building street harmony paper july 2016 final downloads... · page1%of21!!!...

of 21

Building Street Harmony Between Cyclists and Motorists

A behavioural experiment on the streets of London The Behavioural Architects

Crawford Hollingworth Septmeber 2016

Executive summary

Evidence shows that there is a significant gap between motorists’ perceptions of the extent of bad cycling behaviour, and in particular the jumping of red lights, than is the reality [in fact motorists believe cyclists are more badly behaved than is actually the case]. We set out to leverage our understanding of behavioural science and behavioural economics in particular, to understand what drives this perception reality gap and from this understanding to explore ways in which we could apply powerful behavioural principles such as social norm to get red light jumpers to stop, to reinforce good cycling behaviour and to challenge motorists’ views that the majority of cyclists jump red lights. We worked with creative agency MBA to develop a number of hypotheses and intervention ideas. A simple behavioural experiment was then conducted at two high traffic junctions in London during rush hour, where we evaluated the quantitative impact of a small poster on the number of cyclists jumping red lights vs. a previous control (poster free) period. A small qualitative study was also conducted looking at the potential impact of the intervention on motorists’ perceptions. The quantitative results showed the small poster intervention had a significant impact on the number of jumpers, with a reduction of 21.4% and 14.5% at the respective junctions. The qualitative research further indicated the message challenged motorists’ existing inaccurate beliefs head on. This simple, small scale intervention shows the potential power of more targeted (larger scale) interventions to build street harmony and make our urban streets a little safer. Contents:

Introduction Section 1: Exploring the context of jumping red lights Section 2: Developing behavioural hypotheses Section 3: Designing the intervention Section 4: Impact of the intervention Conclusion

of 21

Introduction

There is a hate war going on between cyclists and motorists on London’s streets

This war is fuelled by inaccurate behavioural beliefs by motorists about cyclists -‐ a

behaviour and perception gap The enormous growth in cycling on London’s streets over the last few years has led to increased tensions and a veritable ‘war’ on the road: Many motorists despise cyclists and vice versa. This conflict is fuelled by motorists’ belief that most cyclists not only have no regard for the rules of the road, but also often go out of their way to flout them. We also continue to see far too many injuries to cyclists on our urban streets. Another major concern is that the majority of well-‐behaved cyclists are tarred by the bad behaviour of the few. There is a considerable gap between motorists’ perceptions of the extent of bad cycling behaviour and actual bad cycling behaviour i.e. what occurs in reality. Negative observations of cyclists have what behavioural science calls ‘high salience’ levels, which means they get our attention and are often easier to bring front of mind later [so if you’ve recently seen a cyclist jumping red lights and are called upon to summon up ‘cyclist imagery’ later, it’s highly likely that you will bring to mind an image of a cyclist jumping the lights, thereby underscoring a negative cyclist memory in your brain]. Good cyclist behaviour, meanwhile tends to be less salient. Availability bias [where people predict the likelihood of an event based on how easily an example can be brought to mind] can also account for why we often have negative thoughts, irrational fears or expectations about certain things. We may worry about plane crashes or terrorist attacks, but these things hardly ever happen. But because these terrible things are very vivid, salient and therefore memorable, they are more easily brought to mind. Most cyclists don’t jump red lights – research conducted in London over the few years suggests only around 7-‐12% of cyclists jump red light -‐ but we tend to notice and remember the ones who do which makes the number of ‘jumpers’ feel higher. So it’s the misbehaving cyclist minority that is fuelling the anger, frustration and hostility that many motorists feel towards cyclists in general. And in more crowded, stressful urban streets this tension can only increase, making our roads a more dangerous place for cyclists.

of 21

Our mission: To look at ways to reduce this inaccurate belief by motorists and by doing so to build more street harmony As a global insight and research consultancy grounded in the field of behavioural science, The Behavioural Architects (TBA) saw this set of circumstances as an opportunity to draw on insights from this field and conduct research around cyclist behaviour to shape and inform a novel approach to reduce tension on London’s roads. If we could change perceptions to create a more accurate picture of actual behaviour we believe we could reduce the tension between motorists and cyclists and create more harmony on our urban streets and thus a safer cycling environment. Our mission was to leverage our understanding of behavioural science and in particular behavioural economics to:

• reinforce positive cycling behaviour; • challenge motorists’ view that all or the majority of cyclists jump red lights; and • encourage potential red light jumpers to stop at junctions.

