Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy ›› 2020, Vol. 11 ›› Issue (4): 511-517.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2020.04.011
• Automotive Safety • Previous Articles Next Articles
YUAN Quan1(
), YU Di2,*(
), XIAO Ruixuan1, SHI Yi3, WANG Mingzhi3
Received:2020-09-25
Online:2020-12-30
Published:2021-01-04
Contact:
YU Di
E-mail:yuanq@tsinghua.edu.cn;yudi@nefu.edu.cn
CLC Number:
YUAN Quan, YU Di, XIAO Ruixuan, SHI Yi, WANG Mingzhi. The influence characteristics of pedestrian mental risk image under the interaction of multiple factors[J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2020, 11(4): 511-517.
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: https://www.journalase.com/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1674-8484.2020.04.011
| 方差方程的 Levene 检验 | 均值方程的 T 检验 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig | t | df | Sig(双侧) | 均值差值 | 标准误差 | 差分 95% 下限 | 置信区间 上限 | ||
| 风险 举动 | 方差相等 | 0.240 | 0.625 | -1.675 | 367 | 0.095 | -0.09313 | 0.055 61 | -0.202 48 | 0.016 22 |
| 方差不相等 | -1.675 | 366.668 | 0.095 | -0.09313 | 0.055 60 | -0.202 46 | 0.016 20 | |||
| 方差方程的 Levene 检验 | 均值方程的 T 检验 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F | Sig | t | df | Sig(双侧) | 均值差值 | 标准误差 | 差分 95% 下限 | 置信区间 上限 | ||
| 风险 举动 | 方差相等 | 0.240 | 0.625 | -1.675 | 367 | 0.095 | -0.09313 | 0.055 61 | -0.202 48 | 0.016 22 |
| 方差不相等 | -1.675 | 366.668 | 0.095 | -0.09313 | 0.055 60 | -0.202 46 | 0.016 20 | |||
| 类别 | 参数② | A | B | C | D | E | G | H |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Pearson相关性 | 0.187 | 0.236 | 0.509 | 0.144 | 0.184 | 0.169 | 1.000 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.006 | 0.000 | 0.001 | - | |
| B | Pearson相关性 | 1.000 | 0.345 | 0.087 | -0.060 | -0.192 | 0.001 | 0.187 |
| 显著性(双尾) | - | 0.000 | 0.094 | 0.250 | 0.000 | 0.978 | 0.000 | |
| C | Pearson相关性 | 0.345 | 1.000 | 0.300 | 0.067 | 0.027 | 0.010 | 0.236 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | 0.198 | 0.611 | 0.846 | 0.000 | |
| D | Pearson相关性 | 0.087 | 0.300 | 1.000 | 0.080 | 0.157 | 0.166 | 0.509 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.094 | 0.000 | - | 0.125 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.000 | |
| E | Pearson相关性 | -0.060 | 0.067 | 0.080 | 1.000 | 0.272 | 0.079 | 0.144 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.250 | 0.198 | 0.125 | - | 0.000 | 0.131 | 0.006 | |
| G | Pearson相关性 | -0.192 | 0.027 | 0.157 | 0.272 | 1.000 | 0.160 | 0.184 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.000 | 0.611 | 0.003 | 0.000 | - | 0.002 | 0.000 | |
| H | Pearson相关性 | -0.001 | 0.010 | 0.166 | 0.079 | 0.160 | 1.000 | 0.169 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.978 | 0.846 | 0.001 | 0.131 | 0.002 | - | 0.001 | |
| Z | Pearson相关性 | -0.168 | 0.055 | 0.154 | 0.732 | 0.854 | 0.156 | 0.208 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.001 | 0.291 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 类别 | 参数② | A | B | C | D | E | G | H |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | Pearson相关性 | 0.187 | 0.236 | 0.509 | 0.144 | 0.184 | 0.169 | 1.000 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.006 | 0.000 | 0.001 | - | |
