Without relegating the presence and influence of a higher force ruling in the affairs of men I concluded, based on observation that it seems the higher we focus on re-engineering of vehicles to be more safety compliant as well as improvement on road infrastructure, the higher the accident rates (at least for advance countries where these two factors are more in play).
What do I mean? Why is it that despite the advancement in technology, as applied to both vehicles and road infrastructure the accident rate remains at some time constant, or higher and at some other time lower? For a case like Nigeria however I haven’t seen much of road infrastructure re-engineering with focus on safe driving, and neither have I seen much advancement in purchase of cars with enhanced safety devices. Our level of statistical analysis and data gathering is also nothing to write home about.
Despite all these shortcomings as regards road safety in Nigeria, do not let me lose focus of the main theme of my blog; that of adopting the best methodology and approach to designing interventions aimed at reducing traffic accidents.
I will be basing my write up on a certain theory, not too loved by some experts for reasons best known to them. Nevertheless it is possible to "continue learning MORE and MORE about LESS and LESS, until you know EVERYTHING about NOTHING-Gerald White" and that my readers, is the problem our experts have. That theory is the Risk Homeostasis theory; I will however let you be the judge of the theory (for further reading-http://psyc.queensu.ca/target/chapter01.html).
It is to be expected that with numerous interventions in road safety design as well as strategies the accident rate across the world should reduce and not increase as is the case in most part of the world. So what exactly are we doing wrong? Permit me to put that statement of the problem in perspective by using a syllogistic argument.
All human beings are mortal.
Socrates is a human being.
Thus, Socrates is mortal.
Socrates is a human being.
Thus, Socrates is mortal.
The conclusion follows from the first two statements. Now consider the two arguments below:
In many accidents cars skid before they collide. Anti-lock brakes reduce the likelihood of skidding. Thus, installing such brakes will reduce the number of accidents.
Many intersection accidents involve cars colliding at right angles. Traffic lights reduce the frequency of right-angle collisions. Thus, installing lights will reduce the number of intersection accidents.
Due to the similarities of the arguments and that involving Socrates it is tempting to assume that the conclusions in the last two arguments are valid, however the similarities is deceptive and the conclusions are wrong.
Getting my drift so far? No? So consider the scenarios below.
"In some parts of the world, deaths due to floods in low-lying areas are a problem. The building of levees reduces the likelihood of floods. It might be expected that such constructions would reduce the number of flood victims however if and when a flood happens we recover even more deaths"
"It may also come as a surprise that, in most developed countries, the mortality rates associated with violent death--mostly due to accidents--have remained virtually unchanged in the first three quarters of the current century, with the exception of war periods. These rates include fatal accidents of all types per head of population, and are corrected for historical variations in the gender and age composition of the populations concerned. They show no clear downward trend, in spite of the massive technological, legislative, educational and medical advances made during the same period."
These observations seem difficult to believe. It also seems hard to comprehend why these rates are not much influenced by the visible progress in safety engineering, by prescriptive or prohibitive laws and their enforcement, by informing the public about risks, or by more successful medical treatment of accident victims who do not die instantly. What could possibly account for these and many other similar findings?
Risk Homeostasis simply explains why
In any activity, people accept a certain level of subjectively estimated risk to their health, safety, and other things they value, in exchange for the benefits they hope to receive from that activity (transportation, work, eating, drinking, drug use, recreation, romance, sports or whatever).
In short, the theory of risk homeostasis proposes that a nation's temporal loss due to accidents and lifestyle-dependent disease is the output of a closed-loop regulating process in which the accepted level of risk operates as the unique controlling variable. Consequently, if we wish to make an attempt at reducing this misery, that attempt should be aimed at reducing the level of risk accepted by the population.
Better put;
People alter their behavior in response to the implementation of health and safety measures, but the riskiness of the way they behave will not change, unless those measures are capable of motivating people to alter the amount of risk they are willing to incur.
Other proponents say accidents always have multiple causations, these theory does not in any way counter that but rather buttresses the fact that in safety management systems the Human error index amongst others is actually very powerful because no matter how much you control the environment as well as the system and equipment, the humans making the policy, the humans controlling the equipment and the same humans within the environment can mess everything up.
Like Homeostasis in nature, a loop, a negative feedback mechanism makes the being or system regulates himself not in a constant way but rather in response to his system.
One other thing I observed with the present policies and strategies is that reductions in the accident rates (sometimes recorded and announced by FRSC) is actually valid, in fact if given data (some which I handled while I was there) I can calculate these reductions in accidents per unit distance. However I can also say in some data instance, the deaths per unit head within the population did not reduce, this should get our road safety experts and researchers thinking;
1. How come accidents reduce sometimes and yet the fatal rates goes up
2. How come accidents rate in black-spots sometimes reduce compared to other places
Etc.
Both can be explained using the homeostasis theory above; humans will alter their behavior based on a perceived level of risk.
Take for example, we say Abaji along the Abuja-Lokoja expressway (just an example, and not in any way validated by current data) is a black spot yet at the end of the month, FRSC records shows that more accidents were recorded in places before and after Abaji that are not black spots. This will be due to an alteration in driving behavior as motorists approach Abaji, due to the perceived nature of that area.
Secondly, It is possible to also alter their driving behavior based on improvements in road infrastructure (wider roads etc) and or improvements in perceived level of skill or vehicle engineering. People alter their driving behavior based on BENEFITS and COSTS with both forming a closed loop and regulating mechanism. When the expected benefits, say of over speeding is high relative to keeping limits within the regulatory standards, the target level of risk behavior of the driver increases and vice versa. More precisely, the target level of accident risk is determined by four categories of motivating (i.e., subjective utility) factors:
- The expected advantages of comparatively risky behavior alternatives: for instance, gaining time by speeding, making a risky maneuver to fight boredom.
- The expected costs of comparatively risky behavior alternatives: for instance, automobile repair expenses, insurance surcharges for being at fault in an accident.
- The expected benefits of comparatively safe behavior alternatives: for instance, an insurance discount for accident-free driving.
- The expected costs of comparatively safe behavior alternatives: for instance, using an uncomfortable seatbelt, being called a wimp by one's peers.
The higher the values in categories 1 and 4, the higher the target level of risk. The target level of risk will be lower as the values in categories 2 and 3 rise. So the solution is a loop where everyone alters his/her behavior positively (categories 2 and 3) and as such we can now record lower accident rates within the populace. I therefore propose that to get better safety ratings on Nigerian roads, the Federal Road Safety Corps must without delay:
1. Promulgate policies and processes that focus on the Human error index, and ways of motivating people to see benefits in laws rather than costs, corrective rather than punitive trying to drive behaviors towards level 2 and 3 above. We could set up a system to give points to motorists who never received a booking from FRSC starting with public transport system; such points become a tool for celebrating public transport companies, industries without accidents.
2. Begin to prioritize data gathering and analysis, building up a robust data base. FRSC needs to come up with various analyses such as.
a. Death per unit distance in the country
b. Death per unit distance within black spots relative to non-black spots.
c. Traffic volume relative to death per unit distance
d. Death per unit distance in recently re-engineered highways/roads relative to older roads.
The planning, research and statistics department of the FRSC needs to do more than just gathering basic data and begin to really engage in accident investigation and reconstruction (something I championed while I was there) in fact as a matter of policy no accident or incident should go un-investigated.
I could go on and on, but I will rather let readers comment and we move on from there.
Regards.
Write up inspired by -Target Risk 1,by Gerald J S Wilde.
Write up inspired by -Target Risk 1,by Gerald J S Wilde.