By drawing on behavioural science, we were well positioned to:

• understand behaviour by investigating the conscious and unconscious behavioural influences of cyclists and motorists.

• design a simple and low cost intervention to build ‘Street Harmony’, thus reducing tensions between cyclists and motorists.

Our four stage methodological approach

1. Reviewing existing academic literature and applied research through a behavioural science lens

2. Conducting qualitative research on the behaviour of both cyclists and motorists and forming behavioural hypotheses on how we might potentially correct misperceptions of cyclists and reduce jumping behaviour

3. Identifying potential junctions for intervention sites and developing posters to be placed at these junctions

4. Measuring frequencies of red light jumping at these junctions before and after interventions

of 21

Section 1: Reviewing existing literature:

Exploring the context of jumping red lights 1.1 Gauging the extent of red light jumping behaviour among cyclists According to a 2013 study conducted by YouGov, 69% of respondents in London think it is ‘common’ for cyclists to jump red lights. One taxi driver stated “In my opinion most cyclists jump given the chance – if they see an opportunity, they’ll take it!” But the reality in London is different:

• TfL observed over 7500 cyclists across five sites in London in 2007 and found that on average only 16% jumped a red light. 1 In addition, jumping behaviour varies by junction since each junction’s design and contextual features (type of junction, size, number of lanes, pedestrian crossing, duration of red light) influence the decision to jump.

• A 2013 study by the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association used London black cab drivers’ video footage which showed that 53% of 364 cyclists jumped red lights during rush hour. 2

• However, a 2013 study featured in the Sunday Times assessing two London junctions observing 777 cyclists showed that jumping rates were just 12.3% and 6.9%.3

• Our own fieldwork in March 2015 identified a jumping range between 7% and 44%.4 Overall, whilst there is a high variability in the percentage of cyclists who jump between junctions, the majority do not jump. This misperception of cyclists feeds tension on the roads, creating a negative feedback loop amongst motorists as shown in Figure 1. This tension continues to build over time and may teeter just on the edge of aggression. Our hypothesis is that such anger and tension may impact on some motorists’ driving behaviours and make our urban streets a more dangerous place for cyclists

Figure 1: Negative feedback loop of misperception and tension

1 TfL 2007 -‐ http://www.tfl.gov.uk/cdn/static/cms/documents/traffic-‐note-‐8-‐cycling-‐red-‐lights.pdf 2 Evening Standard, 2013 http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/cyclists-‐filmed-‐jumping-‐red-‐lights-‐in-‐london-‐taxi-‐drivers-‐hidden-‐camera-‐footage-‐8969043.html One was the junction of Hackney Road, Queensbridge Street and Horatio Street in Hackney. The second, at the junction of Fortess Road, Highgate Road and Kentish Town Road in Camden 3 road.cc, 2013 http://road.cc/content/news/98721-‐1-‐10-‐cyclists-‐jump-‐red-‐lights-‐says-‐sunday-‐times 4 From five observational studies in the field, TBA found jumping to be 7%, 22%, 27%, 32% and 44%.

of 21

1.2 Identifying types of jumping behaviours – not all jumpers are the same! Previous research5 has identified three different approaches to a red light junction amongst cyclists as demonstrated by their behaviour at one particular junction. These types are listed below together with an evolutionary game theory perspective which identifies the types of “strategies” employed by different types of cyclists:

• Law abiding cyclists who do not jump: These cyclists are unconditional co-‐operators who are deterred from jumping lights by social and moral costs.

• Opportunistic cyclists who are conditional co-‐operators: Their behaviour is context dependent and is influenced by the situation around them – sometimes they jump a lot, other times they jump infrequently. When they do jump, it may be the result of licensing effects – when we balance out good and bad behaviour -‐ for instance, cyclists might allow themselves to jump at one red light if, at an earlier light, they have complied with the law and waited.

• Risk-‐takers who are free-‐riding: these cyclists will jump whenever they can and are focused purely on their individual gain.

