Media and Seat Belt

OutlineIntroduction

Feedback Theory based Traffic Safety Campaigns

Masha Wilson, OP Program Manager(DPS-OTS), PushkinKachroo(Ph.D, P.E.), Puneet Lakhanpal(MS, UNLV)

September 28, 2010

Nevada University Transportation Center

Masha Wilson, OP Program Manager(DPS-OTS), Pushkin Kachroo(Ph.D, P.E.), Puneet Lakhanpal(MS, UNLV)Feedback Theory based Traffic Safety Campaigns

OutlineIntroduction

IntroductionTarget: What and Why ?Education in Road SafetyResults of the Seatbelt Survey

Overall Results

Results based on Variables

Feedback Control Design


OutlineIntroduction

Target: What and Why ?Education in Road SafetyResults of the Seatbelt SurveyFeedback Control Design

Target: What and Why ?

◮ Target: Design productive traffic safety campaigns.


OutlineIntroduction


Target: What and Why ?

◮ Target: Design productive traffic safety campaigns.

◮ Reason: Blind design of campaigns can producecounter-productive results.

◮ Needed:

Figure: Feedback Control Design

Sensor

Media Campaign

and Education

Design

(Controller)

Drivers and their

Behavior

(System)

Target BehaviorActual Behavior

Measured Behavior

Difference between

the two

Behaviors

Media

Campaign

Seat Belt data, crash data, traffic data etc.


OutlineIntroduction


Road safety education: Driver Education will do it!

◮ Road safety education: Driver Education will do it!


OutlineIntroduction




◮ Education in Road Safety (article)


OutlineIntroduction




◮ Education in Road Safety (article)

◮ Education without Proper Modeling has Many Problems


OutlineIntroduction


Education without Proper Modeling

◮ Inappropriate foundation for the intervention


OutlineIntroduction




◮ Information Deficit Model


OutlineIntroduction





◮ Dosage


OutlineIntroduction





◮ Dosage

◮ Risk as a Value, Pleasure as a Pleasure


OutlineIntroduction





◮ Dosage

◮ Risk as a Value, Pleasure as a Pleasure

◮ Social Norms


OutlineIntroduction


Education without Proper Modeling...contd.

◮ The Economic Climate


OutlineIntroduction




◮ Technical Issues


OutlineIntroduction





◮ Effect Size and Presentation


OutlineIntroduction





◮ Effect Size and Presentation

◮ The Challenge


OutlineIntroduction


Overall Results

◮ Statewide Seatbelt Average based on AVMT - 93.16%


OutlineIntroduction


Overall Results


◮ Total Observations - 11,337 vehicles


OutlineIntroduction


Overall Results


◮ Total Observations - 11,337 vehicles

◮ Vehicle distribution based upon State of Registration -Nevada - 92.06 % (10,437), California - 5.574% (632) , Statesother than Nevada and California - 2.363 % (268).


OutlineIntroduction


Results - ‘Gender‘ Variable

◮ Drivers Belted: (Males [92.64%] < Females [95.07%])

*Note: -1 denotes data at that site not available.

Figure: Gender based Seatbelt usage by Drivers (*-1=NA)


OutlineIntroduction


Results - ‘Gender‘ Variable

◮ Drivers Belted: (Males [92.64%] < Females [95.07%])◮ Least belted sites

◮ Male Drivers - Sutcliffe Road, between Sutcliffe andPyramid(39 - 68.18%)

◮ Female Drivers - Gowan at Clayton (32 - 79.25%)

*Note: -1 denotes data at that site not available.

Figure: Gender based Seatbelt usage by Drivers (*-1=NA)


OutlineIntroduction


Results - ‘Ethnicity‘ Variable

◮ Occupants: (African Americans [90.67%] < Hispanics[90.78%] < Others [93.99%] < Caucasians [94.54%])

Figure: Ethnicity based Seatbelt usage by Front Occupants (*-1=NA)


OutlineIntroduction


Results - ‘Ethnicity‘ Variable

◮ Occupants: (African Americans [90.67%] < Hispanics[90.78%] < Others [93.99%] < Caucasians [94.54%])

◮ Least belted sites◮ African Americans - Mill Street at Terminal Way(42 - 66.67%)◮ Hispanics - Sutcliffe Road, between Sutcliffe and Pyramid (39

- 63.64%)

Figure: Ethnicity based Seatbelt usage by Front Occupants (*-1=NA)


OutlineIntroduction


Results - ‘Age and Gender‘ Variable

◮ 15-19 [89.20% M, 89.01% F] < Less than 15 [92.86% M,90.91% F] < 20-60 [92.12% M, 95.01%F] < Greater than 60[95.48% M, 98.80% F]

