An Intervention Framework for Safer Driver Behaviour on the SRN
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
An Intervention Framework for Safer Driver Behaviour on the SRN 1-065 Final Report Lisa Dorn Cranfield University 31st May 2017 This final report was prepared by the Driving Research Group at Cranfield University for Highways England. For further information please contact the Project Sponsor: Mira Mynett Woodlands Manton Lane Bedford MK41 7LW Tel: +44 (0) 300 4704930 [email protected] Acknowledgement: Dr Tatiana Hill and Dr Mark Sullman provided research support for this project P e l l F r i s c h m a n n Page 2 Executive Summary Improving journeys, making them safer and faster with more reliable journey times, is at the heart of Highways England’s priorities for the period 2020 to 2025. Highways England has unveiled ambitious plans to reduce the number of people killed/seriously injured (KSI) on the Strategic Road Network by 40% by 2020 as part of its longer-term goal to decrease this to zero. Road crashes cost the British economy £15 to £30bn p.a. (1.2 to 2.3% GDP) with a high proportion of total costs due to motorway and trunk road incidents. It is estimated that the direct cost to Highways England is about £2.1bn. Car occupants have made up the largest road user group in each casualty severity according to the most recent Reported Road Casualties Great Britain Annual Report, with vulnerable users all accounting for disproportionately more casualties based on total distance travelled. There is a clear social and economic basis to Highways England’s goal to decrease to zero the number of people harmed. To achieve their aims Highways England must address non-compliant driver behaviour. The present work was commissioned by Highways England as part of their five-year Road User Compliance Action Plan. The objectives of the work are to identify priority non-compliant behaviours to be addressed and to develop implementation plans for effective interventions for behaviour change to support a reduction in KSI casualties. Many interventions for road safety have unclear or unrealistic aims, are poorly piloted and weakly evaluated (Sullman and Dorn, 2015). Ensuring that interventions are evidence-based and systematically implemented using a safe systems approach will increase the chances of an impact on driver behaviour and a reduction in KSIs. Several phases of research were undertaken for this project. For the first phase a literature review was conducted to categorise the ‘Active ingredients’ (or Behaviour Change Technique - BCTs) for behavioural change. Given that there is an extensive scientifically robust evidence base with proven techniques for changing behaviour in health psychology literature, academic studies of successful interventions within this discipline were reviewed. The literature review found that the most common BCTs across successful interventions were: Providing instructions; Prompting the self-monitoring of behaviour; Providing feedback on performance; Providing opportunities for social comparison and planning for support or social change. These BCTs were mapped across interventions as part of implementation plans designed to improve road safety for key driver behaviours. For the next phase of the research, a number of factors were taken into account to identify the ‘top eleven’ driver behaviours for closer investigation with regards what interventions have been found to be most effective. These factors included the results of an interview study with frontline Highways England staff (reported elsewhere in an interim report for the current project); an evidence review by the Transport Research Laboratory, KSIs and customer satisfaction ratings for poor driver behaviours on the SRN. Driver Behaviour Inappropriate speed Drug driving Distraction (mobile phone use) Lane hogging Close Following Inappropriate driving in bad weather Driver fatigue Vehicle roadworthiness Seatbelt use Red X compliance Drink driving For the next phase of the research an academic literature search was undertaken for all top eleven behaviours including an online search of local, national and international interventions that aimed to P e l l F r i s c h m a n n Page 3 reduce the risk for each driver behaviour in turn. Three priority behaviours were then selected based on KSIs, customer satisfaction and the availability of reliable benchmark data to monitor the impact of interventions. In 2015 the number of KSIs for each of these three behaviours were 241 for inappropriate speed, 114 for close following and 20 for mobile phone use. In addition, of the customers angered by an aspect of poor driver behaviour in 2016 according to a Highways England satisfaction survey, 35% said it was due to speed, 43% reported it was due to close following and 48% reported that seeing drivers using their mobile phone whilst driving made them angry. Therefore the priority behaviours selected were inappropriate speed, close following and mobile phone use. Three implementation plans of evidence-based countermeasures for these behaviours were delivered as part of the current research project and mapped across engineering, education and enforcement intervention types. The implementation plans included a multitude of different factors including the rationale, evidence base, whether the interventions contained the key BCTs identified in the earlier health psychology literature review, evaluation and stakeholder governance. Multiple internal and external stakeholders took part in workshops and interviews to identify interventions already in place and their willingness to work jointly with Highways England on the delivery of the implementation plans. To support a reduction of KSI casualties on the SRN the output from this research recommends several next steps for Highways England. First, it is recommended that the findings in this report are fed into the Highways England Compliance Action Plan to secure agreement with internal stakeholders on the structure and content of the implementation plans for speeding, close following and mobile phone use. Second, it is recommended that Highways England engages with a broad range of stakeholders to ensure that road safety messages are consistent. This involves using the stakeholder management plan and terms of reference for close collaborative working to improve the non-compliant behaviour in question. For example, image processing of non-compliant behaviours such as close following might be selected to benchmark the behaviour. Stakeholders will need to agree what constitutes close following and determine what might be an appropriate response from an enforcement, engineering and educational perspective. Third, it is recommended that the road user types need to be targeted for specific interventions contained within the relevant implementation plan to identify the situations where non-compliance is more likely and where baseline monitoring of the priority non-compliant behaviour could be established. Fourth, it is recommended that perhaps one or two interventions are piloted to identify any practical constraints or limitations. The findings from the pilot could then be fed back and the procedures adapted accordingly. Finally, it is recommended that the interventions are rolled out in a consistent and concise way across the entire SRN with full monitoring of data before, during and after the intervention to evaluate effectiveness for improving compliance and reducing KSIs. P e l l F r i s c h m a n n Page 4 Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 12 1.1 Road Safety Interventions: The Three E’s ............................................................................. 13 1.2 Behavioural Change .............................................................................................................. 13 Vulnerable Road Users on the SRN ............................................................................................... 14 1.3 Feedback, Motivation and Safer Driving ............................................................................... 14 1.4 Safe Systems Thinking ........................................................................................................... 15 2.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 16 2.1 The Interventions Framework............................................................................................... 16 2.2 Exchange Modes ................................................................................................................... 17 2.3 An Intervention Framework .................................................................................................. 20 3.0 Health Behaviour: A Literature Review of Behavioural Change Techniques ............................ 21 3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 21 3.2 Method ................................................................................................................................. 24 3.3 Results ................................................................................................................................... 24 3.4 Implications ..........................................................................................................................