Addressing the Driver's Role in Motor Vehicle Crashes:

Past Failures, Future Successes

Highway Safety Research CenterUniversity of North Carolina - Chapel Hill

Robert Foss, PhD

September 26, 2006

Center for Transportation Studies SeminarUniversity of Minnesota

Preview:

This will be reflections on national & state policy/program efforts to address driver behaviors

As opposed to experimental studies of driver behaviorCurrent approach (past failures) Effective programs/policiesUnderstanding human behavior

Knowing (& using) solid theory is essentialExamples of success

Flowing from well-established theoretical principles

Study Credits Vehicles, but Not Drivers, for Better Road Safety

Cars are becoming safer, but the people who drive them are not …

Drunken driving rates have not changed much in 10 years, seat belt use has climbed at only a moderate pace, and people are driving faster.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20040.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

Rat

e pe

r 10

0 m

illio

n VM

T

MV Fatalities: A Decade of progress (?)

Fatalities

Fatality rate1.73

1.44

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 20040

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Inju

ry r

ate

per

100

mill

ion

VMT

MV Injuries: A Decade of progress

Injuries

Injury rate

143

94

Alcohol involvement in fatal crashes

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

BAC > .00BAC > .08

Alcohol Involvement in Fatal Crashes - NC

What $20,000,000 can do…

In 5 years:More than 30,000 DWI checkpoints…41,000 DWI arrests …

35.0%37.6%

34.0% 34.9% 35.8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Alcohol Involvement in Fatal Crashes - NC

The Past (& Present) – the problems

Humans difficult to changeThis isn’t “Rocket Science”

Failure to use available knowledgeObsession with “messaging”Misuse of groups (focus & other)

Association ≠ causeEfficacy ≠ effectivenessDriving ability vs. driving behavior

… it’s harder!

The Past (& Present)

Common sense, personal experience Poor guidanceOften wrong, always inadequate

“Cultural truisms”Education (awareness)PunishmentAttitudes cause behavior

Elements of Intervention Effectiveness

ConceptualSoundness

ImplementationFidelity

DesiredOutcome

Difficult AstoundinglyDifficult

DistressinglyRare

Penalty for (illegal) drinking

Underage drinking(and driving)

Knowledge about risks of drinking

A Typical Conceptual Model (Underage Drinking)

Macro/Societal Level Micro/Individual Level

• mandated server training

• dramshop liability• social host liability• license restrictions• excise tax• mandated compliance

checks• alcohol sales

restrictions• advertising restrictions

Alcohol-relatedPublic Policy

• alcohol distribution system

• social class• religious

composition• business

• income• response to demand• stimulation of demand

Social/InstitutionalStructures

Market Mechanisms

• minimum drinking age• hours of sale• no service to

intoxicated

Legal Availability

• size of threat• probability of detection• probability of threat

application• speed of threat

application

Formal Social Controls

• alcohol price• search and acquisition

costs• disposable income

Economic Availability

• quantity accessible• geographic density of

outlets• proximity to outlets

• prevalence of alcohol images

• social class• religious composition• business

Social Availability

Interpersonal Variables• models of

drinking• social roles• social interaction

Individual Factors• cognitions and

perceptions• personality• biological• conditioned

responses

Intervening

• minimum drinking age

• hours of sale• no service to

intoxicated

DrinkingBehavior

• Health outcomes

• Psychosocial outcomes

Source: Wagenaar, 1997

Physical Availability

Theoretical Bases for Initiative to Reduce Underage Drinking

A simple truth

Basic Social Psychology

B = f (p,e)Target environment where possible because:

Individuals respond to environmentEnsures fidelity of implementation

B = f (p,e)

ImplementationFidelity

Target Environment(Law, policy, etc.)

Not individuals

Basic Social Psychology

Effective program …

Implement with fidelityNeed second-order understanding …Phenomena involved in implementation

Communication complexityDyadic, group, mass

Organizational behaviorPolitical functioning

Well-supported theory invaluable !

