A Study of the 2004 Street Smart Communications Program Prepared by Riter Research for: Metropolitan Washington Council of Government’s May 2004. Revised

A Study of the 2004 Street SmartCommunications Program

Prepared by Riter Research for:

Metropolitan Washington Council of Government’sMay 2004. Revised September 2004.

Advertising Agency:

DesignHouseWashington, DC

This report is confidential information and is not tobe copied, quoted, published, or divulged to others without

written consent of Riter Research, Inc.

Riter Research, Inc. 7424 Kevin Avenue Easton, MD 21601 (410) 822-2211 [email protected] (e-mail)

Riter Research, Inc.

Riter Research, Inc.2

About Street Smart

• Street Smart is a public awareness program that was launched in October 2002 to change driver and pedestrian behavior in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. The program was based on the recognition that just in the Washington, DC metro area over 2600 injuries and 85 fatalities involved pedestrians and bicyclists in 2001.

• To reduce the number of traffic deaths involving pedestrians, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Government’s (MWCOG) launched the first Street Smart Campaign in October 2002 which consisted primarily of radio, Metro and outdoor transit advertising.


Street Smart 2004

• To increase public awareness of pedestrian safety and to improve all driver’s behavior regarding pedestrians, the MWCOG determined the need to continue the Street Smart program through news media, a public awareness communication campaign, and in some jurisdictions, increased law enforcement activity.

• The 2004 Street Smart campaign was targeted to all drivers in the Washington, DC metro area with a primary audience identified as male drivers under 35 years of age who have been identified as the primary offenders in pedestrian safety issues.

• The FY 2003 Campaign targeted drivers aged 18 to 44.


Research Objectives

• Evaluate the 2004 Street Smart public awareness campaign in terms of:– Increasing public awareness of pedestrian safety, in general, and regarding

pedestrian laws in crosswalks in particular.

– Increasing public awareness of police enforcement regarding yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks.

– Improving both driver and pedestrian behavior.


Methodology

• Pre - post awareness study– 300 interviews conducted prior to Street Smart Campaign and 300

conducted at end of campaign.

– Motorists selected at random from DC, Maryland, and Virginia that comprise the DC metropolitan area.

– Sample is in proportion to the population that resides in DC metropolitan area included in the study.

– In FY 2003 400 interviews were conducted pre- and post- campaign


Ending Sample

ENDING SAMPLE

Pre Post Pre PostRegion Age

DC 12% 12% 18 to 24 11% 6%Maryland 42 42 25 to 34 14 16Virginia 39 40 35 to 44 21 25

45 and older 54 53Race / Ethnicity

Caucasian /White

65% 70% Gender

AfricanAmerican

15 14 Female 50% 50%

Asian American 6 5 Male 50 50Hispanic / Latin 6 4


2004 Key Dates

• Benchmark Interviews March 15 - 29

• Media Campaign April 4 - May 2

• Post Interviews April 29 - May 5


Data Presentation

• Unless indicated, tables and charts contained within the report are based on those asked a specific question. Tables and charts within the report may not total 100% due to (a) rounding, (b) multiple answers allowed in some instances, (c) exclusion of no answer percentages, and (d) not all answers being shown.

• Results within the report will show overall results as well as results for the target group -- males under 35 years of age, when meaningful observations are observed.


Data Presentation

• The maximum expected sampling error at the 95% level of confidence is plus or minus 5.8%. For sub-groups, the maximum error will be larger than the total sample.

• The following chart shows approximate sample errors for different size subgroups.


Statistical Reliability

Maximum Sampling Error @ 95% Level of Confidence

Sample Size of Group Observed percentage near .... 300 150 100 Near 50% + 5.8 + 8.2 +10.0 40% or 60% + 5.7 + 8.0 + 9.8 30% or 70% + 5.3 + 7.5 + 9.7 20% or 80% + 4.6 + 6.6 + 8.0 10% or 90% + 3.5 + 4.9 + 6.0


Limitations

• The current study is based on a campaign that ran for a short duration (four weeks). Our experience shows that changes in behavior, especially deep-rooted ones such as driving behaviors and attitudes, take a long time to change.

• The campaign ran during a period where much of the media’s and public’s attention was focused on the War in Iraq. The war effects are unknown.


Awareness of Law

• At the start of the 2004 Street Smart Campaign, awareness of laws regarding yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks was unchanged from levels observed in 2002.

• At the conclusion of the campaign, awareness of the law was unchanged.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nov. 2002 March 2004 May 2004

AWARE OF PEDESTRIAN LAWS

85% 84%86%


Pedestrian Behavior

• The incidence of “jaywalkers” has remained unchanged over the past 24 months.

