The World Health Organization (WHO) has published advice on developing road safety campaigns, together with a library of road safety campaigns, on its website.
WHO says that an evidence-based behaviour change campaign should follow four phases: research/design, production, dissemination and evaluation. It also describes the process as “complex, time-consuming and costly”.
WHO adds: “The campaigns included in this library have all been developed according to this process. They were produced for a specific country or culture, tested by focus groups, and adapted based on the findings and recommendations of the focus groups.
“The end result is that the campaigns have a precise target audience, a clear storyline, and a well-defined message or concrete call to action.”
The library is searchable by topic (drink driving, child restraints etc), language and WHO region. For each campaign the information provided includes when the campaign was produced, the target audience, key messages, a transcript of the commercial (if appropriate) and who owns the copyright.
For more information contact Elena Altieri, WHO communications officer.
I would love to do more little programmes like the SMIDSY one, but they are very expensive and time-consuming to produce. There are programmes sketched out for all the remaining and most popular motorcycle accidents such as the rural bend, the shunt, the nightmare overtake and the all-encompassing loss of control, but I don’t really think anybody is interested.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
The “classic” SMIDSY is as shown in Duncan’s video – driver at T tuning right into the path of the motorcyclist who has ROW. In every case I can recall, the driver was not “too fast to have a proper look”, they were stationary. To this day I do not know whether each driver “looked but failed to see”, or “misjudged speed and distance” but, in either case, I cannot see how prosecuting could have prevented (or produced any practical benefit) and “slowing down” could cause more crashes that it prevents (vehicles behind surprised by sudden unexpected braking). Ultimately, I had to avoid each collision while considering all other road users.
Duncan’s video is the best road safety ad I can recall because it explains a problem that definitely exists, and offers a real solution. This is rare on both counts in official ads.
Dave Finney, Slough
0
I presume any cyclist or motorcyclist having experienced this will not have slowed down enough, if at all, either through lack of anticipation or judgement (or brakes!). It’s happened to me a few times, but it really isn’t a problem dealing with it.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Terry you have put your finger on exactly the reason why bad apple theory holds so much sway in the road safety community. We have long understood the problem is knowing that there is a difference between ‘explaining’ and ‘explaining away’ and your point about an errant driver claiming a human factors failing when it is not the actual cause can and does happen. The answer of course is to know whether or not such a claim has any merit in the situation that it is being made. Without deep understanding of the system and it’s latent failure modes it will not be possible to say for sure whether the claim has any value. Once you do understand the system it becomes easy to challenge any claim simply beccause you can go and replay the scenario and see if the error mote was relevant or not.
Hugh, perhaps you might explain how, if speed is a factor, SMIDSYs all too frequently happen to push-bikes as evidenced by the recent one involving cycling hero Sir Bradley Wiggins?
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Getting back to the actual news item, I don’t know if anyone has bothered to look at any of the world-wide road safety campaigns on the WHO library, but one in particular entitled “Slowing down won’t kill you” (Australia) deals with this subject (vehicles pulling out into the path of motorcyclists)and how to avoid a collision i.e. by slowing down.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Coming up to exit a junction too fast to have a proper look. There is an accident which is entirely my fault. Placed in that situation, what would you say to the police? Using SMIDSY is the usual excuse, but that was not the real reason for the accident, but I am not going to tell the police the real truth!
SMIDSY is not the cause of as many accidents as it is believed in some circles, but it has manufacturers of daytime running lights extra profit now they are mandatory on new vehicles. Have pedestrian accidents dropped as those in charge claimed they would by the fitment of these annoying lights?