| B | Pearson相关性 | 1.000 | 0.345 | 0.087 | -0.060 | -0.192 | 0.001 | 0.187 |
| 显著性(双尾) | - | 0.000 | 0.094 | 0.250 | 0.000 | 0.978 | 0.000 | |
| C | Pearson相关性 | 0.345 | 1.000 | 0.300 | 0.067 | 0.027 | 0.010 | 0.236 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.000 | - | 0.000 | 0.198 | 0.611 | 0.846 | 0.000 | |
| D | Pearson相关性 | 0.087 | 0.300 | 1.000 | 0.080 | 0.157 | 0.166 | 0.509 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.094 | 0.000 | - | 0.125 | 0.003 | 0.001 | 0.000 | |
| E | Pearson相关性 | -0.060 | 0.067 | 0.080 | 1.000 | 0.272 | 0.079 | 0.144 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.250 | 0.198 | 0.125 | - | 0.000 | 0.131 | 0.006 | |
| G | Pearson相关性 | -0.192 | 0.027 | 0.157 | 0.272 | 1.000 | 0.160 | 0.184 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.000 | 0.611 | 0.003 | 0.000 | - | 0.002 | 0.000 | |
| H | Pearson相关性 | -0.001 | 0.010 | 0.166 | 0.079 | 0.160 | 1.000 | 0.169 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.978 | 0.846 | 0.001 | 0.131 | 0.002 | - | 0.001 | |
| Z | Pearson相关性 | -0.168 | 0.055 | 0.154 | 0.732 | 0.854 | 0.156 | 0.208 |
| 显著性(双尾) | 0.001 | 0.291 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| 模型 | 非标准化系数 | 标准化系数 | t | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 回归系数α | 标准误差 | 回归系数 | |||
| (常量) | 2.147 | 0.291 | 7.386 | 0.000 | |
| 天气影响注意力的等级 | 0.145 | 0.039 | 0.187 | 3.692 | 0.000 |
| 道路条件影响横穿马路的等级 | -0.067 | 0.031 | -0.112 | -2.166 | 0.031 |
| 交通规则熟度 | 0.151 | 0.053 | 0.147 | 2.834 | 0.005 |
| 驾驶经历 | -0.096 | 0.034 | -0.150 | -2.838 | 0.005 |
| 违反交通规则的感受 | 0.187 | 0.051 | 0.188 | 3.696 | 0.000 |
| 与人出行的交通行为 | 0.071 | 0.035 | 0.100 | 2.013 | 0.045 |
| 模型 | 非标准化系数 | 标准化系数 | t | Sig. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 回归系数α | 标准误差 | 回归系数 | |||
| (常量) | 2.147 | 0.291 | 7.386 | 0.000 | |
| 天气影响注意力的等级 | 0.145 | 0.039 | 0.187 | 3.692 | 0.000 |
| 道路条件影响横穿马路的等级 | -0.067 | 0.031 | -0.112 | -2.166 | 0.031 |
| 交通规则熟度 | 0.151 | 0.053 | 0.147 | 2.834 | 0.005 |
| 驾驶经历 | -0.096 | 0.034 | -0.150 | -2.838 | 0.005 |
| 违反交通规则的感受 | 0.187 | 0.051 | 0.188 | 3.696 | 0.000 |
| 与人出行的交通行为 | 0.071 | 0.035 | 0.100 | 2.013 | 0.045 |
| [1] | Lennon A, Oviedo-Trespalacios O, Matthews S. Pedestrian self-reported use of smart phones: Positive attitudes and high exposure influence intentions to cross the road while distracted[J]. Accid Analy Prev, 2017,98(JAN.):338-347. |
| [2] | Schwebel D C, Stavrinos D, Byington K W, et al. Distraction and pedestrian safety: How talking on the phone, texting, and listening to music impact crossing the street[J]. Accid Analy Prev, 2012,45:266-271. |
| [3] |
Mcghie A, Lewis I, Hyde M K. The influence of conformity and group identity on drink walking intentions: Comparing intentions to drink walk across risky pedestrian crossing scenarios[J]. Accid Anal Prev, 2012,45(1):639-645.
doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2011.09.035 URL |
| [4] | Mohamadi H A, Cherry C R. Walking under the influence of the alcohol: A case study of pedestrian crashes in Tennessee[J]. Accid Analy Prev, 2018,121:64-70. |
| [5] | Haque R, Clapoudis N, King M, et al. Walking when intoxicated: An investigation of the factors which influence individuals’ drink walking intentions[J]. Safe Sci, 2012,50(3):378-384. |
| [6] | JIANG Kang, LING Feiyang, FENG Zhongxiang, et al. Effects of mobile phone distraction on pedestrians' crossing behavior and visual attention allocation at a signalized intersection: An outdoor experimental study[J]. Accid Analy Prev, 2018,115(6):170-177. |
| [7] | Mwakalonge A J, Siuhi B S, White A J. Distracted walking: Examining the extent to pedestrian safety problems[J]. J Traff Transport Engi (English Edit), 2015,2(5):327-337. |
| [8] | NI Ying, CAO Yingying, LI Keping. Pedestrians' safety perception at signalized intersections in Shanghai[J]. Transport Res Procedia, 2017,25:1960-1968. |
| [9] | Minhas K S, Batool Z, Malik B Z, et al. Pedestrian environment and behavior in Lahore, Pakistan[J]. J Transport Health, 2017,7(Part B):181-189. |
| [10] | Nordfjaern T, Simsekoglu O. The role of cultural factors and attitudes for pedestrian behaviour in an urban Turkish sample[J]. Transport Res, 2013,21F(11):181-193. |
| [11] |
Papadimitriou E, Lassarre S, Yannis G. Pedestrian risk taking while road crossing: A comparison of observed and declared behavior[J]. Transport Res Procedia, 2016,14:4354-4363.
doi: 10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.357 URL |
| [12] | 张国强, 王斯琨. 行人过街交通心理与交通行为分析[J]. 东南大学学报: 哲学社会科学版, 2019,21(S2):142-144. |
| ZHANG Guoqiang, WANG Sikun. Analysis of pedestrian traffic psychology and traffic behavior[J]. J Southeast Univ: Philosophy Soc Sci, 2019,21(S2):142-144.(in Chinese) | |
| [13] | 王雪松, 杨俊广, 杨筱菡, 等. 考虑空间相关性的行人宏观安全研究[J]. 中国公路学报, 2018,31(5):136-142. |
| WANG Xuesong, YANG Junguang, YANG Xiaohan, et al. Study on pedestrian macro safety considering spatial correlation[J]. Chin J Highway, 2018,31(5):136-142. (in Chinese) | |
| [14] | 袁潇, 李永娟. 反事实思维对行人交通安全行为意向的影响[J]. 心理科学, 2015(2):388-393. |
| YUAN Xiao, LI Yongjuan. Influence of counterfactual thinking on pedestrian traffic safety behavior intention[J]. Psychological Sci, 2015(2):388-393. (in Chinese) | |
| [15] |
张盈盈, 刘帅, 邱志军, 等. 行人车辆冲突参数分析与安全评价[J]. 哈尔滨工业大学学报, 2012,44(12):123-128.
doi: 10.11918/j.issn.0367-6234.2012.12.022 URL |
| ZHANG Yingying, IU Shuai, QIU Zhijun, et al. Parameter analysis and safety evaluation of pedestrian vehicle conflict[J]. J Harbin Instit Tech, 2012,44(12):123-128. (in Chinese) | |
| [16] |
吴昌旭, 马舒, 庄想灵. 行人过街的认知心理过程和模型[J]. 心理科学进展, 2013,21(7):1141-1149.
doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2013.01141 URL |
| WU Changxu, MA Shu, ZHUANG Xiangling. Cognitive psychological process and model of pedestrian crossing[J]. Prog Psychol Sci, 2013,21(7):1141-1149. (in Chinese) | |
| [17] | 周竹萍, 王炜, 任刚, 等. 基于网络理论的行人从众违法过街行为模型[J]. 北京工业大学学报, 2014,40(3):374-377. |
| ZHOU Zhuping, WANG Wei, REN Gang, et al. Model of pedestrian illegal crossing behavior based on network theory[J]. J Beijing Univ Tech, 2014,40(3):374-377. (in Chinese) | |
| [18] | Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research[J]. Philosophy Rhetoric, 1977,41(4):842-844. |
| [1] | ZHOU Qianxi, WU Chengcheng, HU Zheng, SHI Liangliang. Strategy decision of man-machine co-driving switching in high-speed operation area based on combination game [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2025, 16(3): 487-495. |
| [2] | HE Yongming, ZHAO Liyuan, WANG Fan. Aerodynamic characteristics of superhigh speed vehicles under different crosswind conditions superhighways [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2025, 16(1): 77-85. |
| [3] | CHEN Chun, WANG Chenyu, ZHANG Daowen. Black spot discrimination method for road traffic accidents based on spatiotemporal combination [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2024, 15(3): 321-328. |
| [4] | ZHANG Chen, WEI Wei, CHEN Jiaxing, MA Zhengwei. Design of pedestrian-safety-island height based on traffic accident reconstruction [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2024, 15(2): 178-187. |
| [5] | ZHANG Daowen, LI Min, PANG Shaorong, LUO Qirui. Accident causes and its topological hierarchy analysis for heavy-duty trucks and two-wheelers [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2023, 14(2): 157-164. |
| [6] | CHENG Yufeng, ZOU Tiefang, LI Pingfan. Core risk factors of major guardrail-type traffic accidents based on an integrated DEMATEL/ISM [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2023, 14(2): 165-172. |
| [7] | XIAO Le, ZHOU Hua, WANG Chaojian, LIU Xin. Influencing factors of vehicle damage degree in vehicle-vehicle collision accident at intersection [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2023, 14(1): 23-30. |
| [8] | ZHANG Daowen, WANG Chaojian, JIANG Jun, LI Huawei. Analysis of the severity of vehicle to vehicle accidents considering the interaction of factors [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2022, 13(4): 643-650. |
| [9] | CHEN Jiayong, WU Xinye. Parameter calculation of traffic accidents based on the plastic deformation energy and the improved momentum method [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2022, 13(3): 446-452. |
| [10] | YUAN Quan, QI Yuerui, YU Di, XU Xuecai. Contributing factors and risky scenario of cyclists’ smart phone using behavior [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2022, 13(1): 48-54. |
| [11] | ZHANG Daowen, LIU Qi, QIU Jianbing, LIAO Wenjun, MU Yaoyao, JIN Siyu. Influence of pedestrian’s emergency posture on pedestrian injury in vehicle - pedestrian collision [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2021, 12(4): 456-466. |
| [12] | LI Zhenglei, CHU Duanfeng, HE Yi, LU Liping, WU Chaozhong. Longitudinal control method of cooperative autopilot vehicle platooning considering time delays [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2020, 11(2): 182-188. |
| [13] | LIU Wenchao, HU Mengxia, WANG Yan, LI Yibing. Quick investigation system in vehicle based on binocular vision for traffic accident scenes [J]. Journal Of Automotive Safety And Energy, 2012, 3(3): 239-244. |
| [14] | YUE Guohui, CHEN Xianling, ZHANG Kai. Case analysis of US NHTSA 2010 version of new car assessment program [J]. Journal Of Automotive Safety And Energy, 2012, 3(2): 129-135. |
| [15] | Bing DENG, Zhentai WANG, Jikuang YANG, Chunyu KONG. Comparison of Pedestrian Accident Scenarios in a Chinese Urban City and in Sweden [J]. Journal of Automotive Safety and Energy, 2010, 1(3): 190-194. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||