# Analysis of Road Sign-Related Factors Affecting Driving Safety with Respect to City Size
## 4 Results
### Analysis of Road Sign-Related Factors Affecting Driving Safety
#### 4.4.1 Analysis of Participants' Responses
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Item** & **Variable** & \(\beta\) & **Odds Ratio** & **Std\_Error** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Dependent variable} & Intercept1 & \(-\)0.113 & - & 0.677 & 0.867 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Intercept2 & 2.995 *** & - & 0.480 & 0.000 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Intercept3 & 5.855 *** & - & 0.481 & 0.000 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Intercept4 & 8.966 *** & - & 0.500 & 0.000 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Demographic characteristics} & Gender (reference (0): Female) & 0.127 & 1.135 & 0.085 & 0.136 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Age (reference: 40–50) & 30 or younger & 0.168 & 1.183 & 0.102 & 0.099 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Age (reference: 40–50) & 60 or older & \(-\)0.242 * & 0.785 & 0.111 & 0.029 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Driving characteristics} & Use of navigation system (reference 0: X) & \(-\)0.258 & 0.772 & 0.263 & 0.326 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 3 years or less & \(-\)0.098 & 0.907 & 0.130 & 0.452 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Driving experience (reference: 4–10 years) & 11–20 years & \(-\)0.347 *** & 0.707 & 0.107 & 0.001 \\ \cline{2-6}  & 21 years or more & \(-\)0.382 ** & 0.682 & 0.130 & 0.003 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Average weekly driving time & Within 2 h & 0.059 & 1.061 & 0.090 & 0.510 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Average weekly driving time & 5–7 h & 0.050 & 1.051 & 0.102 & 0.625 \\ \cline{2-6}  & (reference: 3–4 h) & 8 h or more & \(-\)0.250 & 0.779 & 0.145 & 0.085 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Road sign satisfaction} & Daytime recognition & 0.436 *** & 1.547 & 0.065 & 0.000 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Nighttime recognition & 0.020 & 1.021 & 0.049 & 0.676 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Adequacy of sign size & 0.104 & 1.109 & 0.059 & 0.078 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Understanding of guide information & 0.201 *** & 1.222 & 0.056 & 0.000 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Sufficiency of guide information & 0.371 *** & 1.449 & 0.058 & 0.000 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Route accuracy & 0.194 *** & 1.215 & 0.057 & 0.001 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Location/frequency adequacy & 0.128 * & 1.137 & 0.059 & 0.031 \\ \cline{2-6}  & Esthetic/safety management & 0.028 & 1.029 & 0.056 & 0.612 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{Livermore needs} & Customized guidance by location (log. & \multirow{2}{*}{0.093} & \multirow{2}{*}{1.097} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.054} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.083} \\  & Current road sign information & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Information improvements & Customized guidance for various forms of mobility & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Road sign & Real-time guidance according to situation (events, accidents, etc.) & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Requirements for future road sign & Real-time guidance according to situation (events, accidents, etc.) & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Requirement for future road sign & 0.148 ** & 1.160 & 0.051 & 0.004 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & development & Preparation for future roads & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Facility maintenance measures & Integrated installation of road facilities & 0.116 * & 1.124 & 0.055 & 0.034 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & Facility safety management & 0.211 *** & 1.234 & 0.055 & 0.000 \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Chi-square (model fit)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{633.798 ***} \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{Nagelkerke R\({}^{2}\) (explanatory power of model)} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{0.224} \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{\({}^{*}\)_p_\(<\) 0.05, **_p_\(<\) 0.01, ***_p_\(<\) 0.001. & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Analysis of all responses. In terms of demographic characteristics, the influence of road signs on driving safety decreased by 21.5% (significant at the 5% level) among drivers aged 60 years or more compared to those in their 40s and 50s (reference variable). In this case, the following variables were insignificant: aged 30 or younger and gender. Compared to respondents with 4-10 years of driving experience (reference), the influence of road signs on driving characteristics decreased by 29.3% (significant at the 0.1% level) among respondents with 11-20 years of experience and by 31.8% (significant at the 1% level) among those with 21 or more years of experience.