2014 salt lake city tact public awareness evaluation report

Staples Marketing I Staples Marketing – Salt Lake City Phase II Research Report I 05.13.14

1

Salt Lake City TACT Campaign

Post-Implementation Online Surveys - Conducted in May, 2014

I. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Salt Lake City Corporation developed and implemented a high-visibility public awareness campaign

in Salt Lake City. The campaign focused on unsafe, aggressive or distracted driving of passenger

vehicles near and around commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) that are over 10,000 pounds. The

goal of the campaign was to induce motorists to drive safely, thereby reducing traffic accidents

and injuries. It additionally sought to raise the public awareness of potential dangers of driving

near CMVs on Salt Lake City roadways, including the risk of a citation and serious personal injury.

Phase II research was intended to measure the effectiveness of this campaign by asking drivers in

the campaign target area if they had seen the campaign, what message(s) they heard and

remember, and if they believed it made any impact on themselves and other drivers in Salt Lake

City. A total of 301 Salt Lake City drivers were surveyed for this Phase II research.

II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The campaign achieved significant awareness given the very short period of time the

campaign ran. 45% of drivers surveyed were aware of the campaign.

2. Compared to the pre-campaign survey, there was a statistically significant increase in the

number of drivers saying they saw aggressive driving “often” when they were out driving.

This would suggest either aggressive driving has increased or, more likely, awareness of

aggressive driving has increased.

3. Compared to the pre-campaign survey, there was a statistically significant increase in the

number of drivers reporting they observed “following too closely”, “speeding”, and “failure

to yield the right of way”.

4. The most noted aggressive driving behavior was “following too closely” – which showed a

statistically significant increase over the pre-campaign survey.

5. It was also interesting to note that drivers reported that they personally speed and follow

too closely at a statistically significantly higher rate in the post-campaign survey, following

the “it’s not a race” and “trucks need space” themes.

6. Similarly, there was an increase in the number of drivers reporting that “rushing/late” or

“trying to get around trucks” was the number one reason for aggressive driving. A lack of

understanding of the room trucks need also showed a statistically significant increase in

the number of drivers reporting it as a cause of aggressive driving.

N28W23050 Roundy Drive

Suite 100

Pewaukee, WI 53072

T / 262.650.9900

F / 262.650.3160

staplesmarketing.com


2

7. Two-thirds of drivers believe aggressive driving is a problem that should be addressed.

8. Drivers clearly heard the campaign messages. When asked what they remembered about

messages they had seen or heard, drivers were able to recall the themes and content of the

campaign.

9. Over 90% of drivers said the campaign was “somewhat” to “very” effective in impacting their

personal driving habits.

10. Over 70% of drivers said the campaign was “somewhat” to “very” effective in impacting the

driving habits of other drivers.

III. DETAILED REPORT

DEMOGRAPHICS

Phase I Phase II

GENDER: Percent Count n=608 Percent Count n=301

Male 44% 265 40% 120

Female 56% 343 60% 181

AGE: Count n=606 Count n=301

18 – 20 1% 3 0% 0

21 – 34 17% 104 22% 67

35 – 44 20% 121 20% 60

45 – 54 18% 109 21% 62

55 – 64 30% 180 37% 112

65 or over 14% 89 0% 0

DRIVER TYPE: Count n=608 Count n=301

Passenger 98% 597 99% 299

Commercial 2% 11 1% 2

ETHNICITY: Count n=598 Count n=301

White/Caucasian 94% 565 92% 276

Hispanic/Latino 3% 15 4% 11

Black/African American 1% 4 1% 2

Asian/Pacific Islander 2% 9 3% 9

Multi-Racial 1% 3 1% 3


3

1. FREQUENCY OF OBSERVED UNSAFE OR AGGRESSIVE DRIVING BEHAVIOR

Drivers were asked how often they observed unsafe or aggressive driving behaviors between

passenger vehicles and commercial motor vehicles on the streets in Salt Lake City. They were

given a 5 point scale where 1=”Every time I drive” and 5=”Never”.

Only 20% of drivers said “almost never” or “never”. A total of 37% of drivers saw aggressive or

unsafe driving between passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles “often” or “every time” they

were out driving, compared to 31% in the Phase I study. This difference is statistically significant

at the 90% confidence level and suggests that either actual aggressive driving has increased or,

more likely, drivers are more aware of aggressive driving after the campaign.

Phase I Phase II

How Often: Percent Count n=608 Percent Count n=301

Every time I am driving 9% 57 9% 28

Often when I am driving 22% 136 28% 85

Sometimes 44% 268 43% 128

Almost Never 21% 130 19% 58

Never 3% 17 1% 2


4

2. TYPE OF UNSAFE OR AGGRESSIVE DRIVING BEHAVIOR OBSERVED

Drivers were asked what types of unsafe or aggressive driving behaviors they have observed

between passenger vehicles and commercial motor vehicles on the streets in Salt Lake City.

