A Peer-to-Peer Traffic Safety Campaign

Project Team:Laura Stanley, Carolyn Plumb, Erica Pimley, Kelly Borden, &

Kaysha Young 

Western Transportation InstituteCollege of Engineering

Montana State University

Sponsored by: Montana Dept. of Transportation

 

Introduction• Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for teenagers

– Per mile driven, teen drivers ages 16-19 are three times more likely to be in a fatal crash (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010)

• Traffic crashes are the leading cause of death in rural America– Rural teens are twice as likely as urban teens to be in a fatal crash (Brunet, 2009)– Rural teens more likely to drive at night, use a cell phone, and not wear seat belts (Texas

Transportation Institute, 2011)

• Teens are greatly influenced by peers– Teen passengers can cause increased risky behaviors of young drivers (Allen and Brown,

2008)– When peers encourage anti-risk behaviors, teen drivers significantly increase safe driving

behaviors (Shepherd et al., 2011)

...when teens were with people their own age, their brains’ reward centers became hyperactivated, which made them more easily aroused by the prospect of a potentially pleasurable experience.

5 Highest Risks for Teen Drivers

Driver inexperience, coupled with the following situations/ conditions:• Driving at night/tired• Speeding and street racing• Distractions, such as cell phones and other teen passengers• Low seat belt use• Driving under the influence of

alcohol and/or drugs(Texas Transportation Institute, 2011)

A Peer-to-Peer Approach to Changing Traffic Safety Culture

• Teens in the Driver Seat® Program (TDS) - Started in 2002, is the first peer-to-peer program for teens that focuses solely on traffic safety and addresses all major risks for this age group:– Developed by Texas A&M Transportation

Institute, 600 schools in Texas– Also active in CA, CT, GA, NB, and NC– “Since 2003, Texas is the only state in the

nation to experience a decline in fatal crashes involving teenage drivers each and every year” (TTI, 2011)

May 22-23, 2006

I hear, and I forget;I see, and I remember;I do, and I understand.

- Confucious

The Art of Doing… aka active learning

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISeoS3_G06U

Texas Teen Traffic Fatality Trends/ Benchmarks in Texas w/respect to TDS

533540

548581

625 625

546

504482

459435

417

374

342

300

400

500

600

700

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Year

16-19 Year - old drivers involved in fatal crashes in Texas FARS Data1995

On- Road Driving Test

Removed

Parent-taught Driver Ed

Implemented

GDL Implemented

Teens in the Driver Seat® Implemented

A 45% drop from 2002 peak for teens; 15% drop for drivers 25+ years old

Texas Teen Drivers Involved in Fatal Crashes by Age, 2002-2009

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

16 17 18 19

Percent Improvement in Texas

Expected GDL Impact

Effective Peer-to-Peer Safety and Health Initiatives,

Transportation Domain

• Positive peer pressure projects and service-learning activities implemented in six high schools in Ohio and Michigan (Bradley et al., 2007)– Seat belt use rose significantly

• Competition between schools used to encourage seat belt use in Denver, Colorado (Houston et al., 2010)– Students at different schools were provided with activities

to encourage seat belt use

Effective Peer-to-Peer Safety and Health Initiatives,

Non-Transportation Domain

• Why Waste Everything Smoking Tobacco– Scotland campaign focused on providing peer-to-

peer education regarding tobacco use (W-WEST, 2013)

• Zero Alcohol for Youth Campaign– Peer-led program focused on engaging

communities in preventing underage alcohol consumption (Texans Standing Tall, 2013)

Project Objectives

• Research objective: evaluate a peer-to-peer approach utilizing the Teens in the Driver Seat Program, where Montana teens will create and disseminate safety messages to increase young people’s awareness and behaviors of:– Dangers associated with driving/riding in a vehicle, – Measures they can take to mitigate these dangers, – Importance of taking responsibility for their own driving and the

safety of their passengers.

Methods• The implementation of this program followed that of the Texas TDS

Program• Four Montana high schools: Case/Control Urban* and Case/Control Rural*

– Urban Treatment: Bozeman High School– Urban Control: Helena High School– Rural Treatment: Sweet Grass County High School– Rural Control: Manhattan High School

*Case vs. control school strategy was necessary to accurately measure effectiveness of program

Selection of Schools• Developed from the

research plan* balanced with the feasibility of program implementation:– Proximity to Montana State

University– Similar geography– Similar school size– Meetings with school

principals to garner interest and support of the program.

