A route-based incentive program is introduced in which drivers are rewarded for taking the safest routes. The program is operated with an incentive structure by a logistics company and a variable insurance premium scheme by an insurance company. The logistics company offers incentives to its drivers to follow the safest routes and by doing so expects to pay lower insurance premiums for its vehicles. The insurance company charges a discounted premium for vehicles that follow the safest routes, while expecting to pay less for potential accident claims. The theoretical framework, including the setup of the incentive structure and the variable premium scheme, is presented in this paper. Conditions for the existence of a win–win situation are established in which drivers, the logistics company, and the insurance company all benefit from the program. Optimization of the incentive program is also formulated as a bilevel programming problem. An online before-and-after survey is conducted to assess drivers' response to incentives. Forty-five Dutch professional drivers participated in the survey. The results show that drivers tend to ignore safety-related information in making their route choices; however, the incentives have some significant effects on these choices. The incentives therefore present an effective way of influencing drivers' route choices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KumaraS. S. P., and ChinH. C.Study of Fatal Traffic Accidents in Asia Pacific Countries. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1897, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 43–47.
2.
KononovJ., BaileyB. A., and AlleryB. K.Relationships Between Safety and Both Congestion and Number of Lanes on Urban Freeways. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2083, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 26–39.
3.
van der HorstR., and de RidderS.Influence of Roadside Infrastructure on Driving Behavior: Driving Simulator Study. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2018, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 36–44.
4.
MasliahM., BaharG., and ParkhillM.Integrated Safety Management System and Iowa Safety Management System: Introduction to Workshop Results. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1865, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 35–40.
5.
WegmanF. C. M., DijkstraA., SchermersG., and van VlietP.Sustainable Safety in the Netherlands: Evaluation of National Road Safety Program. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1969, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 72–78.
6.
ShenJ., and GanA.Development of Crash Reduction Factors: Methods, Problems, and Research Needs. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1840, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 50–56.
7.
SheikhN. M., AlbersonD. C., and BullardD. L.Jr., Development of Hybrid Energy-Absorbing Reusable Terminal for Roadside Safety Applications. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1904, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 26–36.
8.
MacCarleyC. A.Methods and Metrics for Evaluation of an Automated Real-Time Driver Warning System. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1937, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 87–95.
9.
LundgrenJ., and TapaniA.Evaluation of Safety Effects of Driver Assistance Systems through Traffic Simulation. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1953, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 81–88.
10.
TidemanM., van der VoortM. C., van AremB., and TillemaF.A Review of Lateral Driver Support Systems. Proc. 10th International IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Seattle, Wash., Sept. 30–Oct. 3, 2007.
11.
van DrielC. J. G., HoedemaekerM., and van AremB.Impacts of a Congestion Assistant on Driving Behaviour and Acceptance Using a Driving Simulator. Transportation Research Part F, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2007, pp. 139–152.
12.
van AremB., and van DrielC.Traffic Flow Impacts of a Congestion Assistant. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
13.
JonesP., and HervikA.Restraining Car Traffic in European Cities—An Emerging Role for Road Pricing. Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1992, pp. 133–145.
14.
EliassonJ. A.Cost–Benefit Analysis of the Stockholm Congestion Charging System. In Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2009, pp. 468–480.
15.
EttemaD.Using Incentives as Traffic Management Tool: Empirical Results of Peak Avoidance Experiment. Presented at 87th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2008.
16.
Ben-EliaE., and EttemaD.Carrots Versus Sticks: Rewarding Commuters for Avoiding the Rush-Hour—A Study of Willingness to Participate. Transport Policy, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2009, pp. 68–76.
17.
DijkstraA., DrolengaH., and van MaarseveenM.Method for Assessing Safety of Routes in a Road Network. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2019, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 82–90.
18.
JohnstonJ. J., HendricksS. A., and FikeJ. M.Effectiveness of Behavioral Safety Belt Interventions. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 26, No. 3, 1994, pp. 315–323.
19.
HagenziekerM. P., BijleveldF. D., and DavidseR. J.Effects of Incentive Programs to Stimulate Safety Belt Use: A Meta-Analysis. Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 29, No. 6, 1997, pp. 759–777.
HagenziekerM. P.Enforcement or Incentives? Promoting Safety Belt Use among Military Personnel in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Vol. 24, No. 1, 1991, pp. 23–30.
22.
Belonitor.Belonitor: de Kracht van Belonen, Studio Wegen naar de Toekomst, Directoraat-Generaal Rijkswaterstaat, Delft, Netherlands, 2005.
23.
LitmanT.Distance-Based Vehicle Insurance: Feasibility, Costs and Benefits.Victoria Transport Policy Institute, British Columbia, Canada. www.vtpi.org/dbvi_com.pdf. Accessed Dec. 22, 2008.
24.
VonkT., JanseM., van EssenH., and DingsJ.Pay As You Drive: Mogelijkheden voor een Variabele Autoverzekeringspremie in Nederland? Rapportnummer 2003-40. TNO Inro, Delft, Netherlands, 2003.
25.
ZantemaJ., van AmelsfortD. H., BliemerM. C. J., and BovyP. H. L.Pay-As-You-Drive Strategies: Case Study of Safety and Accessibility Effects. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2078, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 8–16.
26.
DijkstraA., and DrolengaJ.Safety Effects of Route Choice in a Road Network: Simulation of Changing Route Choice. R-2008–10. Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid SWOV, Leidschendam, Netherlands, 2008.
27.
JanssenS.Traffic Safety Tool Used in the Region. R-2005–6. Stichting Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Verkeersveiligheid SWOV, Leidschendam, Netherlands, 2005.
28.
BieJ., and van AremB.A Route-Based Incentive Structure for Traffic Safety Enhancement. Proc. 16th ITS World Congress, Sept. 21–25, 2009, Stockholm, Sweden.
29.
BieJ., van AremB., and LoH. K.The Effect of a Safety-Based Incentive Structure on Route Choice Behaviour over Time: A Day-to-day Dynamical System Approach. Proc. 10th TRAIL Congress, Oct. 14–15, 2008, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