Drivers were offered a list of the types of violations most concerning according to research

previously conducted and included in the research proposal. In addition, drivers were allowed to

submit “other” behaviors. Most commonly mentioned were distracted driving (such as texting),

and cutting trucks off.

There was a statistically significant increase (at the 99% confidence interval) in those drivers

reporting that they observed others “following too closely”. There were also statistically significant

increases in the number of drivers reporting they observed “speeding” (at the 95% confidence

interval) and “failing to yield the right of way” (at the 90% confidence interval). Thus, it would

appear that either aggressive driving has increased or, more likely, drivers are more aware of

aggressive behavior based on the public awareness campaign.

Phase I Phase II

Type of Behavior Observed: Percent Count n=608 Percent Count n=301

Following too closely 73% 442 82% 247

Speeding 57% 347 65% 197

Failure to yield right of way 52% 318 58% 175

Failure to obey Sign or Signal 38% 233 36% 107

Improper Turn 33% 202 27% 80

Other 17% 101 10% 30


5

3. TYPE OF UNSAFE OR AGGRESSIVE DRIVING BEHAVIOR OBSERVED MOST OFTEN

Drivers were asked what types of unsafe or aggressive driving behaviors they have observed most

often between passenger vehicles and commercial motor vehicles on the streets in Salt Lake City.

There was a statistically significant increase in the number of drivers reporting that they saw

drivers “following too closely” (at the 99% confidence interval). This would suggest that the “trucks

need space” campaign raised awareness among drivers in Salt Lake City.

Drivers were also allowed to submit “other” behaviors. Most commonly mentioned were distracted

driving (such as texting), and cutting trucks off.

Phase I Phase II

Type Most Often Observed: Percent Count n=608 Percent Count n=301


Speeding 23% 139 22% 66




Other 9% 52 4% 11


6

4. TYPE OF UNSAFE OR AGGRESSIVE DRIVING BEHAVIORS THEY ENGAGE IN THEMSELVES

Drivers were asked what types of unsafe or aggressive driving behaviors they have personally

engaged in within the past two years. They were allowed to select more than one driving

behavior.

There was a statistically significant increase (at the 99% confidence level) in the reporting of

speeding and following too closely. Again, this either suggests that this behavior has increased or,

more likely, drivers are more aware of their driving following the campaign.

Phase I Phase II

Their Own Behaviors: Percent Count n=608 Percent Count n=301

Speeding 63% 382 72% 218




None 16% 97 8% 24



7

5. IS UNSAFE OR AGGRESSIVE DRIVING BETWEEN PASSENGER AND COMMERCIAL VEHICLES A

PROBLEM?

Drivers were asked: “Do you believe that unsafe or aggressive driving between passenger vehicles

and commercial trucks on Salt Lake City roads is a problem that should be addressed?” The

overwhelming answer was yes. This was true to a larger degree after the campaign, though it was

not a statistically significant difference.

Phase I Phase II

Is It A Problem: Percent Count n=608 Percent Count n=301

Yes 63% 383 66% 200

No 37% 225 34% 101


8

6. WHICH DRIVERS ARE MORE RESPONSIBLE?

Drivers were asked: “Based on your experience, who do you believe is primarily responsible for

the unsafe or aggressive driving between passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles on Salt Lake

City roads?”

Drivers are statistically significantly more likely to fault passenger drivers alone for being at fault

for the aggressive driving noted between passenger and commercial vehicles according to both

phases of the research.

Phase I Phase II

Who Is Most Responsible: Percent Count n=608 Percent Count n=301

Passenger Vehicle Drivers 57% 349 58% 173

Commercial Vehicle Drivers 8% 47 9% 28

Both Equally Responsible 35% 212 33% 100


9

7. REASONS PASSENGER DRIVERS ENGAGE IN UNSAFE DRIVING

Drivers are significantly more likely to cite rushing/running late than any other cause. Not liking

to be behind trucks because they are slow is statistically equal to a lack of understanding of the

room a truck needs. Not liking following trucks because they are slow is mentioned significantly

more often than because they block a driver’s view. Thus, speed issues around slower moving

trucks seem to be the paramount issue cited by most drivers.

When it came to specifying truck driver behavior that was not appropriate, the common themes

were parking in the middle of the street or blocking the street, driving slowly, or using their size to

intimidate passenger vehicles or take more than one lane.

After the campaign drivers were statistically significantly more likely to cite “rushing/late” and

“lack of understanding of the room trucks need” as reasons for unsafe/aggressive driving (at the

95% confidence interval). This would strongly suggest that the campaign had an impact on drivers

in the target area.

Phase I Phase II

Reasons Why: Percent Count n=608 Percent Count n=301

Rushing / late – trying to get

around trucks because trucks

are slow.

72%

437

80%

240

Do not like driving behind

trucks because they are slow.

