Read on Twitter
Today I got to share my research with @LifesaversConf along with @schmangee, @JoeCutrufo, and two parents for @Fam4SafeStreets. It was a great session on how to communicate more effectively to achieve our safety goals. For those who missed it, here is what I covered.
First, the motivation: On a typical day, 100 people lose their lives in the US in traffic crashes. That is like a plane falling out of the sky every other day.
But where is the outrage? In part, I suggest that this has something to do with how we report on crashes.
But where is the outrage? In part, I suggest that this has something to do with how we report on crashes.
So I offer three pieces of advice based on two different research projects. One with @DrTaraGoddard @cgthigpen @EvanIacobucci (Available open access: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0361198119825637) and one with Ian Girardeau (also open access: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590198220300294)
The advice is simple and based on research.
To understand the rationale for Piece of Advice #1, consider current crash coverage, which shifts blame toward the pedestrian by...
To understand the rationale for Piece of Advice #1, consider current crash coverage, which shifts blame toward the pedestrian by...
1) Making the ped the star of the sentence (Stars get more blame)
2) Omitting reference to a driver (nobody to hold responsible)
3) By referring to the car 4x more often than a driver.
These patterns are exemplified in "A ped was hit", the most common way to describe a crash
2) Omitting reference to a driver (nobody to hold responsible)
3) By referring to the car 4x more often than a driver.
These patterns are exemplified in "A ped was hit", the most common way to describe a crash
Revising the sentence shifts perceptions. Based on an experiment we know that readers who encounter a revised text will be less likely to blame the pedestrian and more likely to blame the driver.
But to be clear, we are interested in saving lives, not blaming drivers. Read on.
But to be clear, we are interested in saving lives, not blaming drivers. Read on.
We also need piece of advice #2: "Connect the dots between crashes".
Right now, coverage does NOT do this. Only 16% of crash stories include any thematic elements (crash data, description of the location, etc.) Not one of 200 we reviewed had a quote from an expert.
Right now, coverage does NOT do this. Only 16% of crash stories include any thematic elements (crash data, description of the location, etc.) Not one of 200 we reviewed had a quote from an expert.
But if we connect the dots for readers, they see crashes differently.
They increase their blame on "other factors" and are more willing to support systems-level solutions for pedestrian safety (like lowering speed limits and improving infrastructure).
They increase their blame on "other factors" and are more willing to support systems-level solutions for pedestrian safety (like lowering speed limits and improving infrastructure).
