied online! A direct comparison between in-person and online experimentation. J. Cogn. Psychol. 2022, 34, 307–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Radu, V.; Dumitrescu, C.; Vasile, E.; Tăbîrcă, A.I.; Stefan, M.C.; Manea, L.; Radu, F. Modeling and Prediction of Sustainable Urban Mobility Using Game Theory Multiagent and the Golden Template Algorithm. Electronics 2023, 12, 1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Barletta, V.S.; Caivano, D.; Vincentiis, M.D.; Ragone, A.; Scalera, M.; Martín, M.A.S. V-SOC4AS: A Vehicle-SOC for Improving Automotive Security. Algorithms 2023, 16, 112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mayo, L.F.; Maglasang, R.N.; Moridpour, S.; Taboada, E.B. Impact of transport policies to commuter safety in urban cities of a developing country: A sustainability and system perspective. Case Stud. Transp. Policy 2022, 10, 2138–2152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dvorský, J.; Petráková, Z. Effect of business risks on the business future by czech and slovak SMEs in the segment transport and services. Transp. Res. Procedia 2021, 55, 1444–1451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Hordofa, G.G.; Assegid, S.; Girma, A.; Weldemarium, T.D. Prevalence of fatality and associated factors of road traffic accidents among victims reported to burayu town police stations, between 2010 and 2015, ethiopia. J. Transp. Health 2018, 10, 186–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wang, Y.; Xu, J.; Liu, X.; Zheng, Z.; Zhang, H.; Wang, C. Analysis on Risk Characteristics of Traffic Accidents in Small-Spacing Expressway Interchange. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 9938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Canonica, A.C.; Alonso, A.C.; da Silva, V.C.; Bombana, H.S.; Muzaurieta, A.A.; Leyton, V.; Greve, J.M.D. Factors Contributing to Traffic Accidents in Hospitalized Patients in Terms of Severity and Functionality. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Garrisson, H.; Scholey, A.; Ogden, E.; Benson, S. The effects of alcohol intoxication on cognitive functions critical for driving: A systematic review. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2021, 154, 106052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zhao, C.; Chang, X.; Xie, T. Unsupervised anomaly detection based method of risk evaluation for road traffic accident. Appl. Intell. 2023, 53, 369–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Useche, S.; Gómez, V.; Cendales, B. Stress-related Psychosocial Factors at Work, Fatigue, and Risky Driving Behavior in Bus Rapid Transport (BRT) Drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 104, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Jiang, Y.; Zhao, N.; Peng, L.L.; Xin, J.Z.; Liu, S.Y. Fast simulation of fully non-stationary wind fields using a new matrix factorization assisted interpolation method. Mech. Syst. Signal Process 2022, 172, 108973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Olojede, O.; Daramola, O.; Olufemi, B. Metropolitan transport safety and security: An african experience. J. Transp. Saf. Secur. 2017, 9, 383–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lei, T.; Peng, J.; Liu, X.L.; Luo, Q. A Bayesian network based framework for real-time crash prediction on the basic freeway segments of urban expressways. J. Adv. Transp. 2021, 45, 373–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Porpiglia, N.M.; Tagliaro, F.; Micciolo, R.; Canal, L.; Musile, G.; Bortolotti, F. New evidence of high association between carbohydrate deficient transferrin (CDT) and alcohol-related road traffic accidents. A retrospective study on 929 injured drivers. Forensic Sci. Intern. 2022, 340, 111438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Alonso, F.; Esteban, C.; Sanmartín, J.; Useche, S. Reported prevalence of health conditions that affect drivers. Cogent Med. 2017, 4, 1303920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Walton, D.; Jenkins, D.; Thoreau, R.; Kingham, S.; Keall, M. Why is the rate of annual road fatalities increasing? A unit record analysis of New Zealand data (2010–2017). J. Saf. Res. 2020, 72, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Albert, D.A.; Claude Ouimet, M.; Brown, T.G. Negative mood mind wandering and unsafe driving in young male drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2022, 178, 106867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hyun, K.K.; Jeong, K.; Tok, A.; Ritchie, S.G. Assessing crash risk considering vehicle interactions with trucks using point detector data. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 130, 75–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Horswill, M.S.; Hill, A.; Silapurem, L. The development and validation of video-based measures of drivers’ following distance and gap acceptance behaviours. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 146, 105626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hjorthol, R. Decreasing popularity of the car? changes in driving licence and access to a car among young adults over a 25-year period in norway. J. Transp. Geogr. 