Behavioural Research and the GB Road Safety Strategy

I think it is reasonable to argue that almost every action in the strategy either explicitly targets behaviour, or implicitly assumes that behaviour will change as a result of some intervention, whether regulatory, educational, or technology-, organisation-, or infrastructure-based. Consequently, behavioural research will be critical to its success.

A number of examples of ways in which behavioural research either has or can help with the implementation of the strategy are given below, along with how the BR-UK is also going to be involved.

Simple perception

Perhaps one of the best examples - and simplest ones - comes from the theme that one might assume is least to do with behavioural research. In the 'safe infrastructure' theme there is a commitment to support trials in new regions of the 'PRIME' engineering treatment, which has been developed to aid motorcyclists select appropriate speeds and lines through bends. 'PRIME' stands for 'Perceptual Rider Information for Maximising Expertise and Enjoyment' and provides a visual cue for motorcyclists to follow through bends to keep them safe, at appropriate speeds. They appear to be effective in pilot studies that have been run so far. Any assessment of this intervention from a behaviour change perspective would lead one to conclude that what we have here is a simple treatment, that provides motorcyclists with (in COM-B terms) a very clear path to success. The desired behaviour is clear, and the intervention provides a boost in both the capability and the opportunity motorcyclists have to perform it. (We can safely ignore motivation for this example, as every motorcyclist I've ever met has a very strong motivation to stay alive, and arguably an even stronger one to corner well.)

Complex situations

While the PRIME intervention is arguably a simple implementation of behavioural research to focus on a simple behaviour, other examples are more complex.

For example, the strategy has a commitment to engage with regulatory bodies to highlight the importance of healthcare professionals notifying the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) if they have patients whose eyesight is falling below the minimum standard for driving. Currently, the onus is on drivers to notify the DVLA, and this in itself is a behaviour change challenge. We also know that healthcare professionals are reluctant to get involved in this issue directly and guidance available from relevant professional bodies makes it clear that this is a very difficult topic. Behavioural research undoubtedly has something to say about how to persuade both drivers and their healthcare professionals to behave in the desired way. Regarding the latter, it might be fair to say that behavioural research is absolutely critical. The incentives for healthcare professionals to report their patients can be conflicting; for example, patient confidentiality is an important part of healthcare, but so is the responsibility to wider public health. There is also social and emotional friction; a healthcare worker may not want to risk confrontation with their patients, who will naturally be distressed and potentially angry in such situations, and the loss of trust that may occur is arguably reason enough for healthcare professionals to err on the side of under reporting. Finally, the fact that drivers are the ones who are legally responsible, and that there will be multiple healthcare professionals potentially involved in such decisions (for example GPs, opticians) means that there is a diffusion of responsibility which may act as another friction point for action.

Another example of potentially a more complex behavioural problem than we might first think is the adoption of new vehicle technologies. The strategy has a commitment from the Government to collaborate with stakeholders to maximise the potential benefits of so-called ADAS (advanced driver assistance system) technologies, such as intelligent speed assistance, lane keep assist, and autonomous emergency braking. With such systems becoming standard in cars, and especially those sold in Europe due to the TRL-authored general safety regulations, we have cracked what is often the most difficult part of the COM-B model, the 'opportunity' one. However increasingly we are seeing evidence that we also need to understand how users respond to such technologies, and crucially whether they choose to use them as intended; drivers' beliefs and attitudes about intelligent speed assistance for example predict whether they will use such systems. An added complication here is that some cars - those pre-GSR - have intelligent speed assistance systems that default to off and require drivers to turn them on before every trip. GSR-compliant systems on the other hand default to on, and require drivers to turn them off if not required. So for one system, which we know can save many lives on the road, we have two intended behaviours, arguably with completely different sets of motivating factors. I've noted before how we often make things difficult for ourselves in road safety.

For all the reasons outlined above, I am extremely happy that road safety is explicitly included in the BR-UK project. Over the next two years, working with various partners across the BR-UK consortium, TRL will be developing and evaluating an intervention using the very best that behavioural science can bring to bear on a core part of the safe system approach - vehicle speed. The project will likely take place within another important area within road safety, namely occupational and work-related driving. We know from previous work that work-related driving brings with it a range of risk factors, all of which are informed by behavioural research to some degree. Work-related driving brings specific pressures to those involved in it, including distraction, time pressure, fatigue, and greater exposure to driving overall.

Interestingly, there are commitments in the Road Safety Strategy both on occupational driving and on speeding. Arguably in both cases the commitments are fairly weak. On occupational driving there is a commitment to pilot a National Work-Related Road Safety Charter for businesses to sign up to, if they have employees who drive or ride for work. On speeding, arguably one of the most important pillars of the Safe System Approach, we have a commitment to update guidance on setting local speed limits, and on using speed cameras. There is also a commitment to continue educating the public about safe road behaviours including appropriate speeds, through educational and media campaigns. There is a risk however, without considerable investment in behavioural research to understand how the public think about driving speeds, and how we can change the public narrative, that these commitments will fall short of what we need to do on this critical behaviour. The BR-UK speed study will seek to address these challenges head on.

The GB Road Safety Strategy rightly adopts a holistic Safe System Approach. Its success however will in large part hinge on how well we understand, influence and support human behaviour across the multiple system components. Behavioural research provides a foundation for turning policy intent into real-world impact, helping us design interventions, technologies and environments that work with people rather than against them; it will allow the commitments in the Strategy to achieve the best they can in meeting those ambitious targets to reduce harm from the road transport system.