Terry Hudson. Kent
0
Duncan
I found your video very interesting and thought provoking both for the rider and driver. I will put a link to it on our website. If readers are interested, here is a story of courage and tenacity from a young lady who herself was a victim of SMIDSY. Read her struggle for survival and recovery at: http://blog.roaddriver.co.uk/?p=203
Charles Dunn RoadDriver.co.uk
0
Since my SMIDSY video came out along with the accompanying paper (see link at foot of comment) there have been a great many advances in neuroscience which now show that what is actually happening is that the driver’s attention is drawn to the ‘anomalous movement of an object’ irrespective of what that object might be. It is only after their attention has been drawn that the perceptual system starts to work out what the object actually is, but the fact it is a moving object is all that it takes for the driver to identify an off-normal situation which they can then reappraise.
http://www.network.mag-uk.org/smidsy/How%20Close%20is%20Too%20Close.pdf
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Duncan, very interesting video (thanks to Eric for link). I had never seen your SIAM before but find I have been doing similar (though not identical) anyway. I do try to identify possible SMIDSYs and will judge if car will/has stopped. I will sit up just before the “critical point” to change my shape/size and, if following a vehicle, will move to the left to gain eye contact, then to the right on approach to offer more escape options, possibly accelerating nearer the car in front to reduce the gap the SMIDSY can enter, staying to the right so if the car in front brakes, I can go down the RHS.
As a driver I once very nearly caused a SMIDSY. I was going to turn right and looked diligently all the way up to the junction but the car ahead obscured a motorcyclist that I only spotted on my final check. Too close.
One thing we motorcyclists must not do, is simply obey the laws, expect others to do the same, and then, from hospital, blame the driver at fault for a crash we could have avoided.
Dave Finney, Slough
0
SIAM training can be found on Youtube here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqQBubilSXU
Crash course – the SMIDSY
Eric Bridgstock, Independent Road Safety Research, St Albans
0
Duncan, could you please supply us with a link to view your Siam Manoeuvre on Youtube, as I could not find it?
David, Suffolk
0
I can see Duncan’s point. Bad apples exist (stolen cars, drug addicts, lunatics) but the only effective response to them that I can see is traffic police in marked cars. All the others (probably the vast majority of crashes) can’t really be prevented by the policies the authorities now adopt instead of police officers.
The SMIDSY is a good example. These are very rare when I drive, but common when I use the motorbike, though only once resulted in a crash. Drivers seem prone to SMIDSY almost randomly. If we prosecute each driver that causes a SMIDSY, such crashes will simply continue occurring and nothing is solved. We, as drivers must somehow avoid causing SMIDSYs, and, as motorcyclists, cyclists and pedestrians must guard ourselves against this threat from others. This is another area where obeying the rules might cause crashes, thinking for ourselves can prevent them.
Dave Finney, Slough
0
Duncan:
What about the motorcycle riders that are some of the 360 plus killed on our roads in 2012? The majority of whom apparently killed themselves whilst there were no other vehicles involved. Some of them would be considered the bad apple mentioned by others because they rode in some unsafe manner particularly round bends or on inappropriate overtaking manoeuvers (Stats 19) and were therefore the authors of their own demise.
As for SIAM. It’s very difficult for a car driver to understand why and what a motorcyclist does on roads other than be an annoyance… unfortunately … this is also showing in the response to having a cyclist share their space. Intolerance.
Any motorcyclist apparently swerving all over the road is bound to be more obvious but also cause for concern and therefore something to avoid. Should motorcyclists therefore continue riding in such a fashion all the time in order to be seen and make themselves safer?
bob craven Lancs
0
Think once, think twice, think bike was memorable, powerful and almost entirely wrong! During this campaign there was no change at all in the SMIDSY rate and even with many similar campaigns since then, the SMIDSY still represents over 30% of the motorcycle crash rate.
We use it as a good example of the how the authorities can get things so dreadfully wrong when it comes to their various interventions. Such a campaign would be much, much better if it was from the rider’s point of view, because they are the only ones in any position to do something about the latent error.
My SIAM manouvre is so effective that it has probably now saved many hundreds of lives around the world even though thanks to Youtube and social media, not one penny of government money has been spent on advertising or marketing the technique.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Duncan: Agree entirely with your first paragraph.
As for the second paragraph – it comes with experience! Is it a great hardship for us to slow down to protect ourselves from others? I remember a saying we used to use to young drivers/riders: “It’s best to arrive late than DEAD on time”!
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Anyone remember “Think ONCE, Think TWICE Think BIKE”? That was a campaign with the right nmessage that ran a long while ago and is as valid now as it was then – why not resurrect it?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Tanya, the inattentional blindness track will probably lead you nowhere because it is one of the weakest of the blindness problems (if it even exists) and therefore the most difficult to overcome.
