Go High-Viz! - Seeing Motorcycle

Go High-Viz!
Educating Riders about Conspicuity
Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Center
Overview
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Goals
Objectives
Target audience
Key messages
Strategies
Tactics
Partners
Budget (timeline)
Evaluation
Why conspicuity?
Rider responsibility
– Half of motorcycle crashes are multi-vehicle
– Riders and other drivers share responsibility
– Riders must make effort to be seen
NHTSA motorcycle countermeasures
– Conspicuity integral to motorcycle safety programs
National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS)
– “Encourage motorcyclists to enhance their
conspicuity” (essential recommendation)
Goals
1: Educate motorcycle riders in conspicuity
products, techniques, strategies
2: Increase motorcyclists’ use of highvisibility clothing, conspicuity products
3: Reduce multi-vehicle crashes, injuries,
fatalities
Objectives
1: Design, build, promote Web page with
conspicuity information, strategies
2: Increase motorcyclists’ use of reflective vests,
white helmets, brightly colored clothing,
motorcycle modifications 10 percent in 2009
3: Reduce multi-vehicle crashes in which other
drivers “don’t see” motorcycle riders 10 percent
in 2009
Target audience and
key messages
Primary: M/F 35-54
Secondary: M/F 20-34
Key messages:
A. Choose high-viz riding gear
B. Use strategic lane positioning
C: Make high-viz motorcycle modifications
Strategies
1: Educate riders why conspicuity is
important
2: Provide a tool to ”measure” conspicuity
3: Provide numerous options to improve
conspicuity
4: Provide conspicuity resources
Tactics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Web site
Print ads
Flyers
Word of mouth
Events
Earned media
Web site: www.highviz.org
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
“Be a Perfect 10” interactive quiz
Top 10 Tips
10 more Tips
Free reflective decals
High-viz resources
Reflective sticker contest
“Be a Perfect 10” quiz
Top 10 Tips/Points
1. Reflective vest (4)
2. White helmet (3)
3. Bright jacket (2)
4. Positioning (2)
5. Modulator (1)
6. Taillight (1)
7. Reflectives (1)
8. Movement (1)
9. Auxiliaries (1)
10. Hand signals (1)
10 More Tips/points
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Night riding (1/2)
Dawn/dusk (1/2)
Horn (1/2)
Marker lights (1/2)
Poor weather (1/2)
Sun angle (1/2)
Bike profile (1/2)
Bike color (1/2)
High beam (1/4)
Unusual effects (1/4)
Free reflective decal
High-viz resources
A. High-viz products/vendors
B. Additional reading
•
•
•
•
•
•
Research papers
Magazine articles
Human vision
Camouflage theory
Retroreflectivity
Etc.
Ad #1
SUPERHERO
Ad #2
ROCK STAR
Ad #3
STATE
TROOPER
Billboard #1
Billboard #2
Billboard #3
Billboard #4
Billboard #5
Flyers 3x6”
Retroreflective decal
(printed on backing)
•
•
•
•
•
BRC, ERC students
Magazine inserts
Law enforcement
Local events
SASE
Partnerships
Aerostich
Biker Hiway
Dennis Kirk
Glo Concepts
Momentum Photo
Nightfire Patches
Olympia Moto Sports
Streetglo Reflective Decals
Tin Wolf
Vizibrite
Volunteers and well-wishers
Budget 2008—initial launch
Web, print, survey development and design
Survey printing, mailing, reports (three years)
Print ad photography
Poster printing (1,500)
Poster distribution
Retro-reflective flyer printing (40,000)
Flyer distribution
Event attendance
Campaign introduction/flyer distribution
insert in Minnesota Rider Review
$0
$21,000
$14,500
$2,000
$2,000
$8,500
$500
$500
Total
$51,500
$2,500
Budget—year 2 (2009)
Poster printing (1,500)
Poster distribution
Retro-reflective flyer printing (40,000)
Flyer distribution
Event attendance
Adapt posters to indoor format
Indoor ads (375 postings for 5 months)
$2,000
$2,000
$8,500
$500
$500
$0
$47,000
Total
$60,500
Grand total (2 years)
$109,000
Budget—year 3 (2010)
Poster printing
Poster distribution
Retro-reflective flyer printing
Flyer distribution
Event attendance
Outdoor ad production
Paid advertising (estimated)
$2,000
$2,000
$8,500
$500
$500
$5,000
$50,000
Total
$68,500
Grand total (3 years)
$177,500
What’s next?
