To stop traffic accidents, look to behavioural science for answers

Road safety is, actually, not only an important traffic and social issue but also an economic one.

There is universal recognition of the tremendous national burden resulting from road crashes and that the injuries constitute a major but neglected public health problem.

Most people would opine that road safety is just about the state of the roads. But it is also about choice architecture and designing behavioural interventions that take into account human biases and irrational behaviour.

Drivers are likely to speed on broad, smooth and empty roads, more so if the vehicle being driven is a considerably big and tough SUV. In this case, the driver has an implied sense of safety in comparison to one driving, say, a small hatchback. That makes a driver over-compensate and take uncalled-for risks.

The number of speed traps explicitly implies speed limit signs are ineffective at getting drivers to slow down.

As a practising behavioural economist, I look at how people’s feelings, emotions, and psychology influence their decision-making.

Only in understanding behavioural motives can policymakers come up with sustainable solutions.

IMPLEMENTING POLICIES

The National Transport and Safety Authority (NTSA), which is tasked with ensuring road safety by implementing policies that encourage road safety, has failed in this area.

In developed countries, behavioural units assist with policy design and intervention. Drivers are being nudged to make the optimal decision.

“Nudging” is a concept in behavioural science that suggests positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions in a bid to achieve voluntary compliance with rules and regulations. Numerous effective behavioural intervention nudges deployed globally to make motorists reduce speed.

At one of Chicago’s notorious curves at Lake Shore Drive and Oak Street, horizontal white stripes painted on the road get progressively narrower as drivers approach the sharpest point, giving them the illusion of speeding up. This nudges them to tap their brakes.

TREES

The intervention, according to city traffic engineers, resulted in 36 per cent fewer crashes in six months compared to the same period the previous year. Such measures are also being applied in Israel and China.

In the United Kingdom, a trial intervention was initiated in Norfolk County. More than 200 trees were planted along the access road to North Norfolk, which was notorious for speeding problems.

As the driver approached, the trees, planted progressively closer together, gave the impression of the car moving faster. That made the driver to slow down! On average, drivers reduced their speed by 3.2 kilometres per hour.

There have been calls for more traffic signals and road signs but it doesn’t mean drivers will be obligated to abide to the infrastructure. However, creating behavioural design nudges, such as displaying the seconds remaining for the traffic signal to turn green, is likely to decrease the number of motorists who ignore the signal.

The design takes into account that people are ‘present-biased’; they want what they want now, usually in a rush.

PEDESTRIANS

Rationally arguing, drivers and pedestrians shouldn’t be ignoring traffic signals as they would be putting themselves in harm’s way. But human behaviour is not rational.

Drivers honk even when there is no way that could clear a traffic jam. Even when the signal is still red, there are drivers who honk. Rational ways of changing behaviour, such as educating people or launching awareness-based campaigns, are ineffective.

Instead, the NTSA should deploy simple, practical, scientific behavioural design nudges to improve road safety.

Experience from countries with the best road safety records shows that road safety measures can only be successful when supported by the public.

Mr McOkwiri, the founder of BEhub Behavioural Economics Hub, is based in Nairobi and Dubai. [email protected].