GDL as example … Environmental change

Provides protection (environment)Lower risk exposureReduced exposure

Feasible way to achieve needed practiceExperienced drivers as mentorsFree of charge

Works with little active enforcementSupports parents

Provides motivationReward rather than punishment

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

1991

0119

9106

1991

1119

9204

1992

0919

9302

1993

0719

9312

1994

0519

9410

1995

0319

9508

1996

0119

9606

1996

1119

9704

1997

0919

9802

1998

0719

9812

1999

0519

9910

2000

0320

0008

2001

0120

0106

2001

1120

0204

2002

0920

0302

2003

0720

0312

Crash Rate Ratios for 16 & 17 vs. 25-54 year-olds, NC 1991-2003

1617

GDL

PassengerRestriction

16 year-old Nighttime crashes (9 pm – 5 am)

0

50

100

150

200

250

Jan-

91

Jul-9

1

Jan-

92

Jul-9

2

Jan-

93

Jul-9

3

Jan-

94

Jul-9

4

Jan-

95

Jul-9

5

Jan-

96

Jul-9

6

Jan-

97

Jul-9

7

Jan-

98

Jul-9

8

Jan-

99

Jul-9

9

Jan-

00

Jul-0

0

Jan-

01

Jul-0

1

Jan-

02

Jul-0

2

Jan-

03

Jul-0

3

Jan-

04

Jul-0

4

Month-Year

Time to first crash: GDL drivers better

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1 Day

6 Mon

ths

1 Yea

r

2 Yea

rs

3 Yea

rs

4 Yea

rs

5 Yea

rs

6 Yea

rs

Time Since Licensure

Cum

ulat

ive

Perc

enta

ge C

rash

-Fre

e (S

urvi

val)

.

Pre-GDL

GDL

Beyond environmental modification

Understand phenomenonWell-supported theory

Conceptual Soundness

Science, not folklore

CommonSense

Some useful theories

General Deterrence TheoryTheory of Planned BehaviorSocial Learning Theory (Social Cognitive Theory)

Fuzzy-Trace Theory

Influencing Individual Behavior

Using the Theory of Planned Behavior

For behaviors wherePerson has needed skillEnvironmental constraints minimalEnvironmental facilitation minimalPerson feels able and responsibleThen …

Influencing Individual Behavior

jperson of nsexpectatioh comply wit tomotivationjperson by behavior about beliefs normative

behavior of esconsequenc of evaluationbehavior of (i) esconsequenc possibleabout beliefs

==

==

MCjNBjEiBi

∑+∑=≈==

m

j

n

ijjii MCNBwEBwBIB

12

11

Individual

nsexpectatio normative act,about beliefsfor factors weighting 2 1, =ww

Social

High visibility enforcement … works

∑+∑=≈==

m

j

n

ijjii MCNBwEBwBIB

12

11

Publicity about enforcement should Bi where i = perceived likelihood of detection

Promising “educational” approach …

∑+∑=≈==

m

j

n

ijjii MCNBwEBwBIB

12

11

Social NormsBeliefs about how members of a group generally behave (and should behave)

Perceived norms influence behavior. . . even though we may not be

consciously aware of them

Social Norm Intervention/program

A broad communication strategy … Acquaint population with normative informationEmphasize positive rather than negative

Comprehensive, multi-channel, multi-faceted Use sophisticated marketing/advertising tactics

To correct misperceptions … orPublicize poorly known fact (about behavior)

Norm interventions present happy, normal people that target can identify with, associated with factual information documenting desirable normative behavior.

No preaching, no threats, no scare tactics. Message is respectful of target audience rather than condescending or implicitly judgmental.

UNC Social Norm ProgramUsing a Direct Measure of

Alcohol Consumption

Goals:Examine actual student drinking

Develop and evaluate Social Normprogram to reduce:

DrinkingDriving after drinking

Social Norms & Student DrinkingStudents overestimate drinking on college campuses

Frequent & excessive drinking assumed normative

Implicit pressure on students to drink

Correcting misperceptions should help reduce student drinking (& driving)

UNC-CH BAC Survey

Determine actual extent of drinking by UNC students

Verbal Behavior ≠ Behavior

Directly measured drinking

All nights of week, 10 p.m. – 3 a.m.