Much more benefit will be gained if you start to look at the other blindnesses such as camouflage, motion camouflage and the looming effect. When you understand those you will begin to see where the fundamental problem actually lies.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Almost there Hugh! The road transport system does not have much resilience, in other words it is not very forgiving of errors and mistakes whatever the underlying cause. Each user of the system must understand this fact, but because of bad apple, most of them have been taught to lay the ‘blame’ for the error on the other party rather than assuming that they themselves played some significant part in the event. My colleague Kevin Williams of Survival Skills puts it very nicely when he says “it takes two to tangle”, or the event may well have been started by one of the parties, but it it is finished by the other.
In the case of the SMIDSY, if we slowed down for every possible conflict then we would eventually grind to a halt and so each rider needs to learn ways of identifying which of the many possible conflicts will be the ones most likeley to end in the car pulling out. General instructions to slow down will be entirely counterproductive because of the ‘Murphy’s law is wrong’ problem and so we need to better understand what variables lead to what outcomes.
General terms such as defensive driving are all well and good, but as our friends in the Military say “unless you know the attack profile, you can’t possibly defend against it”.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
I don’t think there is one answer but that we should use a combination of solutions, based on the available data and academic research.
Well-designed, well-implemented and well-maintained road systems should be used in conjunction with encouraging defensive riding and driving (i.e. good anticipation and observation skills) and respect and acknowledgement for all other road users (by tackling phenomena such as inattentional blindness). We should be promoting responsible road use from all parties – pedestrians, car drivers, motorcyclists, cyclists, lorry drivers alike – and penalising the irresponsible.
Surely a holistic approach, using all available information and all stakeholders, is the best approach rather than trying to implement one solution in isolation?
Tanya Fosdick, Road Safety Analysis
0
Isn’t the answer something which has been mentioned before in this forum i.e. defensive driving, or in this case defensive riding? i.e. a rider, in anticipation or in expectation of not being seen by a driver, slows down in readiness to stop so that there isn’t a collision in the first place?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
(Duncan)
I didn’t say that these problems can be ‘cured’ but I highlighted the research in order to show that one of the reasons why road users ‘fail to look’ IS examined by researchers and practitioners, without attributing blame.
As you say, research has shown that drivers who are also motorcyclists/cyclists or know motorcyclists/cyclists are more likely to ‘see’ motorcyclists/cyclists than drivers who aren’t/don’t know any. This is because of the salience you mention. People will look out for objects with meaning to them.
Therefore, whilst campaigns to increase awareness of these vulnerable road user groups won’t solve all of the problems, they can provide a non-confrontational approach to reducing the effect of inattentional blindness. Raising awareness of the issue of inattentional blindness itself has also been shown to help people adopt steps to prevent them from missing what they need to see.
Tanya Fosdick, Road Safety Analysis
0
I appreciate where you’re coming from on this Duncan with regard to perceptual processing and inattentive blindness etc. but not sure what your solution is. Are you therefore saying that those who are susceptible to this shouldn’t be allowed to drive, or what?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Interesting point Tanya, but the inattentional blindness problem is only one of the many perceptual processing problems that we all suffer from. The idea that these problems can be ‘cured’ is not correct and can be compared to curing somebody from an inability to lick their own elbow!
The gorilla test is great fun although it has subsequently been found that it is more a short-term memory test after the event than a test of people’s ability to percieve the gorilla during the event. The gorilla lacks salience so the memory does not record it, the ball passing has high salience and so a memory is recorded because the subject knows that they are going to be questioned on it after the event.
Because of the strength of the bad apple theory it is all too easy to construct a campaign that tries to fix the perpetrator even though the perpetrator’s perceptual system is almost completely unfixable.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Duncan:
I would have to disagree that “nobody is interested in” understanding the failure mode and working out ways of overcoming it. Psychologists have been talking about ‘inattentional blindness’ in relation to ‘looked but did not see’ collisions (particularly involving motorcyclists and cyclists) for many years and a variety of campaigns and courses are based on overcoming it.
