Dr Lisa Dorn wrote:
An Assessment of Lancashire County Council's Speed Awareness Course - Located
Here By Dr Lisa Dorn, Director of the Driving Research Unit
Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 OAL - Tel: 01234 750111 Ext 5232
Email:
l.dorn@cranfield.ac.ukDr Lisa Dorn wrote:
Introduction
On Tuesday 27th May, 2003 I attended the Lancashire Partnership Speed Awareness Course along with genuine candidates who had been caught doing 35 mph in a 30 mile speed limit. The purpose of my attendance was to provide feedback on the structure and content of the course. The course is divided into two sections, firstly the classroom-based 'theory' component with ADI's followed by a practical in-car component also with a trained driving instructor. I was invited because Lancashire County Council's (LCC) road safety team heard me make a provocative statement at the 2003 RoSPA Road Safety Congress. I contested the prevailing wisdom that the focus for driver education should be to change driver's attitudes if we want to change driving behaviour. The two are not mutually exclusive. Driver education should address both driver attitudes and driving behaviour.
From previous information there is usually one or more people that have been booked for 34mph or even below, within a 30mph limit.
I agree with good and proper education but not that which emphases numeric values as a measure of road safety. Good attitude is developed not taught in a one off lesson, although it may be a step towards it.
We don't need to 'change' driver behaviour we just have to bring out the best in people and the desire to be as good as possible, in their driving and riding. it is wrong to look at this as we are all wrong and have to be altered. We are good and need to understand how we might improve. A driver has passed a test so why assume they are all 'bad' hardly any incentive to do better. Most drivers instinctively know they were safe (albeit illegal) when caught going above the posted limit.
A good attitude and good behaviour relies on desire to achieve and interest in topic. Cameras dull and defuse that interest and create a negative effect on most road users.
the requirement to driver education does not need to be paid for by the motorist. If the Gov used public info films (not shock horror non-sense) but proper informed education and guidance, on how to be a good driver/rider backed with good and appropriate enforcement. Just because someone thinks there is not enough public money to employ good well trained traffic policemen doesn't not mean that it cannot happen.
Camera's are a false economy, that have been used to provide a slapstick temporary sticking plaster to satisfy government induced targets. they have no place in any good road safety system.
Dr Lisa Dorn wrote:
Do Driver Attitudes Predict Driving Behaviour?
Safe driving skills may be known, but do people practice them? So why don't attitudes correspond to behaviour? Often, there are low correlations between attitudes and behaviours with much of the variance in the relationship between them being unexplained. People decide on what they intend to do after considering the factors relating to the different possible actions. Then this behavioural intention leads to the action in question. Intention to perform an action is a function of person's attitude towards the action and their perception of how other people will respond to that action. It is behavioural intentions then, rather than attitudes, which are usually good predictors of people's behaviour. Indeed, there is convincing evidence that if our goal is to change driver's attitudes, then we should be changing behaviour first then attitude change is more likely to follow. I'm reminded of the classic quote "do you like brown bread?" Answer, "I suppose so, I'm always eating it". People infer attitudes from their behaviour, or in an effort to be consistent, they may adjust their attitudes to support their decisions to behave in a particular way.
Currently, Driver Education programmes seem to be firmly wedded to variations of the Health Belief Model. The model suggests that if the risks of particular behaviours are highlighted, then a behaviour change will somehow magically take place. Intuitively, this appears reasonable and is based on the premise that thought precedes action. In reality, people are more irrational and inconsistent than that, and behave in quite unpredictable ways. For example, people don't always do what is good for them, especially if it involves cost, effort or sacrifice on their part. There has to be a perceived benefit to any behaviour change. In the case of speeding, slowing down will mean more time is needed for a journey (a perceived cost). Slowing down will also reduce exposure to risk (a perceived benefit, but only if risk is accurately perceived in the first place).
People never go out to have an accident or incident. Road users like to be legal and behave well on the road, cameras have and are skewing people's attitude and behaviour towards their motoring methods. Many road users don't think about how another will perceive their actions as they generally don't expect to behave outside the expected 'norm'. However it is good to remind, educate and guide people to what the expected behaviour's are. To imply that people just do things because they should fails to consider the deeply ingrained motoring interest in the Country, but supposed that it is something we do with little thought or interest and that could not be further from the truth for most road users.
That shows a great misunderstanding about road users attitude already, and fails to see that people want to be good and try to do the right thing. But people are not sheep and they do think especially when confronted with cameras.
Is she implying that if shown that by strictly keeping to a specific numeric value they will magically be safe and then by learning this apparent good attitude will suddenly become good drivers thereafter - oh dear, that is never going to work and isn't already.