A range of different behaviours can be seen across the spectrum as shown in Figure 2. By identifying these behaviours, we can better understand how to leverage behavioural interventions.

Figure 2: Range of jumping behaviours 1.3 Qualitative research into red light jumping behaviour TBA conducted observation sessions to gather in-‐the-‐moment insights from cyclists and motorists and to explore different junction behaviours by cyclists and other road users. Questionnaires and interviews with drivers and cyclists revealed the negative feedback loop of misperception and tension on the road, shown in Figure 1. The tension on the roads is exacerbated by the poor opinion of cyclists, and this tension in turn feeds back into the perception of cyclists as bad per se. At the same time, cyclists despise motorists who drive aggressively around them and so the negative reciprocity persists. Tension also occurs between cyclists themselves; the law abiding and respectful cyclists irritated by the reckless free riders (and vice versa).

5 Source?

of 21

Section 2: Developing behavioural hypotheses

2.1 A behavioural science perspective on triggers leading to tension on the roads • System 2: Social psychologists propose the theory of a dual system of the mind: System

1 and System 2. System 1 is automatic, quick, intuitive, emotional, reacts to cues and looks for patterns, whereas System 2 is deliberative, conscious reasoning.

Frustration is likely to be exacerbated by depletion of System 2 resources. Driving in a big city like London requires the brain to use System 2 – effortful, attentive and deliberative conscious monitoring which is tiring and stressful for long durations.

A typical driver comment is often: “It’s so tiring having to look out for cyclists!” (It’s a struggle especially if the route is familiar as drivers are often on ‘autopilot’.)

• Fundamental attribution error: Fundamental attribution error is when people attribute

to character what would better be attributed to circumstance. For instance, if a motorist sees a cyclist jumping a red light they may think this cyclist is doing so out of selfishness or disregard for the rules of the road, and ascribe that behaviour to their bad character. However, if the motorist was in their shoes they would be more able to see that behaviour is often due to circumstance – cyclists often claim that it is safer to jump the light than it is to wait for them to change. A typical driver comment is often “Cyclists are so selfish and impatient, they think they can do whatever they like!”

• Free riders and injunctive social norms: Why do cyclists generate such intense levels of rage in motorists? It may be that they are seen as ‘free riders’ – free riding whilst others obey the rules – and by doing so they are seen to be breaking moral and ethical codes of behaviour. They take all the benefits of the road without contributing to the system or giving anything back, and are seen to violate both the formal and implicit rules of the road in their behaviour.

Thus, cyclists violate injunctive social norms of how people ought to behave. The impulse to punish individuals who are seen as breaking injunctive social norms of the group is so strong that it can lead to “altruistic punishment”, whereby individuals will punish others at their own expense. The evolutionary explanation of this counterintuitive phenomenon is that it boosts the advantage of the group and prevents the group becoming weakened by free riders – those reaping the benefits of the group without contributing.6

6 Tom Stafford: The psychology of why cyclists enrage car drivers (12 Feb 2013). BBC future

of 21

“They don’t pay road tax, they block the road, they are inconsiderate, they overtake, they are bloody slow . . . I pay road tax, so I should have priority. (M, 50, ORU, Birmingham)” Department of Transport, 2010, p58

• Hot zones: Tension on the roads can lead to aggression and emotional behaviour between drivers and cyclists, and between cyclists. “Sometimes it’s making me really angry” – from TBA research, March 2015 -‐, female road bike commuter “I do admire cyclists who have the courage to challenge bad behaviour in drivers. I’m just not sure banging on the sides of cars, or being aggressive, is a particularly productive way to do this. However, I understand the adrenalin of anger and fear that comes when someone has put your life at risk.” – from TBA research, March 2015 -‐ Joanna, 32, commuter cyclist

2.2 Triggers creating misperception • Out-‐group homogeneity/ in-‐group heterogeneity: The out-‐group homogeneity effect

means we perceive people outside our group as extremely similar to each other whereas members of our group are perceived as diverse, e.g. "they are all the same; we are diverse".