The ‘Gorilla test’ is used in presentations aimed at audiences ranging from young drivers to speed awareness attendees and demonstrates how difficult it is for the brain to concentrate on one task at time (leading people to ‘miss’ other stimuli). Recent Think! campaigns about motorcyclists have also sought to address inattentional blindness but making motorcyclists more relevant to drivers in order to assist them recognising them at junctions. None of this is about apportioning blame but is about improving cognitive skills.
Tanya Fosdick, Road Safety Analysis
0
You must have a very forgiving nature then Duncan if you thought the drivers involved in your accident were not at fault! Weren’t you in the slightest bit peeved? I would certainly call SMIDSY carelessness or inattentiveness as I’m sure a lot of others would. The point is when we’re in charge of a moving vehicle, we can’t afford to be careless or inattentive. How much carelessness and inattentiveness are we supposed to tolerate? As you’ve alluded to the aircraft industry, how many incidents or near misses are pilots allowed?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
A good example of what I mean can be found with the ‘looked but failed to see’ accident or SMIDSY (sorry mate I didn’t see you). This is a very popular accident with motorcyclists and cyclists being the most usual victims, yet it is diabolically under-researched mainly because the cause is usually dismissed as carelessness or inattention or some other easy to digest label (the bad apple theory).
Having suffered from these accidents a couple of times myself I eventually found that the drivers involved were not careless, reckless or inattentive, but just normal people going about their normal activities in the same way as they had done countless thousands of times before and without any problem. What had happened was not down to any deliberate actions or moral shortcomings on their part but turned out to be a fundamental problem with the human vision and perception system. Understanding what this inherent failure mode is and working out ways of overcoming it would no doubt save many valuable lives so why is nobody interested in doing so?
Sadly the answer is that nothing is done because it is a much more difficult thing to do than simply punishing the driver (the bad apple) involved and then waiting for the next poor victims, driver and rider, to fall into the deadly trap.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
“…so that we too can determine the actual causes of road accidents and serious incidents and make safety recommendations intended to prevent their recurrence”. Brilliant ‘solution’ – can’t believe no-one’s thought of that before – what do you think the authorities have been doing for the last few decades Duncan?
“…the system does exist and it does work, but it does suffer from a great many accidents and collisions, but nowhere near as many as might be expected”.
Quite agree, so it’s not the road network’s fault then is it? It’s the ‘bad apples’ we need to be concentrating on. Do the air transport regulators tolerate careless, reckless and irresponsible aircraft pilots? No, they wouldn’t be allowed near an aircraft, so why we do we tolerate it on the roads?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
NOTE FROM EDITOR: WHILE THIS POST IS SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER THAN OUR SUGGESTED 150 WORD COUNT I HAVE DECIDED ON THIS OCCASION TO PUBLISH IT IN FULL, AS I THINK IT MAKES SOME INTERESTING POINTS THAT MAY INTEREST, ADN DRAW RESPONSE FROM, OUR READERS.
Perhaps the best way of revealing how fundamentally ‘unsafe’ the road transport system is would be to imagine that it did not already exist and that you were proposing its construction.
Imagine if you will the expressions of horror on the faces of the Government officials and health & safety practitioners as you explained your proposal for a system of ‘roads’ and ‘vehicles’ linking every address in the country. I would suspect that those looks of horror would soon turn to peals of laughter as they thanked you very much for your idea as they threw you out of the room.
When you think about it every aspect of the road transport system makes absolutely no sense from a safety point of view. Opposite direction traffic separated by just a white line? Uncontrolled junctions that rely on driver judgement to make them safe? The brake control on the vehicles to be buried in a dark tunnel and operated by the drivers foot? No separation between pedestrians and vehicles? Vehicles of different weights and sizes from push-bikes to 44 tonne artic’s all sharing the same roadway? Drivers requiring only the bare minimum of training before being let out on their own? Overtaking? The list of safety problems that would ensure the road transport system could never be constructed today is absolutely endless and it is doubtful that anybody could make a case for it.
Notwithstanding all of the above, the system does exist and it does work, but it does suffer from a great many accidents and collisions, but nowhere near as many as might be expected.