Rider coaches are role models
Campaign available to other states
• No boundaries
• Promote to students
and motorcycling public
• Satisfies one element of
technical assessments
• Evaluated for effectiveness
Summary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Goals
Objectives
Target audience
Key messages
Strategies
Tactics
Partners
Budget (timeline)
Evaluation
Campaign evaluation
Survey
Web visitors/page views
Evaluating the
Crash data
Conspicuity Campaign
Advantages of mail survey
• Less expensive
• Better response rate
• Easier to reach target audience
Statewide survey
Minnesota motorcyclists
Three waves
Pre–campaign baseline (Jan 2008)
Mid–campaign (Oct 2008)
Post–campaign (Jan 2011)
Designing the survey
Objectives:
Measure behavior change
Obtain demographic and exposure data
Designing the survey
Areas of interest:
1. Campaign awareness; use of high-viz gear,
strategies, products
2. Demographic data
3. Experience and exposure
4. Perception of risk
5. Perception of safety messaging
Designing the survey
Develop questions that respondents:
1. Will interpret the same way
2. Will respond to accurately
3. Will be willing to respond to
4. Limit requests for personal information
Constructing the survey
Survey questions:
1. Should be easy to maneuver and complete
2. Should appear interesting and important
3. Wording and visual appearance should be
uncomplicated
4. Group topics from most salient to least
Constructing the survey
Pre-test the survey
Use co-workers, friends, family
Pilot the survey
Small random sample
Determine the sampling frame
List from which names will be drawn
• Should hit entire target population
• Should be current
• No repeated names or addresses
Determine sample size
Answer to “what size?” is counterintuitive:
Population of 25,000 at 3%: 1,024 respondents
Population of 2,000,000 at 3%: 1,067 respondents
Conversely:
Population of 1,000 at
3%: 517 respondents
As population size decreases, sample size must
increase
Strategies to increase
response rate
• Avoid inconvenience
• Include SASE (real stamp)
• Cover letter explaining nature of survey
• Follow up with reminder (postcard)
Strategies to increase
response rate
Include a “reward” if possible
Resource:
Questionnaire design and survey implementation
Dillman, D.A. (2007).
Internet, Mail and Mixed-Mode
Surveys: The Tailored Design
Method, 3rd ed.
New York: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Minnesota Motorcycle
Rider Survey
2008
Methods
All registered motorcycle owners,
duplicates removed
Random sample of 3,000 from group
Embroidered patch included
Reminder mailed to entire sample
Results
Baseline response rates:
1,491 respondents (49.7% response rate)
All survey items (response rates above 90%)
Survey margin of error
± 3%
95% confidence level
Results
Mid-campaign response rates:
1,404 respondents (46.8% response rate)
All survey items (response rates above 90%)
Survey margin of error
± 3%
95% confidence level
Results—rider age
40.0%
35.0%
30.0%
25.0%
20.0%
33.5% 32.7%
15.0%
29.8%
26.8%
10.0%
13.2%
5.0%
15.8%
14.2%
12.8%
10.8% 10.6%
0.0%
< 30
30-39
40-49
Pre-Cam paign (N=1,490)
50-59
Mid-Cam paign (N=1,392)
60 +
Results—motorcycles owned
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
40.0%
71.0%
30.0%
60.6%
20.0%
26.2%
21.7%
10.0%
8.2%
4.7%
5.0%
2.6%
0.0%
One
Two
Pre-Campaign (N=1,491)
Three
Mid-Campaign (N=1,404)
Four
Results—endorsement status
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
70.0%
60.0%
50.0%
91.5%
94.1%
40.0%
30.0%
20.0%
10.0%
6.2%
4.9%
2.3%
1.0%
0.0%
Endorsement
Permit
Pre-Campaign (N=1,458)
Mid-Campaign (N=1,365)
Neither
Results—nutshell
1. 87% male, 13% female—consistent
2. 61% own one motorcycle
26% own two motorcycles
13% own three or more
3. 44% have had at least one training
course within the last 25 years
Results—nutshell
4. 38% ride H-D; 23% ride Honda
5. 38% ride cruisers
18% ride touring bikes
13% ride sport bikes
6. Average miles ridden 3,906
Results—nutshell
7. 33% had 25+ years experience
28% 5 years or less
8. 35% were returning riders
60% of returning riders 5 years or less
9. 59% helmet all or some of time
30% wear helmet rarely or never
Results—conspicuity baseline
1. Black helmets: 60%
5% white helmets
11% solid bright color helmet
9% multi-color bright helmet
2. Helmets w/ reflectives: 27%
3. Upper body gear: 70% black
13% wore white or bright colors
Results—conspicuity baseline
3. Reflective vest: 97% rarely/never
Only 1.4% “all” or “most” of time
4. High-viz modifications: 47%
61% auxiliary headlamps
47% marker lights (often stock)
36% reflectives
Results—website traffic
1. Website visitors—up 22%
2006-2007 average: 170,000/year
2008-2009 average: 208,000/year
2. Pages viewed—up 430%
2006-2007 average: 120,000/year
2008-2009 average: 637,000/year
3. High-viz pages viewed: 120,000+
Results—crash data
1: All mc crashes—down 18%
2007: 1,623 2009: 1,329
2. Multi-veh. mc crashes—down 22%
2007: 733
2009: 570
3. Ratio Multi/Single vehicle—down 5%
2007: 45.2
2009: 42.9
Results—crash data
4: Failure to yield—down 16%
2007: 228
2009: 190
5. Inattention/distraction—down 20%
2007: 128
2009: 103
Targets for each of these was to bring
them down 10%. Objectives met!
Go High-Viz!
Rider Conspicuity Campaign