2016, 51, 140–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Zangi, N.; Srour-Zreik, R.; Ridel, D.; Chasidim, H.; Borowsky, A. Driver distraction and its effects on partially automated driving performance: A driving simulator study among young-experienced drivers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2022, 166, 106565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zaranka, J.; Pečeliūnas, R.; Žuraulis, V. A road safety-based selection methodology for professional drivers: Behaviour and accident rate analysis. Intern. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 12487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shi, L.; Zheng, L.; Jin, D.; Lin, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Zhang, M. Assessment of combination of automated pupillometry and heart rate variability to detect driving fatigue. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 828428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yu, P.K.; Radcliffe, J.; Gerry Taylor, H.; Amin, R.S.; Baldassari, C.M.; Boswick, T.; Chervin, R.D.; Elden, L.M.; Furth, S.L.; Garetz, S.L.; et al. Neurobehavioral morbidity of pediatric mild sleep-disordered breathing and obstructive sleep apnea. Sleep 2022, 45, zsac035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Huhta, R.; Hirvonen, K.; Partinen, M. Prevalence of sleep apnea and daytime sleepiness in professional truck drivers. Sleep Med. 2021, 81, 136–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Felix, M.; Alvarez, M.B.I.; Vanegas, E.; Bajaña, M.J.F.; Sarfraz, Z.; Sarfraz, A.; Michel, J.; Cherrez-Ojeda, I. Risk of obstructive sleep apnea and traffic accidents among male bus drivers in ecuador: Is there a significant relationship? Ann. Med. Surg. 2022, 74, 103296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Islam Bin, M.; Kanitpong, K. Identification of factors in road accidents through in-depth accident analysis. IATSS Res. 2008, 32, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Liang, C.; Ghazel, M.; Cazier, O.; El-Koursi, E. Developing accident prediction model for railway level crossings. Saf. Sci. 2018, 101, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Zhang, Z.; Akinci, B.; Qian, S. Inferring the causal effect of work zones on crashes: Methodology and a case study. Anal. Methods Accid. Res. 2022, 33, 100203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Bonin, P.; Thiebaut, G.; Bugaiska, A.; Méot, A. Mixed evidence for a richness-of-encoding account of animacy effects in memory from the generation-of-ideas paradigm. Curr. Psychol. 2022, 41, 1653–1662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mumtaz, S.; Ashraf, M.I.; Menon, V.G.; Abbas, T.; Al-Dulaimi, A. Guest editorial intelligent autonomous transportation system with 6G—series—part III. IEEE Trans. Intell. Transp. Sys. 2023, 24, 2035–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tengilimoglu, O.; Carsten, O.; Wadud, Z. Infrastructure requirements for the safe operation of automated vehicles: Opinions from experts and stakeholders. Transp. Policy 2023, 133, 209–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bailey, T.; Wundersitz, L.; O’Donnell, K.; Rasch, A. Identifying best practices in a process evaluation of a novice driver education program. Eval. Progr. Plan. 2023, 93, 102105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Wu, L.; Lu, B. A route choice model for road network users in mountainous cities considering vulnerability. J. Adv. Transp. 2022, 2022, 5425895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Cordellieri, P.; Baralla, F.; Ferlazzo, F.; Sgalla, R.; Piccardi, L.; Giannini, A.M. Gender Effects in Young Road Users on Road Safety Attitudes, Behaviors and Risk Perception. Front. Psychol. 2016, 7, 1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Mühl, K.; Vogt, A.; Baumann, M. Reducing uncertainty by anticipation in traffic—The effect of situational characteristics and criticality on behavioral, subjective, and psychophysiological parameters. Transp. Res. Part F Traf. Psychol. Behav. 2020, 75, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bakhshi, V.; Aghabayk, K.; Parishad, N.; Shiwakoti, N. Evaluating Rainy Weather Effects on Driving Behaviour Dimensions of Driving Behaviour Questionnaire. J. Adv. Transp. 2022, 2022, 6000715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Memarian, M.; Lazuras, L.; Rowe, R.; Karimipour, M. Impulsivity and self-regulation: A dual-process model of risky driving in young drivers in Iran. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2023, 187, 107055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. González-Iglesias, B.; Gómez-Fraguela, J.A.; Luengo-Martín, Á. Driving anger and traffic violations: Gender differences. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2012, 15, 404–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sucha, M.; Dostal, D.; Dominik, T. Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ) in the sample of Czech drivers. Ceskoslovenska Psychol. 2019, 63, 265–279. [Google Scholar]