*Schools were statistically similar enough to be considered demographically equal

Effectiveness Measurement

• Survey development followed that of the TDS survey instrument

• Distribution: Pre assessment surveys distributed November 2012, Post assessment surveys distributed May 2013

Response Rates:

Post-Survey Total (n=2,488) Urban Total (n = 2,164)

Urban Treatment (n = 1,307, 69% response rate)

Urban Control (n = 857, 59% response rate)

Rural Total (n = 324) Rural Treatment (n = 159, 92% response rate)

Rural Control (n = 165, 93% response rate)

Pre-Survey Total (n = 2,733) Urban Total (n = 2,407)

Urban Treatment (n = 1,376, 73% response rate)

Urban Control (n = 1,031, 71% response rate)

Rural Total (n = 326) Rural Treatment (n = 155, 91% response rate)

Rural Control (n = 171, 96% response rate)

Incentives• Survey

– Three $45.00 cash awards per school were awarded randomly for both pre and post surveys

• Focus Groups– Each focus group participant was compensated

$10.00

Club selection• For each treatment school, clubs were

selected at each school, based on suggestions from the principal, to deliver peer-to-peer education by promoting awareness of the top five driving dangers– Urban Treatment School: Bozeman Student Council – Rural Treatment School: Serving and Volunteering Youth Club (SAVY)

Advisor Support• Advisors were appointed from the faculties of

Bozeman and Sweet Grass County High School• Contacting advisors was difficult due to their limited

available time. WTI staff met personally with all advisors on a regular basis.

Methods of Teen Messaging

• Incentive Structure for Awards - Points Earning Scale – Driving the Message Contest

• Poster entries• Video entries

– Hosting events– Promotional Items – Facebook page

• Safe driving reminders, contest updates, photos, etc.

Ex. Driving the Message Contest• Bozeman High School:

13 posters• Sweet Grass High

School: 11 posters and 1 video

• Peer-led unbiased posters judging by a group of students from Harrison High School, scored by points system– Originality– Creativity– Technical Quality

School wide Events– Golf cart obstacle course

• Students drove golf carts through an obstacle course wearing “drunk goggles” or while texting to simulate the difficulty of dangerous driving behaviors

• 50 Bozeman High School students attended this event

– School-wide Assembly• Sweet Grass County High School students organized

an assembly where they showed a video they had created warning against dangerous driving behaviors

– Promotional items distributed• Bozeman High School: 550 air fresheners and 75 key

chains • Sweet Grass County High School: 100 wristbands,

100 temporary tattoos, 200 air fresheners, and 75 key chains

Sample Poster Entries

Sample Poster Entries

VIDEO_TS.IFO

Sweet Grass Video Entry(available upon request)

Methods – Focus Groups• Demographics

– Bozeman High School:• 1 sophomore, 7 juniors, and 3 seniors• 4 males, 7 females

– Sweet Grass County High School:• 6 freshmen, 5 sophomores, 5 juniors,

and 4 seniors• 15 males, 5 females

• Participants under the age of 18 were required to turn in parental consent forms. All participants were asked to sign a student consent form.

• Answers were recorded using a digital recording device.• Students were compensated $10 for participation.

Results – Urban TreatmentPerceived Driving Dangers Contributing to Teens Being Injured or Killed in a Car Crash

Alcohol Distractions Texting Phone Seatbelts Speeding Sleep Driving at Night

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Pre-Program (n=1,376)Post-Program (n=1,307)

Perc

ent o

f stu

dent

s ide

ntify

ing

• Increase in awareness of sleep• Decrease in awareness of phone

Alcohol Distractions Texting Phone Seatbelts Speeding Sleep Driving at Night0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Pre-Program (n=155)Post-Program (n=159)

Perc

ent o

f stu

dent

s ide

ntify

ing

Results – Rural TreatmentPerceived Driving Dangers Contributing to Teens Being Injured or Killed in a Car Crash

• Rural treatment had more promising results than UT• Increase in awareness of alcohol, distractions, and driving at night• No decreases in awareness of the top five factors

Results

Urban Treatment Rural Treatment0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

61.5

76.1

55.4

81.1

46.252.8

29.4 2724.9

32.7

20.1

62.9

15.5

72.3

18.824.5

13.2

3.88 5.7

2.48.8

Forms of media students saw and heard regarding safe driving behaviors

Posters

Videos

Heard from Teacher/Adult

School News

Heard from Peer

Promo Materials

School-wide Activity

Facebook Page

None

Other

Participated in Contest

Perc

ent o

f Tot

al S

tude

nts (

%)

• Rural treatment reported significantly higher exposure to posters, videos, promotional materials, the Driving the Message Contest, and school-wide activities

Results

• The “Friend” and “Parent” categories were cited most frequently by students• Urban teens most frequently reported being influenced by “peers”• Rural teens most frequently reported being influenced nearly equally by “peers”

and “parent”

Focus Group Findings

• Urban Participants– Minimal change in awareness about

driving dangers– More aware of dangers of

drug use– More likely to text while

driving– School news is effective

• Rural Participants– Overall increased awareness about driving dangers– More aware of fatigued/night driving and speeding– More likely to fail to wear a seat belt– Assemblies are effective