61%

368

66%

199

Lack of understanding of the

room trucks need to turn,

stop, accelerate, etc.

57%

348

65%

195

Do not like driving behind

trucks because they block a

driver’s view.

54%

326

55%

166

Truck drivers are not driving

appropriately on city streets.

11%

68 7% 21


10

8. FAMILIARITY WITH ANY PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGN

Drivers were asked: “Are you familiar with any public awareness campaigns aimed at reducing

unsafe or aggressive driving behaviors between passenger vehicles and commercial vehicles on

Salt Lake City roads?” Overwhelmingly, drivers said “no” prior to the campaign. After the

campaign, twice as many drivers were aware of the messages aimed at reducing aggressive

driving. This is a statistically significant increase in awareness (at the 99% confidence interval).

Phase I Phase II

Existence of Campaign: Percent Count n=608 Percent Count n=301

Yes 20% 119 45% 136

No 80% 489 55% 165


11

9. WHAT MESSAGE HAVE YOU SEEN OR HEARD?

Drivers who had heard or seen the campaign were asked what messages they had seen or heard.

They clearly heard the message of the campaign that trucks need space, and messages about

driving aggressively around commercial vehicles.

Themes / Message Drivers

Commenting

Representative Comments

n = 135

Trucks need space/room 42 “Basically that trucks need more room than

cars to do most everything.”

“Give trucks more room - they need more

room to turn.”

“Trucks need room to stop, don't cut them

off, be aware that they have blind spots”

TV with truck driver talking 16 “TV interview with truck driver who describes

concerns relative to awareness of concerns

of trucks and cars on the roads.”

“A commercial with a truck driver discussing

unsafe behaviors he's seen.”

Don’t follow too close 16 “I don't remember the campaign names, but

cautioning not following too closely - being

able to see the mirrors on trucks.”

“Don’t follow too closely to big trucks. Give

them their space.”

Radio 12 “Radio ads on how long it takes for a truck

to stop, and where they can and can't see

you.”

“Heard a radio ad outlining some of the

challenges for truck drivers.”

Not a race 10 “It's not a race, trucks need space”

Large blind spots 9 “Blind spots and not giving enough room

ad.”

Drive safe 8 “To drive safely, give them the right of way,

the driver cannot see you”

Don’t pull in front of/cut off 8 “You wouldn't cut off a train so don't cut off

a truck”

TV ads on fines 8 “TV campaign about fines for aggressive

driving around trucks and semis”


12

10. WHERE THEY SAW OR HEARD THE MESSAGE

Drivers saw and heard the campaign material mostly on television and radio and billboards.


13

11. EFFECTIVENESS OF CAMPAIGN ON PERSONAL DRIVING HABITS

Drivers were asked to comment on the effectiveness of the campaign on their personal driving

habits. Specifically, drivers were asked: “How effective do you think the campaign is in making

you more aware of your driving around commercial trucks?” Over 90% of drivers said the

campaign was “somewhat” to “very” effective in making them more aware of their driving around

commercial vehicles. A total of 50% said the campaign was moderately to very effective.


14

12. HOW EFFECTIVE HAS THE CAMPAIGN BEEN ON OTHER DRIVERS

Drivers were asked how effective they think the campaign has been on making other drivers more

aware of their driving around commercial vehicles. Specifically, drivers were asked: “How effective

do you think the campaign is in making other drivers more aware of their driving around

commercial trucks?” Over 70% of drivers said the campaign was “somewhat” to “very” effective in

making other drivers more aware of their driving around commercial vehicles. A total of 21% said

the campaign was moderately to very effective.


15

13. AWARENESS OF CITATION

Drivers were asked: “Are you aware of a citation for passenger vehicles driving aggressively

around commercial vehicles on Salt Lake City roads?” Two out of three drivers still say “no” – that

they are not aware of such a citation.

Phase I Phase II

Existence of Citation: Percent Count n=475 Percent Count n=301

Yes 35% 165 37% 110

No 65% 310 63% 191


16

14. PERCEIVED RISK OF CITATION OR BODILY INJURY

Drivers were asked two questions aimed at understanding their perceived risk of either getting a

citation driving a passenger vehicle unsafely or aggressively around a commercial vehicle, or for

personal bodily injury in accidents between passenger and commercial vehicles. The questions

used a 10 point scale where 1=”Very Low Risk” and 10=”Very High Risk”. There were no

statistically significant differences between pre and post campaign surveys.

Understandably, drivers appear to believe there is a higher risk of personal bodily injury in a

collision between a passenger vehicle and a commercial vehicle than there is of getting a citation.

Risk: Average Score –

Phase I

(on 10 pt scale)

Average Score –

Phase II

(on 10 pt scale)

Risk of receiving citation

4.7

5.0

Risk of personal bodily injury

7.0

7.7

2014 salt lake city tact public awareness evaluation report

Documents