Figure: Age based Seatbelt usage by Front Occupants (*-1=NA)


OutlineIntroduction


Results - ‘Age and Gender‘ Variable

◮ 15-19 [89.20% M, 89.01% F] < Less than 15 [92.86% M,90.91% F] < 20-60 [92.12% M, 95.01%F] < Greater than 60[95.48% M, 98.80% F]

◮ Least belted sites◮ 15-19 Males: Adams at Buchanan(31 - 0%)◮ 15-19 Females: Tropicana at Paradise(16 - 50%), Ann Rd at

Decatur(19 - 50%), US-395 BR at 2nd Street(58 - 50%)

Figure: Age based Seatbelt usage by Front Occupants (*-1=NA)


OutlineIntroduction


Results - ‘Vehicle Type‘ Variable

◮ Pickup [91.48%] < Sedan/Station Wagon [93.43%] <Van/SUV [95.09%]

Figure: Vehicle Type based Seatbelt usage (*-1=NA)


OutlineIntroduction


Results - ‘Vehicle Type‘ Variable

◮ Pickup [91.48%] < Sedan/Station Wagon [93.43%] <Van/SUV [95.09%]

◮ Least belted sites◮ Pickup Occupants: Gowan at Clayton(32 - 66.67%)◮ Pickup Drivers: Gowan at Clayton(32 - 69.44%)

Figure: Vehicle Type based Seatbelt usage (*-1=NA)


OutlineIntroduction


Results - ‘Functional Classification of Streets‘ Variable

◮ Occupants In Nevada: Rural Collector [91.48%] < UrbanCollector [92.68%] < Urban Arterial [93.35%] < UrbanInterstate [93.46%] < Rural Interstate [95.46%] < RuralArterial [96.34%]

Figure: Functional Classification based Seatbelt usage


OutlineIntroduction


Factors to address seat belt usage using social norm PSA

1. Gender (Nevada Vehicle Registration):◮ Drivers: Male - 92.28%, Female - 94.99%◮ Passengers: Male - 90.96%, Female - 95.56%


OutlineIntroduction




2. Age and Gender:◮ Males: Least seatbelt usage - 89.20% by Boys (15-19)◮ Females: Least seatbelt usage - 89.01% by Girls (15-19)


OutlineIntroduction





3. Vehicle:◮ Least seatbelt usage by occupants: 91.48% in pickup trucks


OutlineIntroduction





3. Vehicle:◮ Least seatbelt usage by occupants: 91.48% in pickup trucks

4. Ethnicity:◮ Occupants: Least seatbelt usage - African-Americans

(90.67%, followed closely by Hispanics with 90.78% seatbeltusage)

◮ Drivers: Least seatbelt usage - African-Americans(90.53%belted)

◮ Passengers: Least seatbelt usage - Hispanics (89.67% belted)


OutlineIntroduction


Feedback Control

Sensor

Media Campaign

and Education

Design

(Controller)

Drivers and their

Behavior

(System)

Target BehaviorActual Behavior

Measured Behavior

Difference between

the two

Behaviors

Media

Campaign

Seat Belt data, crash data, traffic data etc.


OutlineIntroduction


Feedback Control for Campaign Design

◮ Study the Data to identify target areas


OutlineIntroduction




◮ Study the properties of each media outlet (spatial-temporal)


OutlineIntroduction




◮ Study the properties of each media outlet (spatial-temporal)

◮ Design Campaigns for education and targetting risky groupswith different plans (stratified plan)

◮ Deploy, then sense (seat-belt study, crash data analysis, trafficanalysis etc. in next cycle), and continue sequentialimprovements


OutlineIntroduction


Media and Seat Belt Enforcement in 2010

Figure: Where Nevadans read, saw or heard about Seat Belt LawEnforcement (n = 341)


OutlineIntroduction


Actuators: How to choose and design each specific media

campaign

◮ Each media outlet acts as an actuator for the feedback controldesign.


OutlineIntroduction


Actuators: How to choose and design each specific media

campaign

◮ Each media outlet acts as an actuator for the feedback controldesign.

◮ The effectiveness and the characteristics of each media haveto be taken into account so that the exact needed deficienciesthat the sensor (seat-belt data collection) has identified, willbe addressed in the campaign.


OutlineIntroduction


Summary

◮ Design of the safety campaigns should reflect thestratifications and changes in public behavior.


OutlineIntroduction


Summary

◮ Design of the safety campaigns should reflect thestratifications and changes in public behavior.

◮ Feedback control design imperative !


Documents

Media and Seat Belt