Bad behaviour or bad luck? Policy approach = define problems and - PDF document

Introduction Bad behaviour or bad luck? ▸ Policy approach = define problems and tackle them ▸ Belief in ‘mono-causality’ is widespread The role of extreme behaviour in the occurrence of severe crashes ▸ Crash causation theories: ▸ Crashes can be attributed to main causes (triangle Human-Vehicle-Environment) ▸ Removing these causes is likely to solve/mitigate the problem ▸ Causes are often ‘bad behaviour’ Freya Slootmans, Tim De Ceunynck, Stijn Daniels ICTCT Annual Conference Warsaw, 25 Oct 2019 stijn.daniels@vias.be 4 November 2019 / Slide 1 Errors and violations (Reason et al., 1990) ▸ Errors: ▸ Failure of planned actions to achieve their intended consequences ▸ Violations: ▸ Deliberate deviations from those practices believed necessary to maintain the safe operation of a potentially hazardous system Source: Shinar (2007) , originally from Rumar (1985) 4 November 2019 / Slide 2 4 November 2019 / Slide 3 Objective Data ▸ Quantify the role of extreme behaviour in severe crashes ▸ Expert reconstruction reports ▸ Severe crashes ▸ Antwerp, Belgium ▸ 165 cases, between 2013 and 2016 ▸ 64 fatal crashes ▸ 161 crashes with ≥1 seriously injured ▸ Codebook based on the IGLAD-framework (www.iglad.net) 4 November 2019 / Slide 4 4 November 2019 / Slide 5

Method Categorisation of crashes (≈Wundersitz et al., 2014) ▸ Extreme behaviour ▸ Each crash assigned to one of three categories ▸ Infrequently occurring but mostly likely deliberate behaviour, that is known to be a clear risk factor in traffic ▸ Illegal system failure ▸ Road user makes error but is not completely compliant ▸ System failure ▸ Errors made by compliant road users 4 November 2019 / Slide 6 4 November 2019 / Slide 7 Extreme behaviour Illegal system failure ▸ At least one of the following behaviours: ▸ ≥ 1 of the following behaviours: ▸ “Extreme speeding”, i.e. ≥ 30 km/h above the legal speed limit; ▸ Alcohol BAC between 0.5 g/l and 0.8 g/l; ▸ “Extreme DUI”, which is driving with a BAC of ≥0.8 g/l (For professional drivers ≥ 0.2 g/l ▸ Speeding, i.e. between 10 km/h and 29 km/h above the legal speed limit; ▸ Driving under the influence of drugs; ▸ Driving through a red light; ▸ Intentional risky behaviour, such as overtaking someone at an intersection, entering an intersection without looking, driving a vehicle that has no lighting; ▸ Driving without having the driver's license required to drive the vehicle in question; ▸ Or a combination of ≥2 of the following behaviours: ▸ Alcohol BAC between 0.5 g/l and 0.8 g/l; ▸ Not wearing a seat belt if required ▸ Speeding, i.e. between 10 km/h and 29 km/h above the legal speed limit; ▸ Not wearing a helmet when mandatory; ▸ Intentional risky behaviour, such as overtaking someone at an intersection, entering an ▸ Walking through a red light (pedestrians). intersection without looking, driving a vehicle that has no lighting; ▸ Driving without having the driver's license required to drive the vehicle in question; ▸ Not wearing a seat belt if required (only applicable for people killed in the crash) ▸ Not wearing a helmet when mandatory; ▸ Walking through a red light (pedestrians). 4 November 2019 / Slide 8 4 November 2019 / Slide 9 Results (1) System failure Summary of the role of system failures and extreme behaviour ▸ Crashes that cannot clearly be associated with deliberate behaviour such as a lack of rule compliance, basically the result of errors of compliant road users. All crashes Fatal crashes Non-fatal crashes # # # % % % System failure 101 61% 34 53% 67 66% Illegal system failure 23 14% 12 19% 11 11% Extreme behaviour 41 25% 18 28% 23 23% Total 165 64 101 4 November 2019 / Slide 10 4 November 2019 / Slide 11

Results (2) Results (3) Types of behaviour found in ‘extreme behaviour’ Behavioural factors shown by the road users classified as ‘illegal crashes (n= 41) system failure’ (n=23) n % # # Type of behaviour Excessive speed (10-29 km/h above speed limit) 9 34.6% immediate combination Type of behaviour % Driving under the influence (0.5-0.8 g/l BAC or unknown) extreme of ≥ 2 risky 7 26.9% Infractions behavior behaviors 6 23.0% Entering an intersection without looking 1 Excessive speed (Extreme speeding or 22 6 68% Driving or riding with insufficient attention 1 speeding) Aggressive driving behavior 1 Driving under the influence 19 1 49% Entering an intersection without slowing down 1 Running a red light 10 4 34% Overtaking on a pedestrian crossing 1 Personal security (seat belt, helmet) 3 1 10% Not using indicator to turn off 1 Vehicle requirements (mirrors, lights, tyres) 3 7% Vehicle requirements Other behavior (a.o. distraction, not 2 7.7% 2 7 22% looking) Ignoring a red light as a pedestrian 2 7.7% Infractions (a.o. lighting not used, incorrect 2 1 7% overtaking…) 4 November 2019 / Slide 12 4 November 2019 / Slide 13 Results (4) Crash-related characteristics Limitations ▸ Extreme behaviour more frequent ▸ Sample not representative ▸ Nighttime crashes (14/27) vs. daytime crashes (27/138) (p 0.001) ▸ Urban area ▸ Weekends (18/46) vs. weekdays (23/119) (p 0.004) ▸ Most severe crashes ▸ Darkness (22/51) vs. daylight (15/97) (p 0.002) ▸ The truth is in the eye of the beholder ▸ Experienced coder ▸ Clear protocol ▸ BUT: still room for interpretation: ‘risky behaviour’, ‘distraction’, ‘intention’, ‘moderate offences’… ▸ Extreme behaviour not significnty different according to do: ▸ Number of vehicles involved ▸ Categorisation might be too simplistic ▸ Severity of the crash ▸ ‘Extreme behaviour’ vs. ‘system failure’ ▸ Weather condition 4 November 2019 / Slide 14 4 November 2019 / Slide 15 Conclusions ▸ Even among severe crashes, only a minority is associated with extreme behaviour ▸ Most crashes are most likely due to mistakes or errors of generally compliant road users ▸ ‘Extreme behaviour’ crashes and ‘system failure’ crashes require countermeasures at an entirely different level ▸ Policy efforts to reduce extreme behaviour should be complemented with measures to improve the entire system 4 November 2019 / Slide 16