Two programs, too many names? A critical review of ride-sharing and safe-ride programs as alternatives to impaired driving

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 ERGONOMICS
Asma Mamri, Thomas G. Brown, José Ignacio Nazif-Muñoz, Marie Claude Ouimet
{"title":"Two programs, too many names? A critical review of ride-sharing and safe-ride programs as alternatives to impaired driving","authors":"Asma Mamri,&nbsp;Thomas G. Brown,&nbsp;José Ignacio Nazif-Muñoz,&nbsp;Marie Claude Ouimet","doi":"10.1016/j.jsr.2025.03.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div><em>Introduction:</em> Alternative transportation programs are widely promoted as a viable strategy for prevention of alcohol-impaired driving (AID) and crashes, with ride-sharing and safe-ride being two major approaches. The scientific literature on these programs frequently uses the terms “ride-sharing” and “safe-ride” interchangeably, though their meaning is not synonymous. This critical review set out to clarify the main characteristics of these programs to advance research, dissemination of the findings, and knowledge transfer in the alternative transportation field for AID and crash prevention. <em>Method:</em> A systematic literature search of six databases using the PRISMA-S checklist identified studies of ride-sharing and safe-ride programs to prevent AID or crashes. Inclusion criteria comprised studies published in academic and gray literature between 1980 and 2023. A six-step thematic analysis of included studies identified the defining characteristics of each program. <em>Results:</em> The 32 included studies evaluated for-profit ride-sharing/ride-hailing programs (n = 21) and safe-ride programs (n = 11). No studies on non-profit ride-sharing programs were identified. Analyses revealed two main themes. Operational strategies were most important for distinguishing between for-profit ride-sharing and safe-ride programs, with differences in these subthemes: purpose (revenue generation vs. AID reduction), management (private vs. private plus other strategies), funding (self-financing vs. external), and promotion (convenient transportation vs. dangers of AID). Service offerings, the second theme, highlighted differences in program costs, availability, accessibility, service capacity, coverage, and types of vehicles used. <em>Discussion:</em> The scientific literature on ride-sharing was limited to for-profit ride-sharing, suggesting that referring to them as “ride-hailing” in future studies would be more accurate. Both operational strategies and service offerings highlight the advantages and disadvantages of ride-hailing and safe-ride programs in the context of AID. Some programs referred to as ride-sharing programs have the same operational strategies as safe-ride programs, suggesting these be classified as safe-ride programs for conceptual coherence.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48224,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Safety Research","volume":"93 ","pages":"Pages 365-372"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Safety Research","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022437525000544","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ERGONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Alternative transportation programs are widely promoted as a viable strategy for prevention of alcohol-impaired driving (AID) and crashes, with ride-sharing and safe-ride being two major approaches. The scientific literature on these programs frequently uses the terms “ride-sharing” and “safe-ride” interchangeably, though their meaning is not synonymous. This critical review set out to clarify the main characteristics of these programs to advance research, dissemination of the findings, and knowledge transfer in the alternative transportation field for AID and crash prevention. Method: A systematic literature search of six databases using the PRISMA-S checklist identified studies of ride-sharing and safe-ride programs to prevent AID or crashes. Inclusion criteria comprised studies published in academic and gray literature between 1980 and 2023. A six-step thematic analysis of included studies identified the defining characteristics of each program. Results: The 32 included studies evaluated for-profit ride-sharing/ride-hailing programs (n = 21) and safe-ride programs (n = 11). No studies on non-profit ride-sharing programs were identified. Analyses revealed two main themes. Operational strategies were most important for distinguishing between for-profit ride-sharing and safe-ride programs, with differences in these subthemes: purpose (revenue generation vs. AID reduction), management (private vs. private plus other strategies), funding (self-financing vs. external), and promotion (convenient transportation vs. dangers of AID). Service offerings, the second theme, highlighted differences in program costs, availability, accessibility, service capacity, coverage, and types of vehicles used. Discussion: The scientific literature on ride-sharing was limited to for-profit ride-sharing, suggesting that referring to them as “ride-hailing” in future studies would be more accurate. Both operational strategies and service offerings highlight the advantages and disadvantages of ride-hailing and safe-ride programs in the context of AID. Some programs referred to as ride-sharing programs have the same operational strategies as safe-ride programs, suggesting these be classified as safe-ride programs for conceptual coherence.
两个程序,名字太多了?对拼车和安全乘车计划作为损害驾驶替代方案的批判性审查
导读:替代交通方案被广泛推广为预防酒后驾驶(AID)和撞车的可行策略,其中拼车和安全乘坐是两种主要方法。关于这些项目的科学文献经常交替使用“拼车”和“安全乘坐”这两个术语,尽管它们的含义不是同义词。这篇重要的综述旨在阐明这些项目的主要特点,以推进研究,传播研究结果,以及在辅助交通和碰撞预防领域的知识转移。方法:使用PRISMA-S检查表对六个数据库进行系统的文献检索,确定了拼车和安全乘坐计划的研究,以防止AID或碰撞。纳入标准包括1980年至2023年间发表在学术文献和灰色文献中的研究。对纳入研究的六步专题分析确定了每个项目的定义特征。结果:纳入的32项研究评估了营利性拼车/叫车计划(n = 21)和安全乘车计划(n = 11)。没有关于非营利性拼车项目的研究。分析揭示了两个主要主题。运营策略是区分盈利性拼车和安全拼车项目的最重要因素,它们在以下子主题上存在差异:目的(创收vs减少艾滋病)、管理(私人vs私人加其他战略)、资金(自筹vs外部)和推广(便利交通vs艾滋病危险)。第二个主题是服务提供,强调了计划成本、可用性、可访问性、服务容量、覆盖范围和所用车辆类型的差异。讨论:关于拼车的科学文献仅限于以营利为目的的拼车,这表明在未来的研究中将其称为“网约车”会更准确。运营战略和提供的服务都强调了在艾滋病背景下网约车和安全乘车计划的优缺点。一些被称为拼车计划的项目与安全乘车计划有着相同的运营策略,这表明它们被归类为安全乘车计划是为了概念上的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
4.90%
发文量
174
审稿时长
61 days
期刊介绍: Journal of Safety Research is an interdisciplinary publication that provides for the exchange of ideas and scientific evidence capturing studies through research in all areas of safety and health, including traffic, workplace, home, and community. This forum invites research using rigorous methodologies, encourages translational research, and engages the global scientific community through various partnerships (e.g., this outreach includes highlighting some of the latest findings from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信