Motorists are inundated with roadside indicators whereas driving. These can embrace velocity restrict indicators, development warnings, instructions to outstanding landmarks, and security warnings (e.g., “Icy Street Forward”).
In an interesting paper published recently in Science, researchers Corridor and Madsen make a powerful case that sure roadside security warning indicators can backfire and really improve — somewhat than lower — the chance of deadly accidents.
As a part of a roadside security marketing campaign, the state of Texas (like many states) commonly shows “dynamic message indicators” indicating the variety of latest visitors fatalities — e.g., “1669 DEATHS THIS YEAR ON TEXAS ROADS.” Nonetheless, Texas shows these indicators one week each month, offering a pure experiment as to how a lot these indicators decreased accidents.
To their shock, Corridor and Madsen discovered that the indicators didn’t scale back the variety of accidents, however somewhat the alternative. Over a interval of a number of years, on the weeks the messages had been displayed, automobile accidents rose by 4.5% on the stretches of highway 10 km (6.2 miles) after the indicators. This translated to 2,600 extra accidents and 16 extra deaths annually in Texas, with an estimated annual socioeconomic value of $377 million.
The researchers additionally did intensive evaluation to manage for different confounding components. For example, they checked fatality charges for comparable stretches of highway upstream of the indicators, in addition to checking information on comparable weeks earlier than the general public security marketing campaign started. In addition they managed for climate, holidays, and different components.
Corridor and Madsen argue that these indicators brought about extra accidents attributable to a mix of elevated cognitive overload on the drivers together with excessive “saliency” (attention-grabbing impact) of a starkly damaging message.
A freeway warning signal speaking the full variety of visitors deaths on this state to this point this … [+]
getty
I preferred their paper, as a result of they backed their reasoning with some attention-grabbing information evaluation. For instance, a numerically bigger fatality rely on the signal (i.e., doubtlessly extra attention-grabbing) was correlated with the next accident charge. Additionally, the indicators apparently brought about extra accidents on extra advanced stretches of highway, in keeping with a cognitive overload speculation.
Moreover, the indicators elevated the variety of multi-vehicle accidents however not single-vehicle accidents. (Single-vehicle accidents are extra usually attributable to giant errors reminiscent of driving off the highway, whereas multi-vehicle accidents are extra seemingly attributable to a number of smaller errors reminiscent of drifting out of lane, usually seen with distracted driving.)
Corridor and Madsen additionally explored seven different hypotheses, reminiscent of the chance that the show weeks had been inherently extra harmful, that any message will increase accidents, and so on., and located that none of them had been in keeping with the info.
I additionally discover it fairly believable {that a} starkly damaging message (i.e., “Plenty of individuals have already died doing what you’re doing proper now!”) may worsen driving errors, particularly on already-challenging stretches of highway that require a excessive degree of focus. There’s a motive that coaches attempt to give athletes constructive encouragement throughout strain conditions, somewhat than damaging encouragement. If I needed to make a pair of essential free throws to win a basketball championship sport, I’d a lot somewhat hear, “You bought this, child!” somewhat than, “Don’t choke and blow the sport, you loser!”
The Texas Division of Transportation clearly had good intentions with their marketing campaign, with an express objective of reminding motorists “that driving deserves their full attention every time they get behind the wheel.” Sadly, this specific effort had the unintended consequence of distracting drivers’ consideration, typically fatally so.
Neither is the impact restricted to Texas. The researchers word that, “many of the harm is finished in the course of the first few days that the message is displayed… and in locations the place fatality messages are displayed 1 day per week, reminiscent of Colorado, the impact may very well be worse.” Maybe I’ll be a bit extra cautious driving in Denver on these days.
Corridor and Madsen draw a number of conclusions from their work, and I encourage others to learn the full paper.
One of the vital classes applies to policy-makers who like utilizing psychological interventions and “nudges” to form how bizarre individuals behave: “[M]easuring an intervention’s impact is vital, even for easy interventions, as a result of good intentions needn’t indicate good outcomes.” [Emphasis mine.] This is a vital precept that each one authorities policy-makers may higher take to coronary heart.