This mismatch between the potential for collision and the actual collision rate is where we need to look to find answers to the problem.
I take as my model the air transport accident investigation system to provide a reliable framework and methodology for reducing accidents as it has proved to have been spectacularly effective in making air transport the safest transportation system in the world. The Air Accident Investigation Branch has a statement that makes a very good starting point and it says “The purpose of the AAIB is: To improve aviation safety by determining the causes of air accidents and serious incidents and making safety recommendations intended to prevent recurrence… It is not to apportion blame or liability.
The crucial difference between air and road accident investigation is the idea that cause finding has to be entirely separated from blame and liability as it was found that this was the major factor that was holding back any hope of making safety improvements.
Our road transport safety system has so far failed to sever this link and so it cannot possibly move forward and bring about these much-needed safety improvements.
My solution to the problem therefore is to persuade the road transport safety industry to mirror the systems, methods and procedures of the air accident investigation system so that we too can determine the actual causes of road accidents and serious incidents and make safety recommendations intended to prevent their recurrence. It’s probably a forlorn dream, but I live in hope.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
It’s not a theory Duncan, it’s what actually happens. What exactly do you think is unsafe about the ‘system’ and why can you not see that some drivers/riders are inherently unsafe or ‘bad apples’ as you call them? What would your solution be?
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
It appears that there are two theories in play. The first advocated by Mr Jones is the ‘bad apple’ theory where the system is considered to be fundamentally safe, but it is made unsafe by the actions of a few bad apples operating within the system. Remove the bad apples and the underlying safety of the system will be revealed.
The second theory is the ‘New View’ theory that states “Complex systems are not basically safe. People have to create safety whilst negotiating multiple system goals. Human errors are symptoms of deeper trouble within the system”.
Which of these two competing theories holds the most promise for reducing road accidents? The one that is closed to learning opportunities or the one that is open to learning opportunities?
Oh and by the way, bad behaviour, recklessness or carelessness is NOT human error by another name and the two should never be confused or conflated.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
Duncan:
I beleive what I and others refer to as good and bad behaviour (behind the wheel or on two wheels) is what you call Human Error/Human Factors, so thankfully we are all thinking as one – just different terminology it would seem.
Human error accounting for most if not all accidents is correct obviously, only I would probably use the phrase ‘bad behaviour’ i.e recklessness, carelessness etc. – either way it’s still ultimately down to the driver or rider to avoid, or not, avoid a crash.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
It is a sad fact that more good people have bad accidents than bad people have bad accidents, so who’s behaviour do we want to change?
The vast majority of accidents happen to normal, ordinary, law-abiding folk just like you and me and because it’s only those accidents that happen during some form of hooliganism that make the papers we tend to put them at the top of the problem pile rather than the ones that happen to Joe Normal.
There is very little connection between ‘behaviour’ (whatever that is) and accidents, but there is a HUGE connection between Human Error/Human Factors and accidents yet this is almost completeley ignored by ‘behaviourists’ and ‘bad apple’ theorists alike. Even the Government’s own figures cite human error as the cause of over 70% of accidents (it’s actually closer to 100%), so why does behaviour change (whatever that is) seem to be the flavour of the month?
To answer Rod’s question what I do with my riders is not to change their behaviour (whatever that is) but to teach them what they need to do to manage the environment in which they will find themselves. I do this by telling them all about human error, how to spot the fact that they have made, or about to make an error and how they can extricate themselves from off-normal situations. Human error causes accidents, death and destruction, so I teach human error and that’s the value in what I do.
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0
We don’t need to change everyone’s behaviour, just the behaviour of those who are accident prone i.e make those who are recklesss and/or careless less so and yes, the roads should then become safer. I thought that’s what it was all about.
Hugh Jones, Cheshire
0
Duncan:
Why so cynical? Do your training courses on motorcycle skills not “change behaviour”? And if not then what’s the point or value in them?
Rod King 20’s Plenty for Us
0
Behaviour change? Could someone please tell me what “complex, time-consuming and costly” behaviour change is and more importantly how its proponents think changing everybody’s behavior will make the roads safer?
Duncan MacKillop, Stratford on Avon
0