Fall 1997: Interviewed 1,846 randomly sampled UNC students

Dorms, greek houses, off-campus apts

Breath alcohol measurements N = 1,790 (97%)

86% participation

19

32%8% 15%

20%

26%

Overall BAC Distribution

zero

.006 - .049%

.05 - .099%.10 - .149%.15%+

72%

2% 8%8%

9%

N = 1,790

19

32%8% 15%

20%

26%

85%

64% 13%11%12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other nights(Mon-Wed)

Party nights(Thu-Sat)

BAC Distribution by Night of Interview

zero.002-.049%.050-.099%>=.10%

N = 1,789

Alcohol Fact:

Whether it’s Thursday, Friday or Saturday night,2 out of 3 UNC students return home

with a .00 Blood Alcohol Concentration.

“2 out of 3” CampaignCTOPS (Freshman orientation)

Posters “Know the Fact” incentivesNewspaper adsWeb site

News conference (National attention)

Opportunitistic actions

Posters

Basic Message

Posters

Reminder that this is not simply self-report data

“It’s not what they say, it’s what they blow.”

Posters

Full Message:

Including “Most of those who drink have four or less.”

Posters

Source of Fact to Lend Scientific Credibility

“Based on Fall 1997 breathalyzer data collected between 10 p.m. and 3 a.m…at fraternities, sororities, residence halls, apartments.”

Posters

1999 Study Findings1999 & 2002 Survey Findings

1999: N = 2,540 students2002: N = 1,886 students

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

1997 1999 2002

Participation Type by Year

Breath only

Survey only

Breath &survey

19

32%8% 15%

20%

26%

76% 10%7%7%

74% 11% 9%6%

71% 10% 9% 10%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

2002

1999

1997

BAC Distribution, Night of Interview

zero.002-.049%.050-.099%>=.10%

1997 vs. 1999p < .0011999 vs. 2002n.s.

19

32%8% 15%

20%

26%

10% 7% 7%

11% 9% 6%

10% 9% 10%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

2002

1999

1997

BAC Distribution, Night of Interview

.002-.049%

.050-.099%>=.10%

1997 vs. 1999p < .0011999 vs. 2002n.s.

19

32%8% 15%

20%

26%

16%

13%11%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

1997 1999 2002

Heavy Drinking, Night of Interview 5+ (males) 4+ (females)

97 vs 02p < .05

28% decrease

19

32%8% 15%

20%

26%

55%49% 45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1997 1999 2002

Heavy Drinking, Night of Interview(Drinkers only)

5+ (males) 4+ (females)

97 vs 02p < .05

Measured drinking among drivers:

1997 - 15.3% non-zero BAC2002 - 10.8% non-zero BAC

19

32%8% 15%

20%

26%

27%

13%15%

7%

14%

3%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1997 1999 2002

Driver BACs by Year(Drinkers only)

.05 - .09%> .10%

19

32%8% 15%

20%

26%

Self-reported Frequent Heavy Drinking National vs. UNC

15%

17%

19%

21%

23%

25%

27%

29%

1997 1999 2001-02

Harvard CASUNC

ConclusionsComprehensive Norms program affected:

Measured BACNightly drinkingNightly heavy drinkingFrequent heavy drinkingDriving after drinking

Social Norm approaches highly promising

But, to succeed they require …Strict adherence to SN principlesIntense, long-term effortCommitment of time, $, creativity

Social Norm Programs - step-by-step

Crucial stepsCollect & analyze dataDesign comprehensive programDevelop & test messagesRevise messagesContinue data collection & evaluationDevelop, test, revise new messagesProgram must continue

National Social Norms Resource Center

http://socialnorm.org

Montana Social Norms Toolkit

http://MostofUs.org

Hobart & William Smith

http://alcohol.hws.edu/

University of Arizona

http://www.socialnorms.campushealth.net

www.socialnorms.campushealth.net

alcohol.hws.edu/

MostofUs.org

socialnorm.org

Social Norm Resources:

Ineffective Messaging