In the second paragraph above she fails to comprehend the interest and desire to be responsible motorists that are trusted to try to do as well as possible on the roads. But throw too many sticks at road users and no carrots and their attitude moves against the law that appears to be acting disproportionately. No education then will be taken to heart as no respect exists as no trust is given.
Dr Lisa Dorn wrote:
A good example of a change in attitudes following a change in behaviour is the use of seatbelts. Prior to legislation driver's attitudes to seatbelts focused on their movement in the vehicle being 'restricted' and/or fears about being 'trapped' in the event of an accident etc. People reluctantly developed the new habit of 'clunck, click, every trip'. Then, interestingly, people began to rationalize their behaviour change as good for road safety, developing more positive attitudes to seatbelts, especially once massive reductions in road deaths were public knowledge. Nowadays, the vast majority of drivers would not consider driving without their seatbelts, not because they have to, but because they believe they are safer by doing so.
As if this isn't controversial enough, the literature also suggests that changing strongly held attitudes is a notoriously difficult thing to do. Driver attitudes are often bound up with notions of self-image, illusory biases, perceived control and perceived invulnerability to risk that are all particularly enduring driver characteristics. Complex processes indeed which could be challenged in a classroom setting, but behaviour also needs to be shaped to reinforce the messages. Therefore, a fruitful approach would be to address risk misperceptions and then reward appropriate behaviours during an actual drive. This, in essence, is the approach taken by LCC.
Seatbelts are now being less used than ever, so I don't think that a good example at all. The arguments for and against them still continue. many do wear them due to the desire to do the legal and right request. But better to show why and let people convince themselves that dish out a rule that they must obey or else. Threat never teaches.
People do drive worse by not wishing to lean forward and many accidents now occur because of failure to observe. Had education been increased to ensure all knew of this problem then people would pull against the seat belt and learn to look well. Whilst there will of course be those that died because they were wearing their seat belt, I would agree that offset against those that wear them, and less damaged or killed, as a consequence, is the higher 'success'. This is still sad for those that have died, but from Stats point of view the 'better evil'.
What '
literature' is she referring to I wonder ?
Individuals can 'learn' for themselves, they don't have to have 'classroom settings', and just because something is difficult never means it is impossible and therefor should not be attempted ! We just need better processes and systems to deal with the core problems and gradually improve those learning aids and guides and gradually improvements are shown for the long term.
One biased drive in front of others is no guarantee that improvement is made other than embarrassment , that usually fails to teach in the long term.
Best way to change an attitude is for that person themselves to see why they do or don't do something though guidance.
I disagree that "...
but behaviour also needs to be shaped to reinforce the messages."
To deliberately 'shape' people to reinforce your intended message is no way to have good responsible road users. It speaks of control and brainwashing as if people are incapable of own thought and does nothing to improve knowledge and abilities. Looking to the better drivers and seeking how to inspire those less capable road users to be better and provide incentives, this gives you good capable road users that can think and judge and manage risk for themselves, not mindlessly do something with little personal belief other than "I suppose I drive OK, I am always doing it that way" - no thought or understanding whatsoever - awful and extremely short sighted.
Dr Lisa Dorn wrote:
The Participants
At the start of the course, it was obvious that the 14 candidates all had quite different backgrounds and poor attitudes to speeding. All believed that they didn't need to be trained in speed awareness, they were just there to avoid running up their penalty points. All but one admitted to regularly 'safely' speeding. The group included young and middle-aged men and women, from all walks of life. From the outset, a 60-year old man was keen to let everyone know that he had never broken the speed limit before and had taught six members of his family to drive. He seemed very embarrassed to be attending such a course. When he received the LCC notification that he had broken the Road Traffic Law, his self-image of being an expert driver had been badly shaken. All participants demonstrated the usual misperceptions and denial of the risk of speeding, typical of the majority of the driving population.
Dr Lisa Dorn wrote:
The Classroom Component
Candidates were asked for the kinds of excuses people use for speeding. Many of the candidates were noticeably quieter about their attitudes to speeding, after recognising the difference that 5 mph can make to stopping distances if a pedestrian were to 'suddenly' appear (thought process: ‘perhaps there is something wrong with speeding after all….?’). Beliefs were further questioned when the instructors discussed the fallibility of the driver under stress, the effects of distraction and loss of concentration (thought process: ‘Perhaps I am not invincible and invulnerable to risk after all…..?’). Exercises were used to demonstrate human error. Simple messages were effectively communicated - COAST (Concentration, Observation, Anticipation giving you Space and Time) and 'Suddenly' and 'Nowhere' moments (suggesting poor hazard awareness). Easily remembered messages post-course.