From a motorist’s point of view then, there are all sorts of drivers, but cyclists are often all lumped together and “tarred with the same brush” – this bias may explain why cyclists are often unfairly stereotyped as ‘bad’. As a result, motorists don’t differentiate between ‘good cyclists’ and ‘bad cyclists’, rather they consider them all to be bad. This may be changing in London however, and drivers may be categorising cyclists further based on their clothing or bike type (e.g. road bike vs. Boris bike). “Cyclists are always breaking the rules, they are all the same” – taxi driver TBA research, March 2015: “Other cyclists range from the very aggressive to the under confident.” – from TBA research, March 2015 -‐ Yves, aged 31, road bike commuter “Other cyclists… there are many sub-‐types. The show off/ stupid (hands in their pockets, music so loud you can hear it), the fake lashes and heels on Boris bike at rush hour (really?)…” -‐ from TBA research, March 2015 -‐, female road bike commuter

of 21

• Confirmation bias: Confirmation bias exacerbates the negative perception held about cyclists, because once people have a negative view or belief about cyclists they then tend to seek evidence that supports this belief and discount evidence that contradicts it.

Evidence that supports our existing beliefs is also more salient to us than contradictory evidence. If we think cyclists jump red lights, it will be more obvious when they do and we will be more likely to remember it.

“I’ve never, ever seen a cyclist pulled for doing something stupid, and that’s all they ever seem to be doing.” (Female, 35, ORU, Surrey, Department of Transport 2010, p56)

• Salience: Since compliant behaviour is the norm, it is not as salient. Jumping the lights and breaking other rules of the road is much more salient and is therefore remembered better – which leads to availability bias. “Just this morning I spotted someone running a red!” – typical comment

• Availability bias: We believe that events that are vivid, salient and easily brought to

mind are more frequent or more likely. In this cycling context, people are likely to think red light jumping is more frequent than it is.

“I see cyclists jumping red lights all the time, it’s so common”-‐ from TBA research, March 2015 -‐ Taxi driver

2.3 Developing behavioural hypotheses Our research fed into an internal behavioural hypothesis workshop with our team. During the workshop, we developed a long list of potential behavioural science concepts which might help to both explain current jumping behaviour but also inspire ways to counter it. TBA then selected a shortlist of five which had the potential to be most relevant to building Street Harmony between different road users:

1. Herd instinct and authority bias: Cyclists see other cyclists jumping and take this as permission for them to do the same

2. Social norms: Cyclists perceive that other cyclists jump red lights all the time

3. Lack of reciprocity: Cyclists / motorists feel they compete with each other vs. share the road

4. Overconfidence: Cyclists feel they know a specific junction or road / know what they are doing perhaps because they regularly cycle there

5. Licensing effect and honesty effects: Cyclists rationalise that they are not a real jumper if they only do it occasionally

of 21

Section 3: Designing the intervention 3.1 Selecting the behaviour change concept to use From these five, we decided draw on the impact of social norms and to try to reduce cyclists’ perception that other cyclists jump red lights. Social norms have a strong impact on people’s behaviour and have been shown to be successful in several different contexts. Numerous organisations have successfully used social norms -‐ such as the UK Behavioural Insights Team to increase tax compliance and GP practices to increase appointment attendance.7 We decided to use a poster campaign on the streets to influence behavior as such an intervention is simple and low cost with the potential make a large impact. We hoped to achieve the following three aims using a social norms message:

1. Help re-‐align motorists’ misperception about the proportion of bad cyclists. Since jumpers are more visible and memorable, we need to counter this perceptual bias

2. Make non jumpers feel they are the norm and that their behavior is the right behaviour [this may also leverage their ego in a positive way]

3. Make jumpers think twice about their behaviour by increasing saliency of the idea that jumpers are defying social norms

3.2 Development of posters As the next step, we developed initial intervention ideas for posters based around social norms as depicted in Figure 3:

Figure 3: Initial Intervention ideas based around social norms

7 Steve J Martin, Suraj Bassi, Rupert Dunbar-‐Rees, “Commitments, norms and custard creams – a social influence approach to reducing did not attends (DNAs)” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine (2012): 105: 101 –104. DOI 10.1258/jrsm.2011.110250 and UK Behavioural Insights Team “Applying behavioural insights to reduce Fraud, Error and Debt” 2012, www.behaviouralinsights.co.uk

of 21

Next, we explored a number of potential posters for the intervention. In the first stage, we brainstormed various messages to leverage social norms. We also created initial mock-‐ups which were then designed by the creative agency MBA as shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4: Potential posters for the intervention The messages for the posters were carefully chosen as it would be these messages that we needed to accomplish our mission to create ‘Street Harmony’. The posters had to communicate to motorists that only a minority of cyclists jump red lights, thereby challenging the misperception that most cyclists are breaking the law. In addition, the posters needed to point out to cyclists who do not jump that they are the norm and behave correctly, thereby reinforcing good cycling behaviour. Lastly, this message had to act to deter cyclists from jumping red lights by highlighting the idea that by doing so they would be deviating from normative and accepted behaviour. After the first drafts were designed, we gathered feedback on the posters from the public in a cycle café, a taxi rank and car park. Four messages leveraging social norms were tested without any design:

• 80% of cyclists don’t jump red lights • 80% of cyclists wait at red lights too • Most cyclists don’t jump red lights • 8/10 cyclists wait at red lights too

We also asked cyclists and drivers for their initial reactions to the three designs in Figure 4. Based on this initial testing and after internal deliberations, we chose the message “Most cyclists wait at red lights” as most appropriate, since research on cycling in London clearly identifies that the majority of cyclists did not jump red lights. Moreover, this message was

of 21

highest in validity and credibility since the actual percentage of jumpers for each specific junction varies. These were initially printed on a black background with bold white writing.

Figure 5: Poster chosen for the intervention During the first two interventions using the posters, we noticed that these black posters merged into the dull road architecture and were not as salient as we had hoped (shown in Figure 6). The posters were fighting for visibility in a busy environment. Thus, we also printed two red posters as research has shown that signs with red backgrounds make people more vigilant: the colour red is highly salient and attention-‐grabbing, evoking fear and awareness. It is also associated with warnings in general and the red traffic light colour and may therefore be easier to process mentally.8 The red poster is shown in Figure 5.

8 Adam Alter: Drunk Tank Pink (2013) p. 164

of 21

Figure 6: Black poster blending in with the background

Further Qualitative exploration of our proposed intervention amongst London taxi drivers We also wanted to gauge the reaction of motorists to our intervention message, as one of our core objectives was to challenge motorists’ perceptions that most cyclists are lawbreakers and anti-‐social road users. We decided the most challenging (and, therefore, the best for our purposes) audience with whom to explore this was London taxi drivers. When they first saw the intervention message, taxi drivers were initially quick to disagree. For example,

“Well that’s [the intervention message] just not true is it? Most cyclists DO jump red lights.”

But on reflection, they began to question their perceptions of cyclists’ behaviour, which jarred with the message we were proposing, causing a level of cognitive dissonance. For example,

“Well I guess they don’t ALL jump the lights, I’m a cyclist myself actually and I don’t jump red lights. But those that do give them all a bad name.”

Our hope would be that in order to resolve this dissonance, taxi drivers [and motorists in general] seeing our intervention message would be forced to reconsider cyclists’ behaviour, hopefully priming them to shift their attitudes of cyclists as a collective. What this exploratory research indicates is that our intervention message could help to close the gap between stereotypical perceptions around cyclists jumping red lights and their

of 21

actual behaviour. The intervention poster not only causes cyclists to alter their perceptions, but may challenge motorists to do the same, contributing to a road-‐user wide campaign, and helping to increase harmony on London's roads. 3.3 Identification of intervention sites The observation sessions carried out earlier also served to determine possible locations with high jump rates, high danger and potential for an effective and useful behavioural intervention using street posters positioned before the junction. We identified 10 junctions by drawing on existing research into dangerous junctions, as well as personal observations and experience. During the pilot fieldwork, we noted: • the number of jumpers; • the different types of jumping behaviour; and • contextual factors influencing jumping. For each location, we then evaluated the viability of unobtrusively observing cyclists and a successful intervention. The pilot fieldwork showed that jumping behaviour is influenced by the context of the individual junction – there are different behaviours for different junctions. At a simple level, there is a significant difference between behaviour at a T-‐junction and at crossroads, with more jumpers at T-‐junctions. Due to this difference, there is a need to look at both kinds of junction during an intervention. We selected for the study:

• the T-‐junction of Fortress Road with Kentish Town Road in Kentish Town; and • the intersection at Hackney Road (Queensbridge Road and Horatio Junction).