  55. Monzel, M.; Keidel, K.; Schubert, W.; Banse, R. A field study investigating road safety effects of a front brake light. IET Intell. Transp. Syst. 2021, 15, 1043–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Oluyede, B.O. A modified chi-square test of independence against a class of ordered alternatives in an r x c contingency table. Can. J. Stat. 1994, 22, 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Agresti, A. A survey of exact inference for contingency tables. Stat. Sci. 1992, 7, 131–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Babin, B.J.; Hair, J.F.; Boles, J.S. Publishing research in marketing journals using structural equation modeling. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2008, 16, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hosmane, B.S. Improved likelihood ratio tests and pearson chi-square tests for independence in two dimensional contingency tables. Com. Stat.–Theo. Meth. 1986, 15, 1875–1888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Baglivo, J.; Olivier, D.; Pagano, M. Methods for the analysis of contingency tables with large and small cell counts. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1988, 83, 1006–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Goodman, L.A. The multivariate analysis of qualitative data: Interactions among multiple classifications. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1970, 65, 226–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Rao, J.N.K.; Scott, A.J. The analysis of categorical data from complex sample surveys: Chi-squared tests for goodness of fit and independence in two-way tables. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1981, 76, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Akoglu, H. User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turk. J. Emerg. Med. 2018, 18, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Manirul Islam, S.; Washington, S.; Kim, J.; Haque, M. A comprehensive analysis on the effects of signal strategies, intersection geometry, and traffic operation factors on right-turn crashes at signalised intersections: An application of hierarchical crash frequency model. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2022, 171, 106663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Xiang, W.; Wang, C.; Li, X.; Xue, Q.; Liu, X. Optimizing guidance signage system to improve drivers’ lane-changing behavior at the expressway toll plaza. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022, 90, 382–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Onkhar, V.; Bazilinskyy, P.; Dodou, D.; de Winter, J.C.F. The effect of drivers’ eye contact on pedestrians’ perceived safety. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2022, 84, 194–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Descriptive analysis of variables.
Table 1. Descriptive analysis of variables.
DAV1_1V1_2V1_3V1_4V1_5V1_6V1_7
Mean4.1764.0193.4724.1944.0463.5834.120
SE0.0960.0950.1010.0990.0940.1040.091
SD1.4061.3911.4881.4561.3771.5231.331
Variance1.9781.9352.2132.1201.8962.3191.771
Kurtosis0.484−0.153−1.0950.518−0.052−1.0810.249
Skewness−1.410−1.080−0.412−1.474−1.120−0.547−1.226
Minimum1111111
Maximum5555555
Sum902868750906874774890
N216216216216216216216
Note: DA—Descriptive analysis; SE—Standard Error; SD—Standard Deviation; N—Number of respondents. Source: own research results.
Table
Table 2. The attitudes of respondents in the case of traffic comprising crossing vehicles and pedestrians.
Table 2. The attitudes of respondents in the case of traffic comprising crossing vehicles and pedestrians.
V1_1Type of EmploymentV1_1Number of Driven Kilometers
MainNoneWithin 60,000 kmMore than 60,000 km
1 + 217101 + 2225
%12.3%12.8%%14.5%7.8%
3241132015
%17.4%14.1%%13.2%23.4%
4 + 597574 + 511044
%70.3%73.1%%72.4%68.8%
Together138 (100%)78 (100%)Together152 (100%)64 (100%)
CHS (p-val.)0.397 (0.820)CHS (p-val.)4.618 (0.095 *)
Note: CHS—Chi-square; * α = 0.1. Source: own research results.
Table
Table 3. Attitudes of respondents in the case of traffic comprising multiple crossing vehicles.
Table 3. Attitudes of respondents in the case of traffic comprising multiple crossing vehicles.
V1_2Type of EmploymentV1_2Number of Driven Kilometers
MainNoneWithin 60,000 kmMore than 60,000 km
1 + 214111 + 2215
%10.1%14.1%%13.8%6.2%
3362033421
%26.1%25.6%%22.4%34.4%
4 + 588474 + 59738
%63.8%60.3%%63.8%59.4%
Together138 (100%)78 (100%)Together152 (100%)64 (100%)
CHS (p-val.)0.777 (0.678)CHS (p-val.)4.874 (0.087 *)
Note: CHS—Chi-square; * α = 0.1. Source: own research results.
Table
Table 4. Attitudes of respondents regarding overtaking.
Table 4. Attitudes of respondents regarding overtaking.
V1_3Type of EmploymentV1_3Number of Driven Kilometers
MainNoneWithin 60,000 kmMore than 60,000 km
1 + 228121 + 22812
%20.3%15.4%%18.4%18.8%
3473836223
%34.1%48.7%%40.8%35.9%
4 + 563284 + 56229
%45.7%35.9%%40.8%45.3%
Together138 (100%)78 (100%)Together152 (100%)64 (100%)
CHS (p-val.)4.495 (0.106)CHS (p-val.)0.491 (0.782)
Note: CHS—Chi-square. Source: own research results.