All this was achieved not by shaming the participants, but with a shared responsibility for the speeding problem. It was gratifying to hear that the driving instructors recognized that as human beings they also make mistakes, despite their driving skill (thought process: ‘if the experts don't consider themselves experts, then perhaps I'm not an expert driver either….?’). The group was then examined on their knowledge of the Highway Code, with few of the participants fully understanding how to differentiate a 30mph from a 40mph zone and appropriate approach speeds to a speed limit change. (thought process: ‘Perhaps I don't know as much about the Highway Code as I thought I did….?’). There was much evidence of active co-operation during group tasks, assessing risk in a dynamic road scene full of unfolding hazards. The instructors stressed the need to practice after the course, with behaviour change only being likely once the habit 'not to speed' is firmly formed over the course of the next 3-4 weeks.
In the classroom component, the group began to accept that they were not expert drivers after all, but human operators prone to error.
Dr Lisa Dorn wrote:
The Practise Component
The classroom-based speed awareness and hazard perception training was then reinforced in an in-vehicle drive with an ADI. The instructor asked the candidates to drive for 10 minutes to provide an initial assessment of the candidates driving. Next, the instructor gave a demonstration commentary drive, underpinning the speed and hazard awareness issues raised during the theory component in the classroom. The candidates were then asked to drive for 15 minutes highlighting hazards and speed limits. During this drive, the instructor checked for the execution of appropriate driving skills and used reinforcement to reward appropriate behaviour, gently drawing attention to areas for improvement in a non-judgmental way. Participants were encouraged to see driving as a real skill that requires ongoing practice after the course. The candidate was then observed during a second assessment drive. Improvements were in evidence after receiving the benefit of the instructors training.
Dr Lisa Dorn wrote:
Conclusion
This course may not be a life-changing experience for everyone. Some candidates will continue to break the speed limit despite LCC’s efforts. Such individuals may need to be dealt with in different ways. But by targeting 'marginal' speeders, behaviour is challenged before it goes beyond redemption. The course questions driver's behaviour respectfully without apportioning blame. That would just alienate the candidates rather than solicit their cooperation. More importantly candidates are given an opportunity to accurately perceive the risks they run every day in an actual drive. The behaviour component is an essential and critical aspect to underpinning attitude change. After the course, candidates seemed convinced that by slowing down there is a newly found perceived benefit - reducing exposure to risk. Their driving behaviour is observed to change during the practice component and consequently their belief that speeding is safe is disrupted. Maybe only for a short time for some, but for others, more permanent change is possible.
Nowadays, marginal speeding behaviour regularly goes unchallenged, this is particularly worrying given the finding that the more people have the opportunity to practice risky behaviour, the more they underestimate the risk of the activity. This is not the case in Lancashire. The county is being both proactive and supportive in their road safety messages. It is not surprising to hear that since thousands of people have received the benefit of this course, accident rates are showing dramatic improvements. Clearly, without carefully designed research, it cannot be ascertained the extent to which this course has brought about accident reduction.
Systematic research to evaluate this innovative ground breaking programme needs to be conducted and disseminated in the public domain. Perhaps LCC have found a way of tackling the speeding problem, not with traditional approaches, but by tackling head-on the most variable, irrational and difficult component - the driver.
Since no one ever sets out to drive dangerously or to have any type of incident or accident, what maybe the causes ? In essence the answer are mistakes. No one is perfect we are all imperfect but we can try to strive to be as good as possible. If someone makes an inattention, frustration, or bad observation accident they do so because of a lack of ability, knowledge or skill. If speed is inappropriate then enough (ability) thought process has gone into the conditions and have been misread or not considered properly. Even a lack of experience can also cause errors, but improving on errors needs to be encouraged with incentives and interest. This helps grow the road user good culture and nurture's it too. VAS can help remind drivers that appropriate speeds are necessary and make then question their progress and helps people think of conditions as a consequence.
All drivers can benefit from education and guidance - to offer these course to those only over by a few mph and often within the original 85%ile than those that are a lot over makes a total questionable non-sense of it's true purpose.
A serious overhaul of the courses needs to happen and moving away from speed alone as the 'safe god aspect' and begin to educate and guide, without the need for tickets. If the Council was really serious about road safety then they should offer courses for FREE, after all think about how much money is saved if they don't have an accident! I bet if they did that their high accident cost would suddenly be reduced as they stop taking all the 'extra's' into account ! Helping people to drive defensively - done more through recessions anyway - hence their stats coming down - and RTTM of course !
What about ALL the other driver training facilities ! There is so much to learn and how we can improve. Self education can easily be done through cognitive behaviour therapy / training ...
Laws need to be made that take this all into account ensuring that they are fair and proportional.
Understanding that the Law needs to be balanced, proportional and seen as fair and appropriate is important for respect. This has failed in a big way and the police public rift is huge.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