• Drivers are just as likely to report observing pedestrians who walk in the street or jaywalk without concern for motor vehicles at the end of the campaign as they reported prior to it.

FREQUENCY OF OBSERVING PEDESTRIANS WHO JAYWALK / WALK ONTO ROAD

WITHOUT LOOKING (Past 30 days)

Sept. 2002 Nov. 2002 March 2004 May 2004 Frequently 42% 40% 41% 40% Occasionally 31% 35 31 34 Total Frequently / Occasionally 73% 75% 72% 74% Rarely / Never 27% 25% 26% 25%


Pedestrian Behavior

• Drivers report they have noticed ‘no differences’ in pedestrian behavior regarding jaywalking or walking in the road without concern for motor vehicles.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

March 2004 May 2004

FREQUENCY OF OBSERVING PEDESTRIANS JAYWALKING

(Past 30 Days)

41% 40%


Driver Behavior

• Since 2002, there has been a notable improvement in driver behavior regarding drivers yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks.

• At the end of the 2004 Street Smart Campaign, observations regarding drivers’ behavior was unchanged.

FREQUENCY OF OBSERVED DRIVERS WHO DO NOT YIELD / STOP FOR PEDESTRIANS

(Past 30 Days)

Sept. 2002 Nov. 2002 March 2004 May 2004 Frequently 46% 37% 30% 27% Occasionally 33% 39 31 35 Total Frequently / Occasionally 79% 76% 61% 62% Rarely / Never 21% 24% 36% 36%


Driver Behavior Regarding Yielding to Pedestrians

• At the end of the 2004 Street Smart Campaign, motorists report they were just as likely to frequently observe drivers who ‘did not’ yield to pedestrians in crosswalks during the past 30 days, as reported prior to the campaign launch.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

March 2004 May 2004

REPORT "FREQUENTLY" OBSERVING DRIVERS NOT YIELDING TO PEDESTRIANS IN CROSSWALKS

(Past 30 Days)

61% 62%


Driver Behavior To Avoid Pedestrians

• Between the March and May period, the proportion of drivers who reported they had to ‘suddenly swerve’ to avoid hitting a pedestrian who was jaywalking or walking without concern for vehicle traffic declined from 32% to 27%.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

March 2004 May 2004

REPORTED HAD TO SWERVE TO AVOID PEDESTRIAN

32%

27%


Who’s at Fault

• Most motorists believe that when an crash occurs between a motor vehicle and a pedestrian, that the fault lies with the driver of the vehicle. This was unchanged between waves. Overall levels of belief were unchanged from 2002.

WHO’S AT FAULT

Nov. 2002 March 2004 May 2004 Driver 45% 39% 42% Pedestrian 21 28 25 Both 15 13 12 Not Sure 18 20 21


Police Efforts

• Comparison of baseline and post measurement indicates that awareness of police efforts to crackdown on drivers who do not yield to pedestrians is unchanged between 2002 and the start of the 2004 campaign.

• Overall awareness of police efforts to crackdown on drivers who do not yield to pedestrians in crosswalks was unchanged between the March and May period.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Nov. 2002 March 2004 May 2004

HEARD ABOUT POLICE EFFORTS TO CRACKDOWN ON DRIVERS WHO DO NOT YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS

24%23%

24%


Police Efforts

• Among target male drivers under 35 years of age, awareness of police efforts to crackdown on drivers who did not yield to pedestrians increased 22 points … from 10% to 32% ... between April and May 2004.

HAVE SEEN / HEARD ABOUT POLICE EFFORTS TO CRACK DOWN ON DRIVERS WHO DO NOT YIELD TO PEDESTRIANS

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Males Under 35

Total Sample

March 2004

May 2004

23%

24%

10%

32%


Police Enforcement

• Between the 2004 baseline and post measurement, the proportion of motorists who believe they would get a ticket for not yielding to a pedestrian in a crosswalk is unchanged.

• Among male drivers under 35, there was no change in beliefs about getting a ticket for not yielding to a pedestrian in a crosswalk (47% vs. 48%).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Nov. 2002 March 2004 May 2004

% SAY CHANCE OF GETTING TICKET IS LIKELY FOR NOT YIELDING TO PEDESTRIAN IN CROSSWALK

40% 40%

35%


Campaign Recognition… Total Sample

• Awareness for all Street Smart executions increased slightly between March and May 2004.

• “Victim” showed the greatest increase in terms of campaign recognition.

*Difference is significant between periods.

CAMPAIGN RECOGNITION

0 5 10 15 20 25

Take the Time

Street Smart

See My Dad

Victim

Police Officer

March 2004

May 2004

20%

23%

12%

20%*

13%

15%

20%

22%

18%

20%


Campaign Recognition… Males Under 35

• The most notable changes in campaign recognition were recorded for the campaign target group -- males under 35.

HAVE RECENTLY SEEN / HEARD ….

Total Sample Target Audience –

Males under 35 March 2004 May 2004 March 2004 May 2004 “Street Smart, Watch Out” 18% 20% 20% 32% Police Officer 20 23 13 29 Victim 12 20 3 29* See My Dad 13 15 13 19 Take the Time 20 22 13 32* *Difference significant between periods.


Street Smart Campaign Awareness

• Overall awareness of hearing about the Street Smart Program or about cracking down on enforcement of drivers who do not yield to pedestrians in crosswalks did not change much, only 9% versus 11% in FY 03.

• But among target drivers -- males under 35 -- awareness increased significantly.

% AWARE OF STREET SMART PROGRAM

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Males Under 35

Total Sample

March 2004

May 2004

37%

35%

27%

48%


Source of Advertising… Total Sample

• Motorists aware of the Street Smart Campaign were not sure where they had seen or heard the campaign; both broadcast and radio were cited frequently.

SOURCE OF ADVERTISING (Base: Recall Seeing / Hearing Advertising)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Metro/Bus

Brochure

Billboard

Newspaper

Radio

Television

March 2004

May 2004

72%

62%

30%

32%

4%

7%

0%

3%

1%

3%

2%

4%


Source of Advertising – FY 03

• In FY 03, awareness of the Street Smart Campaign on radio increased 11 points (36% to 47%).

• This is a much stronger performance with the total sample than in FY 2004. However, the television results were also much stronger, and we ran no TV ads in FY03

SOURCE OF ADVERTISING (Base: Recall Seeing / Hearing Advertising)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Poster

Brochure

Billboard

Newspaper

Radio

Television

Pre

Post

58%

52%

36%47%

8%

12%

3%

2%

1%

3%

1%

2%


Source of Advertising… Males Under 35

• Among the target prospects for the Street Smart Campaign, awareness of the campaign can be attributed to radio.

SOURCE OF CAMPAIGN ADVERTISING (Base: Males under 35)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Banners

Newspaper

Metro/Bus

Radio

Television

March 2004

May 2004

64%

44%

27%

56%

0%

13%

9%

6%

0%

6%


Media Buys: FY 2004 vs. FY 2003

• FY2004• Radio (680 spots) $114,614• TV (241 spots) $56,500• Print (12 insertions) $9,556• Public Relations $10,000• Collateral Materials $28,000

– Posters (1,500)– Handouts (100,000)– Transit Shelters (41)

• Outdoor Media $96,064– Busbacks (150)– Interior Cards (375)– Transit Shelters (41)Total: $315,000

FY 2003• Radio (941 spots) $181,250• Posters (2,250) $12,700• Brochures (50,000) $5,000• Safety Tips Inserts (250,000)

$10,000• Stickers (10,000) $600• Outdoor Media $90,250

– Busbacks (65)– Metro Station Poster Cards (12)– Bus Cards (350)– Transit shelters (43)Total: $300,000


Media Effectiveness

• We spent slightly more in FY 2004 than in FY 2003, but got somewhat less general campaign awareness.

• We spent substantially less on radio advertising in FY 2004 than in FY 2003, yet the research shows that drive-time radio is our most effective advertising medium. We also got more free radio PSA spots in FY 2003 than in FY 2004.

• Advertising buys in FY 2005 should focus on the most effective advertising medium, drive-time radio. Television advertising, which is costly but not terribly effective, should probably be eliminated in favor of radio buys. Eliminating a whole media category also reduces development costs.


Conclusions

• Overall motorist yielding behavior towards pedestrians has improved significantly over the last two years, with the proportion of respondents who “frequently” observe drivers failing to yield falling from 46% to 27%. However, the change does not seem to be strongly correlated with the one-month campaigns. Possible factors are a separate pedestrian safety campaign took place in the Spring of 2003, the media attention to pedestrian safety by all three campaigns which outlasted the campaigns themselves, and ongoing enforcement efforts.

• The public is very aware of laws pertaining to yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks; however, in spite of this knowledge, they readily report it is not likely that drivers will get a ticket for the infraction or law violation.

• Although there was a significant increase in awareness of the Street Smart Campaign among male drivers under 35, this did not translate into reported changes in behavior or beliefs of consequences if they violate the law.

Documents

A Study of the 2004 Street Smart Communications Program Prepared by Riter Research for: Metropolitan Washington Council of Government’s May 2004. Revised