Campaign education
The idea of trying to reach high numbers of people to
educate them about important issues is not new, and
it has an obvious appeal. If there is a behaviour that
large numbers of people are engaging in, but that we
know is dangerous, then logic perhaps tells us that we
should try approaches that share basic information and
memorable messages using cost-effective channels
such as tv, radio, posters and – of course - social media.
Whilst an individual may think about how they use a
mobile phone while driving, they may also be thinking
that they do not really use it, or they use it in ways that
are not dangerous. This is likely given that the majority
of drivers consider themselves safer than other drivers 5 .
Alternatively, they may think about their behaviour
in terms of how they can use their phone ‘without
being caught’, thinking of the legal implications as
the risk associated with the action - not the personal
consequences.
Perhaps the most famous and established campaign
‘brand’ is Think! which evolved following the publication
of the 2000 ‘Tomorrow’s roads: Safer for everyone’¹
strategy. A number of Think! campaigns have targeted
mobile phone use. Many of these adopted a fear-based
approach, highlighting the personal consequences
that can result from using a mobile phone while
driving, such as that which featured a split-screen and
implicated the caller in the distraction (and subsequent
crash) of the driver 2 . More recently, a more rational
approach has been favoured, with, the suggestion
that we ‘make the glove compartment the phone
compartment’ 3.
Awareness and education campaigns are notoriously
difficult to evaluate, but some evidence of the impact
of Think! campaigns 4 is available. For example, a 2008
evaluation found that over 80% of those questioned
recalled seeing something related to a Think!
campaign about mobile use by drivers. When asked
specifically about the ‘split screen’ television advert
described above, 29% claimed that it made them think
about their own driving, initially suggesting that the
campaign may be useful in improving driver behaviour.
However, making someone think about their behaviour
is not the same thing as creating behaviour change.
¹ DfT (2000). Tomorrow’s Roads–Safer for Everyone.London:HMSO
2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=72gRlWXgD0o
3
https://www.think.gov.uk/campaign/mobile-phones/
4
DfT (2009). THINK! Road Safety Campaign Evaluation: Post evaluation of June 2009 Mobile Phone campaign. Available from: http://webarchive.
nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100202120215/http://think.dft.gov.uk/pdf/332982/332986/0906-mobiles-post.pdf
5
Harré, N., Foster, S. and O’neill, M., (2005). Self‐enhancement, crash‐risk optimism and the impact of safety advertisements on young drivers. British journal of
psychology, 96(2), pp.215-230.
75