The layouts of both junctions are depicted in Figure 7.

Figure 7: T-‐Junction at Fortress Road in Kentish Town and crossroads at Hackney Road (Queensbridge Road and Horatio junction)

of 21

The Kentish Town T-‐junction had a relatively long duration of red light which led many cyclists to jump. In addition, the junction offered a spot to unobtrusively observe and film cyclists. The crossroads at Hackney Road offered a range of jumping behaviours with some cyclists jumping confidently whilst others crept into the middle of the junction to assess the danger. Due to the layout of the junction, cyclists were able to see traffic coming down Queensbridge Road meaning many drifted into the middle of the junction to judge whether the ‘jump’ was safe. Researchers were able to tuck away into a doorway to observe the junction inconspicuously. 3.4 Metrics and methodology of the intervention Red-‐light jumping behaviour was observed:

• during morning rush hour from 7am to 9am; • on dry weather days only; and • on the same day of the week.

The intervention timeline was as follows:

• Baseline data was collected on 10 June, 2015 at Hackney Road and on 11 June, 2015 at Kentish Town.

• The first set of interventions took place one week later on 17/18 June, 2015 with black posters only.

• The following week (24/25 June, 2015), we ran a second intervention at each junction with two additional red posters.

Figure 8-‐11 illustrate the intervention.

Figure 8: 1st intervention at Hackney Road with black posters only

of 21

Figure 9: 2nd intervention at Hackney Road with black and red posters

Figure 10: 1st intervention at Kentish Town with black posters only

of 21

Figure 11: 2nd intervention at Kentish Town with black and red posters

Section 4: Impact of the intervention

4.1 Quantitative results Overall, our intervention promoted ‘Street Harmony’ by decreasing the proportion of cyclists who jumped red lights at the test junctions. Jumping behaviour for the baseline count and during interventions at both intersections is shown in Table 1. It is important to note that our results only reflect one out of our three goals to build ‘Street Harmony'. Determining the extent to which we reinforced positive bike behaviour and challenged motorists’ views that all bike riders jump lights was unfortunately beyond the scope of this exploratory research and harder to measure. A z-‐test of proportions was used to investigate the aggregate effect of the intervention at each junction. Since the two junctions have inherently different characteristics, both were analysed separately. At the intersection of Queensbridge Road with Horatio Street, the percentage of ‘jumpers’ between 7am and 9am decreased from 22.9% to 18.0%, as shown in Figure 12. This was a percentage change of 21.4% (p=.009). Similarly, at the intersection of Fortress Road with Kentish Town Road, the percentage of ‘jumpers’ between 7am and 9am decreased from 38.0% to 32.5%, as shown in Figure 13. This was a percentage change of 14.5% (p=0.043). The percentages of jumpers for both junctions are compared in Table 1.

of 21

Table 1: Comparison of the Percentage of Cyclists Jumping (n=1692, 978)

Figure 12: Percentage of Cyclists Jumping the Intersection of Queensbridge Road with Horatio Street (n=1692)

Figure 13: Percentage of Cyclists Jumping the Intersection of Fortress Road with Kentish Town Road (n=978)

