Review synthesizes literature on sociodemographic factors affecting car-following behavior, suggesting intervention need.
Car-following behavior significantly influences traffic flow dynamics and represents a major factor in rear-end collision occurrences during unexpected events. Understanding the impact of human factors, which are widely recognized as the predominant cause of road crashes, is essential for improving traffic safety. Therefore, this review study synthesized the literature on the effects of heterogeneity in human characteristics on drivers’ behavior during car-following situations. The literature search was conducted in the Scopus database, and 21 studies were selected for review. This study summarizes the results related to the influence of age, gender, driving experience, and cultural differences on car-following behavior. The results revealed that younger drivers showed faster reaction times but faced higher rear-end collision risk due to speeding and tailgating behavior. Regarding gender differences, the findings revealed mixed patterns. While male drivers generally exhibited more aggressive car-following characteristics with shorter following distances and higher speeds. The relationship between gender and crash risk showed inconsistencies, as some studies reported higher collision risk for females despite more conservative behavior. Driving experience appears to influence car-following behavior, with experienced drivers potentially exhibiting overconfidence and aggressive driving tendencies. Additionally, the limited research on cultural differences highlights the need to examine car-following behavior among culturally diverse driving populations. This would provide valuable insights and help calibrate car-following models to be more universally applicable. Moreover, the review underscores the need for interventions to address unsafe car-following behaviors and enhance traffic safety.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hussain et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: