Hampshire FA pledges support for Project Pictogram

12.00 | 7 October 2015 | | 4 comments

The Hampshire Football Association has become the first sports association to pledge its support for Project Pictogram, and will be promoting the initiative  through its club networks.

Launched in September, ‘Project Pictogram’ encourages UK fleets and organisations to use an industry standard set of vehicle stickers to communicate the dangers of the ‘fatal four’: inappropriate speed, using a mobile phone while driving, not wearing a seatbelt and drink/drug driving.

Hampshire FA will use the pictograms in sports tournament programmes, posters and social media in a bid to ‘nudge’ young people, even before they start driving, as well as reminding parents to be a good role model while travelling to and from matches.

The Association points to the fact that young people aged 15-24 years represent the highest risk road user group, and football and other sports can positively influence large sections of this group, both before and during this high risk phase of their driving experience.

Hampshire Fire & Rescue Service, which is behind Project Pictogram, is urging other sports clubs and associations to join Hampshire FA in supporting the initiative. A section of the Project Pictogram guidelines illustrates how sports, music, and other community groups can make “no cost changes” to their printed and electronic communications to incorporate the pictograms.

Phil Palfrey, Hampshire Fire & Rescue, said: “The support from The Hampshire FA is fantastic and illustrates how this safer roads initiative is being embraced by the whole community, not just businesses and fleets.

“This community wide approach of delivering key messages consistently will make the difference.”



Comment on this story

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Report a reader comment

Order by Latest first | Oldest first | Highest rated | Lowest rated

    Top Gear’s ‘The Stig’ gave a demonstration showing that a typical family diesel hatchback with modern tyres and ABS could be brought to a halt from 112mph (if memory serves correctly) within the distance the Highway Code’s prescribed stopping distance from 70mph. Clearly this was a well maintained and tyred version of the car, driven by a fully engaged professional driver focused on the task of stopping, on a dry runway, and being fully familiar with the characteristic of a dry track. Pragmatically, the “average” motorist may not be this engaged in the ‘Thinking Distance’ element, or as familiar with the function of ABS, or be riding on OEM specification new tyres. A short trip down most 70mph roads will observe many people following at significantly less than a ‘2 Second’ gap, so extending this group’s following distance out to 2 seconds would be a move in the right direction. For the purposes of simple mass communication to a largely disengaged audience, pointing to a nationally published standard avoids confusion/ambiguity through debate. Attempting to move a group already acclimatised to a sub-2-second following habit straight to a greatly extended following distance is likely to see them reject the suggestion altogether on the basis that it feels extreme to them. The typical reaction being, “if I leave a space that big someone just cuts in”.

    In his book ‘Mind Driving’ Steve Haley describes driving as a ‘Herd’ activity where we tend to align to the social norms of the group directly around us; this is particularly true in relation to following distances. Extending the general herd’s collective following distances OUT to 2 seconds and generally encouraging thinking about SPACE within a basic driving plan generally be a positive to group safety( i.e. general motoring population, not engaged motorists actively seeking to develop advanced skills). Get to first base with this communication objective behaviour change and then you are in position to start layering on more detail, which is what Project Pictogram attempts to do with its second-tier pictogram relating to cold/wet stopping distances (again defaulting to the Highway Code’s recommendation on the timed gap as a generally accessible source). If Impact Energy = Speed Squared (according to Formula 1’s corner design safety experts) reducing impact speed through extended following distances would be positive; eliminating the impact all together would be the ideal solution. Steve Haley’s expression of the contributing variables is good: RISK = SPEED X SURPRISE (Observation, Distraction)/ SPACE (with speed being capped at legally prescribed maximums, as with any other law of the land). Newly updated Project Pictogram Guidelines now available to download from: http://www.hantsfire.gov.uk/project-pictogram

    Phil Palfrey, Hampshire
    Agree (1) | Disagree (0)

    I must admit that I commented without looking into the article proper or at the picture in the item itself. I relied on what I saw and read. However I did see within that published by RSGB that it only mentioned the Fatal Four. Speed/phone/seatbelts and drink? drugs. Nothing about the fifth element of which I speak, that being Safe Space. As always we see on the pictogram an attempt to instruct drivers upon the 2 second rule which is only of any value up to 40 mph. As in the Highway Code S 126. The HC also mentions, and I quote, “Allow at least a 2 second gap between you and the vehicle in front on roads carrying faster moving traffic”. It shows a two second gap and nothing more. How is a driver to know what time lapse should be given over 2 seconds when driving at say 70 mph. 115 ft per second. If he leaves just the 2 second gap he will I have no doubt fail to stop in time should the vehicle in front “suddenly stop”. Again s.126. It’s like saying to drivers to keep your distance without telling them what that distance is.

    Bob Craven , Lancs…Space is Safer Campaigner.
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

    If you check out their website Bob, you will see that they have included a ‘2 second gap’ pictogram.

    Duncan MacKillop. No surprise – No accident.
    Agree (1) | Disagree (0)

    For fear of repeating myself if the fatal four are depicted in picture form then why can’t it be the Fatal Five and include driving too close to the vehicle in front. I am sure if this was put down in stats 19 Box Number 308 then it would get more recognition either as a cause or a contributory factor.

    Bob Craven, Lancs…Space is Safer Campaigner
    Agree (0) | Disagree (0)

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.