Conclusions• Overall, awareness increased for treatment schools more profoundly than

control schools• Overall, dangerous driving behavior frequency increased for both

treatment and control schools– Average age of students increased between pre- and post- surveys, therefore it is

likely that their driving time exposure has increased– More students were enrolled in or had completed drivers education– Seasonal differences could have affected the student’s current driving concerns

and behaviors• Pre assessment surveys were distributed in the Fall (October-November)• Post assessment surveys were distributed in the Spring (May)

• RT showed higher exposure to messages and media than UT– Smaller school population of RT, allowing more resources to be invested per student

compared to UT– Dynamics of each school’s extracurricular activities– Ease with which programs can be introduced into the school

Conclusions• Disconnect between knowledge and behaviors for treatment schools

– Awareness of dangerous driving dangers increased while self-reported dangerous driving behavior also increased

• Rural students appear to have an overall increased awareness of driving dangers following implementation when compared with urban students– Especially fatigued/night driving and speeding

• Friends and family members are the two most influential relationships– Urban students more influenced by friends– Rural students nearly equally influenced by friend and family

• RT reported increased exposure to messages and media related to TDS– Assemblies more effective in rural setting– School news more effective in urban setting

Recommendations Montana Teen Attitudes and Behaviors

• Efforts should be focused on low awareness factors including speeding, driving at night/fatigue, and use of seat belts. Montana teens are already aware alcohol and distractions as top factors.

– Speeding was ranked low in top factors and had the highest rate of traffic tickets• 11,332 speeding citations and warnings issued in MT in 2011 • Listed as a contributing factor in MT crashes over 12,000 times between 2006 and 2010

(MDT)– Use of seat belts: 77% of urban students reported always wearing a seat belt compared to

just 59% of rural students– Driving at Night was ranked low in top factors

• Students reported their most influential relationships as parents and best friend– A need to tap into the social networks of teens– Peer-to-Peer networks are powerful and other Peer-to-Peer health and safety programs

have been successful

• Cultural shifts takes time, in Texas ~5 years of program implementation

Interested in starting the program?

A Montana guidebook has been created at www.mdt.mt.gov/research/projects/safety/peer_to_peer.shtml

CONTACT:Russell Henk, Program DirectorTexas Transportation Institute210-979-9411r-henk@tamu.edu

TDS Website: www.t-driver.com/

AcknowledgmentsA special thanks to all the faculty, staff, and students at Bozeman High School, Manhattan High School, Sweet Grass High School, and Helena High School for making this project possible!

Sponsor: Montana Department of Transportation

Examples of teen created videoshttp://www.t-driver.com/downloads/videos/

References• Allen, J. P., and B. B. Brown. (2008). Adolescents, Peers, and Motor Vehicles—The

Perfect Storm? American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35:289–293.• Bradley, R., J. Eyler, I. Goldzweig, P. Juarez, D. Schlundt, and D. Tolliver. (2007).

Evaluating the Impact of Peer-to-Peer Service-Learning Projects on Seat Belt use Among High School Students. In S. B. Gelmon and S. Billig (Eds.), Service Learning From Passion to Objectivity: International and Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives on Service-Learning Research. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

• Brunet, M. (2009). Allstate America’s Teen Driving Hotspots Study. Retrieved December 18, 2009, from http://www.allstatenewsroom.com/categories/6/releases/4403.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Teen Drivers: Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html.

• Henk, R. (2012, July 19). Interview by B. Nickol and C. Polacek [Phone Call]. Questions regarding Texas TDS.

References (cont.)• Henk, R. (2013, August 6). Interview by L. Stanley, E. Pimley, K. Borden, and K. Young

[Audio Tape Recording]. Questions regarding Texas TDS, Montana Results, and Sustainability.

• Houston, M., V. Cassabaum, S. Matzick, T. Rapstine, S. Terry, and P. Uribe, and Mile-High 59 Regional Emergency Medical and Trauma Advisory Council. (2010). Teen Traffic Safety Campaign: Competition is the Key. Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical Care 68:3, 511–514.

• Shepherd, J. L., D. L. Lane, R. L. Tapscott, and D. A. Gentile. (2011). Susceptible to Social Influence: Risky “Driving” in Response to Peer Pressure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 41:4, 773–797.

• Texans Standing Tall. (2013) Zero Alcohol for Youth Campaign. Retrieved from http://www.texansstandingtall.org/Home/ZAYC.aspx.

• Texas Transportation Institute. (2011). About TDS. Retrieved May 2011 from http://www.tdriver.com/about/.

• West, W. (2013). Welcome to W-WEST. Retrieved from http://http://www.w-west.org.uk/