Table
Table 5. Attitudes of respondents regarding the use of the innovation at pedestrian crossings.
Table 5. Attitudes of respondents regarding the use of the innovation at pedestrian crossings.
V1_4Type of EmploymentV1_4Number of Driven Kilometers
MainNoneWithin 60,000 kmMore than 60,000 km
1 + 218131 + 2274
%13.0%16.7%%17.8%6.3%
315103169
%10.9%12.8%%10.5%14.0%
4 + 5105554 + 510951
%76.1%70.5%%71.7%79.7%
Together138 (100%)78 (100%)Together152 (100%)64 (100%)
CHS (p-val.)0.829 (0.661)CHS (p-val.)5.033 (0.081 *)
Note: CHS—Chi-square; * α = 0.1. Source: own research results.
Table
Table 6. Attitudes of respondents towards left turns.
Table 6. Attitudes of respondents towards left turns.
V1_5Type of EmploymentV1_5Number of Driven Kilometers
MainNoneWithin 60,000 kmMore than 60,000 km
1 + 21591 + 2177
%10.9%11.5%%11.2%10.9%
3391633718
%28.2%20.5%%24.3%28.1%
4 + 584534 + 59839
%60.9%68.0%%64.5%61.0%
Together138 (100%)78 (100%)Together152 (100%)64 (100%)
CHS (p-val.)1.589 (0.452)CHS (p-val.)0.344 (0.842)
Note: CHS—Chi-square. Source: own research results.
Table
Table 7. Attitudes of respondents towards the innovation in road transport when changing lanes on a highway.
Table 7. Attitudes of respondents towards the innovation in road transport when changing lanes on a highway.
V1_6Type of EmploymentV1_6Number of Driven Kilometers
MainNoneWithin 60,000 kmMore than 60,000 km
1 + 226141 + 22515
%18.8%17.9%%16.4%23.4%
3452835320
%32.6%35.9%%34.9%31.3%
4 + 567364 + 57429
%48.6%46.2%%48.7%45.3%
Together138 (100%)78 (100%)Together152 (100%)64 (100%)
CHS (p-val.)0.241 (0.887)CHS (p-val.)1.470 (0.479)
Note: CHS—Chi-square. Source: own research results.
Table
Table 8. Attitudes of respondents towards braking in traffic jams.
Table 8. Attitudes of respondents towards braking in traffic jams.
V1_7Type of EmploymentV1_7Number of Driven Kilometers
MainNoneWithin 60,000 kmMore than 60,000 km
1 + 21381 + 2156
%9.4%10.3%%9.9%9.4%
3341933914
%24.6%24.4%%25.7%21.9%
4 + 591514 + 59844
%66.0%65.3%%64.4%68.7%
Together138 (100%)78 (100%)Together152 (100%)64 (100%)
CHS (p-val.)0.040 (0.980)CHS (p-val.)0.399 (0.819)
Note: CHS—Chi-square. Source: own research results.
Table
Table 9. Attitudes of respondents towards turning left.
Table 9. Attitudes of respondents towards turning left.
TEThe Evaluation of the Front Braking Light in Selected Traffic Situations
V1_1V1_2V1_3V1_4V1_5V1_6V1_7
MR1120.24121.35123.13121.21117.19119.97122.13
2119.55117.46114.13117.72125.29120.06116.00
M–W test
(p-val.)		0.9390.6680.3200.6770.3690.9920.492
NKDV1_1V1_2V1_3V1_4V1_5V1_6V1_7
MR3121.83129.68118.63116.61120.24120.67118.29
4106.09108.53122.93137.28119.49118.57123.68
M–W test
(p-val.)		0.058 *0.076 *0.6680.053 *0.9360.8220.554
Note: MR—Mean Rank; M—W test—Mann–Whitney test; TE—Type of Employment; NDK—Number of Kilometers Driven; 1—Primary employment status; 2—No employment status; 3—Within 60,000 km; 4—More than 60,000 km; * α = 0.1. Source: own research results.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Poliak, M.; Dvorský, J.; Zýka, J.; Nica, E. Evaluation of a Front Braking Light for Improving Safety in Road Transport. Mathematics 2023, 11, 3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11143058

AMA Style

Poliak M, Dvorský J, Zýka J, Nica E. Evaluation of a Front Braking Light for Improving Safety in Road Transport. Mathematics. 2023; 11(14):3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11143058

Chicago/Turabian Style

Poliak, Miloš, Ján Dvorský, Jan Zýka, and Elvira Nica. 2023. "Evaluation of a Front Braking Light for Improving Safety in Road Transport" Mathematics 11, no. 14: 3058. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11143058

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop