Introduction:

Road accidents are currently ranked as the eighth largest cause of death in the world, and it is
predicted that by the year 2020 they will be the third largest cause. Over 45,000 people are killed
on the roads in the EC every year, along with 1.5 million reported casualties. This figure could be
as high as 3.5 million when under-reporting is taken into account. This opening statement was
taken from a report prepared by several of Europes leading transport research institutions for the
DUMAS project (Developing Urban Management & Safety) (European Commission, 1999).
Another recent report (Allsop, 1998) highlights the dilemma implicit in modern road transport
systems:
Road traffic accident (RTA), a cause of unnatural death is the third major preventable one
amongst all deaths (C. Ramesh, V.T. Venkatesh, 2013). Motor vehicle accidents are the leading
cause of death in adolescents and young adults worldwide. Nearly three-quarters of road deaths
occur in developing countries and men comprise a mean 80% of casualties. (Odero W, Garner
P, Zwi A 1997).A number of factors influence road accidents as described by Kostyniuk. The
current study tries to find the relationship between road safety awareness and individual
accidents. Road safety awareness basically signifies the information that road users have that can
help them avoid an accident.

Problem Statement & Objectives:

Road accidents are increasing every year and more than 1.2 million people die on roads and as
many as 50 million others are injured and over 90% of deaths occur in developing countries
according to a report(Global Status Report on Road Safety) published by WHO. Pakistani
statistics show that almost 18 to 20 thousand people are affected by road accidents every year.
We the researchers think that individual accidents are significantly affected by road safety
awareness and by increasing awareness among people the number of accidents can be reduced.
This research aims to find out the relation between road safety awareness and individual
accidents and to validate the hypothesis of researchers that the more a person is aware of road
safety less the likelihood of him being involved in an accident.
Research philosophy:
The research philosophy used for this study is quantitative because we are not going to explore
anything rather we are trying to explain the relationship and between road safety awareness and
individual (drivers including male and female) road accidents.

Significance:
This study has practical importance in a way that it can help the government or decision making
authorities to better understand the factors behind individual (drivers including male and female)
road accidents. This better understanding of factors will help them to make policies to increase
level of road safety awareness among drivers.

According to a report published in the news on August 23, 2015 by Fakhar Durrani states that
the last 10 years data on traffic accidents present a horrific picture as average 15 people died
every day in traffic accidents across the country. Sindh proved the deadliest in terms of average
people killed in accidents, followed by Punjab, Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.
According to Pakistan Bureau of Statistics data on traffic accidents in Pakistan from 2004 to
2013, the ratio of killings in road accidents in Sindh was recorded the highest at up to 86 percent.
The overall ratio of deaths in road accidents across the country has been recorded up to 55
percent which according to the experts and former traffic police officials is the highest.
According to the data, total 51,416 people died in 97,739 road accidents across the country. Out
of total casualties, as many as 29,524 were killed in 51,715 accidents in Punjab, 9,639 died in
13,965 accidents in Sindh, 9,494 people died in 27,939 accidents in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and
2,250 people died in Balochistan in 4,085 accidents. Out of the total number of accidents, 43,582
were recorded as fatal which is 47.3 percent. While analyzing the data further in order to know
the ratio of people killed per accidents across the country, it was found that the ratio of deaths per
accident is 55 percent in last 10 years across the country. Similarly, the ratio of injured people per
accident is percent.
These statistics showing an alarming situation as number of road accidents are increasing every
year. So this study will help policy makers to take preventive actions such as road safety
awareness campaigns to put a control on the increasing number of road accidents.

Literature Review:
Road safety or road traffic safety awareness refers to the information that can help the users of
road from being killed or seriously injured in an accident. Road users include. Pedestrians,
motorists, cyclist, vehicle passengers and passengers of public transport.

Road Safety
Awareness

Individual Road
Accidents

The World report on road traffic injury prevention calls for governments to make road safety a
political priority, and highlights recommendations with regard to policy, legislation and
enforcement, and development of institutional capacity to improve road safety [Peden et al.,
2004].

In 2002 Kostyniuk et al., has analyzed 34,224 car crashes and 10,732 fatal car-truck crashes in
which they analyzed main causes behind these accidents. The study concluded that apart from
other causes following human factors were responsible for accidents:

Failing to keep lane

Failing to yield right of way
Driving in excess of speed
Inattentiveness
Car following too close was more likely found among male drivers

Preliminary studies of road-user behavior [Jacobs et al., 1981] at traffic signals and pedestrian
crossings indicated that road users tended to be less disciplined than in the United Kingdom.
Also, observations in Pakistan [Downing, 1985] demonstrated relatively high proportions of
drivers crossing continuous No Overtaking lines (15%) and not stopping at stop signs (52%).
A study conducted by CRRI [Sarin & Mittal, 1991] in Delhi among truck drivers revealed that
only 11% truck drivers knew No Overtaking Sign, 5% about Right of Way and around 90%
of the truck drivers were found to be ignorant about the road signs, traffic rules and regulations
that govern road users for safety.
A study of drivers knowledge in Jamaica, Pakistan and Thailand [Jacobs et al., 1981] indicated
that there were only a few topics where a lack of knowledge was widespread. One such example
was stopping distances where 87 percent of the drivers underestimated the distance required to
stop in an emergency when travelling at 30 mph.
Answering questions on stopping and following distances also proved to be a problem for
professional drivers in Cameroon and Zimbabwe [Downing, 1991], with truck and bus drivers
unable to answer more than half the questions on driving knowledge and skills correctly. Other
areas of driver behaviour, such as not stopping at pedestrian crossings, traffic signals and stop
signs were found to be due to poor attitudes rather than poor knowledge [Kayvan Aghabayk et
al., 2012].
A study conducted by Neelima Chakrabarty & Singh (1993) was based on the observance of
drivers behaviour at selected intersections in Delhi revealed that 13 to 37% drivers (of different
vehicles) were observed jumping red lights at selected intersections in Delhi city. These results
emphasize that poor attitude of the drivers can be modified up to some extent by proper
enforcement procedures and effective publicity campaigns.
Each year more than 40,000 people are killed in accidents on European roads (Delhomme et al.,
2009). Planners and policymakers aiming to reduce this number continue to invest in road safety
campaigns even though there remains little consensus about their efficacy after sixty years of
study (Delaney et al., 2004; Hyman and Sheatsley, 1947; Mendelsohn, 1973).
Summarising 13 studies, Elvik and Vaa (2004) conclude that campaigns reduce accident through
increasing the awareness about road safety to the extent of 0 and 49%, depending on the type of
campaign and accident measure used.

Research Methodology & Method:

The number of road accidents are increasing every year in the world as well as in Pakistan. This
thing turned our attention to find out the relationship between road safety awareness among
drivers and road accidents. This is a quantitative study as there exist only one reality of
phenomena of interest.
For the purpose of this study we collected data from drivers of Lahore, Pakistan. We the
researchers decided to go for non-probability sampling because there was no proper record of
drivers available. Moreover the data available was incomplete as no many of the drivers have not
registered themselves with any licensing authority thus making it difficult to obtain reliable data
for the purpose of this study. In non-probability sampling we opted for convenient sampling
because of two reasons. The first is shortage of time and less cost.
To determine sample size there are several techniques available. We have opted the n:p ratio
because we are using first generation statistical tool (SPSS) which prohibits us to go for other
sampling techniques like p:k ratio which is normally suitable for second generation statistical
tools like Amos. According to n:p ratio there needs to be five respondents for every variable.
Other school of thoughts says that you need to have ten respondents for each variable. The
required sample size following first school of thought was 105 as we have 21 variables. But as
we are using first generation statistical tool so we decided to ignore n:p ratio and to take our
sample size closer to two hundred in order to sufficiently increase the statistical power thus
enabling it to reliably perform analysis on SPSS.
After having decided all this the researchers decided to collect data through questionnaire. The
questionnaire was partially adopted from a previous research conducted in India and was
completed by adding some questions to fulfill the purpose of our study. In questionnaire we have
used five point likerd scale as it is most commonly used. To collect data we relied on two
sources, first one was online questionnaire filling by using Google forms and the second one was
through personal interaction because of the high response rate. In questionnaire the scale which
was used, was the interval scale.
After collecting the data we perform analysis on SPSS and draw conclusion.

Analysis:
After putting data in SPSS we first an analysis of missing values. The analysis showed that there
are some missing values in the data but the percentages were significantly less than 10% (the
highest percentage was 2.2%) indicating that we can replace them. In this analysis the MCAR
test results showed that the significance was 0.135 meaning that it is non-significant indicating
us that missing values were random and we had the option to replace them which we did.

Univariate Statistics
N

Mean

Std. Deviation

No. of Extremesa

Missing
Count

Percent

Low

High

RSA_1

182

1.48

.921

.0

12

RSA_2

181

2.90

1.146

.5

RSA_3

180

2.62

1.134

1.1

10

RSA_4

180

4.14

1.223

1.1

29

RSA_5

180

2.02

1.160

1.1

28

RSA_6

181

2.48

1.093

.5

RSA_7

180

3.68

1.352

1.1

RSA_8

182

2.14

1.143

.0

RSA_9

181

2.67

1.216

.5

RSA_10

182

2.68

1.150

.0

RSA_11

181

3.46

1.293

.5

RSA_12

182

2.32

1.107

.0

10

RSA_13

181

2.21

1.150

.5

RSA_14

178

3.22

1.350

2.2

RSA_15

182

3.65

1.373

.0

RSA_16

182

3.32

1.398

.0

RSA_17

180

3.97

1.337

1.1

RSA_18

179

2.69

1.435

1.6

RSA_19

181

3.76

1.331

.5

IRA_1

182

2.47

1.401

.0

IRA_2

182

3.41

1.552

.0

a. Number of cases outside the range (Q1 - 1.5*IQR, Q3 + 1.5*IQR).

Univariant Outliers Test:

Next we perform this test to find univariant outliers. Most of the outliers were found in first 5
variables. In total we found 21 outliers which were ultimately removed to further process our
data and normalize data. (See tables in output file).

Skewness and Kurrtosis Test and Standardized value Test:

After the outliers were removed and the data was normalized to some extent next we perform
skewness and kurtosis test along with standardized value test. The test revealed that all the
variables were well within the range of skewness and kurtosis except for RSA_1 which was not
within the prescribed range so to move further we removed the variable. Moreover we found that
there were 3 respondents which were outside the standardized value range of +- 3.29 thus we
removed them.. The Standardized valued was saved along with original data.
Descriptive Statistics
N

Minimum

Maximum

Mean

Std.

Skewness

Kurtosis

Deviation
Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Statistic

Std.

Statistic

Error

Std.
Error

RSA1

161

1.32

.606

2.269

.191

5.992

.380

RSA5

161

1.85

1.014

1.340

.191

1.316

.380

RSA8

161

2.07

1.061

1.006

.191

.399

.380

RSA13

161

2.11

1.083

1.103

.191

.839

.380

RSA12

161

2.31

1.062

.745

.191

-.064

.380

IA1

161

2.40

1.375

.699

.191

-.748

.380

RSA6

161

2.45

1.032

.295

.191

-.680

.380

RSA3

161

2.52

1.097

.292

.191

-.685

.380

RSA10

161

2.64

1.116

.313

.191

-.772

.380

RSA9

161

2.65

1.200

.135

.191

-1.149

.380

RSA18

161

2.65

1.410

.490

.191

-1.033

.380

RSA2

161

2.94

1.122

.125

.191

-.746

.380

RSA14

161

3.24

1.354

-.152

.191

-1.144

.380

IA2

161

3.35

1.551

-.273

.191

-1.450

.380

RSA16

161

3.40

1.403

-.309

.191

-1.275

.380

RSA11

161

3.56

1.269

-.432

.191

-1.001

.380

RSA7

161

3.70

1.333

-.406

.191

-1.296

.380

RSA15

161

3.76

1.316

-.755

.191

-.701

.380

RSA19

161

3.84

1.308

-.901

.191

-.414

.380

RSA17

161

4.03

1.265

-1.046

.191

-.197

.380

RSA4

161

4.33

1.025

-1.616

.191

1.762

.380

Valid N

161

(listwise)

Multivariant Analysis:
After performing univvariant analysis then we went for multivariant analysis. In which first we
checked for multivariant outliers by performing Mahalanobis distance test. Along with it we also
ran Collinearity Diagnosis. The results of the test showed that degree of freedom is 1. And for df
1 the Mahalanobis distance range is +-12.71 and we found that all the values were within range.
The Cllinearity diagnosis showed Tolerance and VIF values of 1 which was upto the required
standard (For tolerance it should be > than .10 and for VIF value it should be < than 10).
ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

10.803

10.803

Residual

196.008

156

1.256

Total

206.812

157

Sig.

8.598

.004b

a. Dependent Variable: IRAmean

b. Predictors: (Constant), RSAmean

Coefficientsa
Model

Unstandardized

Standardized

Coefficients

Coefficients

B
(Constant)
1
RSAmean

Std. Error

.980

.657

.635

.217

a. Dependent Variable: IRAmean

Correlation and Regression:

Sig.

95.0% Confidence Interval for

B

Beta

Lower Bound

.229

Collinearity Statistics

Upper Bound

1.491 .138

-.318

2.278

2.932 .004

.207

1.063

Tolerance

1.000

VIF

1.000

In this last step we perform correlation and regression test. The result of correlation showed
significance of 0.004 indicating a significant relationship at 0.01 level. Regression tests showed
that a beta of .229 and t value of 2.932 and significance of 0.004 which were all within range.
( The beta value should be greater than 0.2, t value should be greater than 2 and whereas the
significance should be less than 0.05) The regression also showed R Square of 0.052 indicating
that road safety awareness had only five percent impact on individual road accidents.

Correlations
RSAmean
Pearson Correlation
RSAmean

.229**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.004

N
Pearson Correlation
IRAmean

IRAmean

158

158

.229**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.004

158

158

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Model Summaryb
Model

.229a

R Square

Adjusted R

Std. Error of the

Square

Estimate

.052

.046

1.12092

a. Predictors: (Constant), RSAmean

b. Dependent Variable: IRAmean

ANOVAa
Model

Sum of Squares
Regression

df

Mean Square

10.803

10.803

Residual

196.008

156

1.256

Total

206.812

157

a. Dependent Variable: IRAmean

b. Predictors: (Constant), RSAmean

F
8.598

Sig.
.004b

Conclusion:
From the above analysis and discussion we are concluding that the constructs we have chosen for
the purpose of our study have a significant strong relationship. But the impact or change caused
by road safety awareness on individual road accidents is 5 % which is very low. This change is
showing that there are many other factors are there which have a greater impact on road
accidents and which needs to be included in our study.
There may be several reasons for this but in our opinion the major reason is unstandardized
questionnaire. The questionnaire needs to be more comprehensive and complete.
At last we are concluding that despite the low impact there exist a significant strong relationship
between two constructs indicating that it needs to be studied more in order to find a better
solution of the ever increasing problem of the road accidents.