Intersection Baseline Intervention Percentage Change

Queensbridge Road with Horatio Street

22.9% 18.0% 21.4%

Fortress Road with Kentish Town Road 38.0% 32.5% 14.5%

of 21

4.2 Qualitative observations of cyclists at intervention sites Qualitative observations also provided strong evidence that the posters challenged perceptions. Some cyclists who saw the posters looked back to see if they were observed while others who were waiting struck up conversations with fellow cyclists about the signs. Some even took a picture of the sign. There were a small number of cyclists who were angered by the sign and went ahead to jump the red light in defiance. At both junctions, we also observed “herding” behaviour at the lights. For example, when a large cluster of cyclists waited at a red light and then some decided to jump, many others would then follow. It is also important to note the very small size of our intervention posters and with lots of street clutter we were fighting to stand out. If we were able to secure proper sites and use larger posters then the impact could have been even greater than it was. The overall observation from the implementation team on the ground was that when cyclists saw the posters they would generally stop at the lights, some clearly altering their intended jumping behaviour. And what was also clear in observation was that good behaviour was infectious. 4.3 Limitations of our exploratory study The small scale of our intervention is the most significant limitation; as it was a pilot study, we conducted our small poster intervention at just two junctions. It is well established that jumping behaviour varies by junction, thus the impact may vary at other junctions in London. In addition, the intervention took place on only one day of the week and does therefore not account for any fluctuations in cyclist numbers and related behaviour throughout the week. It is also possible that our baseline data on jumping behaviour is inaccurate since baselines were only collected on one day for each junction. As there is a lot of chance involved when jumpers and non-‐jumpers arrive at the junction, it could be possible that a large number of potential jumpers reached the junction at a green light and were therefore not accounted for in the results section. Thus, a larger sample size is needed to increase confidence in our findings. The subjective nature of measuring and recording jumping behaviour is another limitation. Some cyclists got off their bikes and walked across the intersection, while others jumped shortly before the light turned green or immediately after the light turned red. Since different researchers measured jumping behaviour on each day of the intervention, this ambiguity in jumping behaviour may confound the results and may have needed a stronger framework within which to record behaviour. The small size, visibility and positioning of the posters are all key issues too. At Fortress Road many cyclists were moving too fast to see the posters and focused on the traffic coming from the right whilst the small posters were on the left. This was often the case with

of 21

confident jumpers. In general, it was difficult to determine whether those who jumped the light had acknowledged the posters or not. Lastly, we could only quantitatively measure visible changes in behaviour of cyclists from our poster intervention, but there may also have been changes in beliefs and perceived social norms among cyclists and motorists. Our qualitative research did suggest such an impact on cyclists and motorists from the messages and clearly showed how challenging new information has the ability to draw people’s attention, but we did not try to measure these changes in attitude and opinions of cyclists and motorists. We were unable to determine to what extent we promoted ‘Street Harmony’ by challenging misperceptions about the number of bad cyclists amongst motorists, or in reinforcing good behaviour amongst non jumping cyclists who see they are the norm. Our study does provides evidence for the most difficult aspect of building ‘Street Harmony’, that of reducing the number cyclists who jump red lights. In addition we have a good indication that the message challenges motorists’ misperception about the actual level of cyclists jumping traffic lights, informing them that most cyclists are in fact law abiding which we could hypothesise would lead to a positive adjustment in beliefs.

of 21

Conclusion While the tensions between cyclists and motorists keep on growing, our study shows that we do not have to be helpless bystanders to the war on our roads. Instead of designing a general road safety campaign, we focused on how we might alter the specific behaviour of cyclists jumping red lights. Our mission was threefold:

• To decrease the number of red light jumpers by encouraging cyclists to think twice about whether they should jump.

• To reinforce the good behaviour of cyclists who do not jump; • To challenge motorists’ views that all cyclists jump lights.

Our research methodology, grounded in behavioural science, allowed us to understand cyclist behaviour at a deeper level. These insights helped us to design a poster campaign that leveraged social norms. What we achieved:

• The intervention successfully decreased jumping behaviour by 21.4% and 14.5% respectively across the two London junctions. These results reveal the potential power of a simple, inexpensive intervention based on insights from behavioural science.

• Although we did not measure how the intervention reinforced good behaviour among cyclists, existing research into social norms gives us some confidence that these individuals would have felt recognised and rewarded for their good cycling behaviour.

• Although we were not able to measure to what extent we altered misperceptions of cyclists’ behaviour among motorists, our qualitative feedback showed we had a strong impact on their current beliefs.

Overall, the results of this exploratory research and pilot intervention with a poster campaign suggest further explorations are worthwhile. If such a small study was able to promote some level of ‘Street Harmony’, a large-‐scale campaign may have the power to end motorist-‐cyclist tensions on the road altogether. For further information please contact Crawford Hollingworth, The Behavioural Architects. 44 7802 758011 [email protected]

building street harmony paper july 2016 final downloads... · page1%of21!!!...

Documents