Riding along with a drunk driver: a social norms campaign in Antwerp students An influence on driving under influence? Bart Vriesacker Heidi Stoop Guido Van Hal

Introduction 2010 : 45,927 traffic accidents An average day in Belgium: 125 traffic accidents 109 slightly injured persons 14 severly injured persons 2 deaths Adolescents and young adults: - traffic accidents are the most important cause of death - More than half of the total group of fatal accidents Possible explanations for these figures?

Attitude? What is the attitude of young people in traffic? What do they think themselves about…. drunk driving? driving a car under the influence of drugs? riding along with a drunk driver? What does their own behaviour look like? How do they perceive the behaviour of their peers? Which are the social norms regarding traffic participation within this age group?

Methodology Survey with questions and propositions based on the Social Norms Approach: - Perception of social norms has a big influence on how we behave as individuals - These perceptions are, however, often not accurate because we tend to judge the behaviour of peers as less sensible than in reality  misperceptions This can lead to the fact that an individual will adapt his behaviour to what is thought to be the group norm.

Methodology Young people and adolescents from the Province of Antwerp were invited by means of: - (student movements) - link on several websites - social media such as Facebook page and promotion by means of Facebook and Twitter account of the province of Antwerp …to fill out the online-questionnaire The questionnaire was available from April 18th, 2011 until June 30th, 2011

Results 1,279 participants Socio-demographic characteristics: Almost all respondents are students (96.9%) The number of women that filled out the questionnaire is remarkably higher (69.3%) 84.7% of the respondents lives in the province of Antwerp % lives with their parents/guardian % lives in digs - 9.1% has another living situation (mostly living together with partner or family)

Means of transport Top 3 most important means of transport Blue = 1 st place, red = 2nd place, green = 3rd place 59.8% of the respondents possesses a driving license. Top 3 : 51.8 % ‘driving a car’ 53.3 % ‘car passenger’ BikePublic transport Driving a car Car passenger On foot Motor cycle TaxiOther

Going out Frequency: twice a week: 39%, never: 10.5%, daily: 0.5% most popular days: Friday (70.4%) and Saturday (75.9%) Budget: In 68.5% of the respondents not more than 20 euro. Distance covered to go out is only in 11.7% of the respondents more than 20 km. Means of transport (%): Driving a car Car passenger Public transport Bike On foot Other

Driving under the influence (DUI)– riding along with a driver under the influence (RADUI) No Yes No Yes

Perception DUI - RADUI DUI weekDUI weekend RADUI weekRADUI weekend Underestimation 46.4% 34.7% 44.5% 32.7% Correct 0.9% 11.2% 0.0% Overestimation 52.7% 54.1% 55.5% 67.3%

Propositions (1) agree Do not agree I think that RADUI is unsafe99%1% DUI is risky behaviour98.1%1.9% I don’t ride along with a driver under the influence, even if my friends do so, 85.8%14.2% DUI is unsafe99.4%0.6% I think RADUI is safe2.8%97.2% The risk of something serious happening when driving under the influence is high 93.4%6.6% When I drive a car, I don’t drink alcohol91.5%8.5% I have a safe driving style97.9%2.1% I think it is a smart choice not to drive under the influence99%1% Ithink DUI is safe2.2%97.8% I have a risky driving style4%96% I think DUI is unacceptable93.8%6.2% When I have to drive a care, I pay attention to how much alcohol I drink 98%2% I think it is a smart choice to refuse a lift of a driver under the influence 98.2%1.8% I think DUI is dangerous98.2%1.8% I prefer to ride along with a sober driver99.2%0.8% The risk of something serious happening when driving under the influence is small 4.6%95.4%

Propositions (2) ‘When a driver with whom I have to ride along is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, I … agreedo not agree … won’t ride along with him anymore90%10% … won’t undertake any action16.1%83.9% … look for another means to get home93.1%6.9% …would ride along nonetheless15%85% …would take away his keys49.5% …would call the police4.2%95.8% …would talk him about his conduct95.5%4.5% …try to sober him up80.8%19.2%

Social Norms Intervention Mainly based on the propositions  Injuctive norms

Follow-up? Compare baseline-data with data of a follow-up study - behaviour - perception of behaviour  statistically significant changes? Following the theory of the social norms approach, a follow- up study is more than desirable. In practice, often the necessary financial means are lacking to carry this out.

Reference: McAlaney, J., Bewick, B. M., and Bauerle, J. (2010) Social Norms Guidebook: A Guide to Implementing the Social Norms Approach in the UK. University of Bradford, University of Leeds, Department of Health: West Yorkshire, UK. Sources: Website for statistics of the Belgian Government: ongevallen_slachtoffers/verkeersongevallen/

Questions? I am all ears!