Sociotechnical Factors Supporting Mobile Phone Use by Bus Drivers.

OCCUPATIONAL APPLICATIONSResults of a survey of drivers working for two bus companies in Norway suggest that 20% of drivers sometimes use a mobile phone while driving, even though it is not permitted. Sociotechnical analysis of the system surrounding drivers at one of the companies elicited ways in which social and technical factors combined to support mobile phone use by bus drivers. These factors were arranged under four themes: increased societal dependence on technology; developments in bus driver culture; the need for bus drivers to resolve conflicting goals; and a lack of belief in adverse consequences of using mobile phone while driving. Our findings (i) support claims that driver-centered analyses of mobile phone use or other traffic safety challenges are an insufficient basis for the development of measures and should be supplemented by sociotechnical analyses; and (ii) can inspire the design of more comprehensive measures to help reduce mobile phone use and road safety risks.

Background: Sociotechnical measures could supplement traditional risk management measures and further reduce risks of collisions involving heavy vehicles. Such measures can be identified using methods rooted in sociotechnical systems theory, which considers that people work in systems comprising multiple social and technical elements that interact to create emergent properties and conditions that influence valued system outcomes. Purpose: To investigate the potential of sociotechnical measures in helping to reduce road risks, we identified how social and technical factors combine to influence mobile phone use by bus drivers working at a company in Norway. Method: A survey of ∼600 drivers was completed, followed by focus group interviews with managers and drivers and one-on-one or group interviews with drivers. The interviews were structured using a sociotechnical analysis framework. Results: Twenty percent of drivers reported using their phone while operating a bus, even though such use was against company guidelines. Almost all drivers took their phone with them when they drove, and 40% of those who said they never used their phone while driving could still hear incoming calls and messages. Analysis from nine interviews with 26 drivers suggested that phone use by drivers operating buses is supported by interacting sociotechnical factors due to an increased societal dependence on technology, developments in bus driver culture, a need for bus drivers to resolve conflicting goals at work, and a lack of consequences for drivers using mobile phone use while driving. Conclusions: Limited consideration of the sociotechnical ecosystems surrounding bus drivers can contribute to their mobile phone use and thereby to potential problems of attention and awareness while driving. Sociotechnical approaches should be developed using participative design to reduce phone use while driving, especially to promote openness and information sharing and support bus drivers in the field as they strive to resolve conflicting goals.

Bus stop design and traffic safety: An explorative analysis.

One way to prioritize public transport over private vehicle mobility, is to implement curbside rather than layby bus stop designs. There is, however, uncertainty about the consequences of implementing curbside rather than layby stops for traffic collision risks. To begin investigating this issue, we describe an exploratory analysis in which national data describing bus stops, road properties, traffic collisions and built-up areas were merged based on geographical location. Analysis of the resulting data set suggests that the relative rates of traffic collisions resulting in personal injury within 60 m of the bus stop, is higher for curbside than for layby stops in built-up areas (0.32 vs. 0.22 collisions per ten million passing vehicles, respectively). Our analyses suggest that the higher risk of nearby collisions for curbside stops is not necessarily due to bus stop design, but rather because they tend to be located closer to junctions and side roads, where collisions are more likely. Our data are not consistent with hypotheses that curbside stops are associated with greater shares of head-on or rear-end collisions than layby stops, nor that layby stops are associated with greater shares of side-on collisions than curbside stops. The limitations of this exploratory analysis, and of the use of national-level data for studying the effects of bus stop design on collision risk, are related to lack of control of bus stop design features other than curbside vs. layby, statistical power, data registration and compromises made when coupling data based on geographical location. Future work should attempt to build on our approach, and supplement database analyses with analysis of in-depth reports of bus stop collisions, observations of road user conflicts near bus stops, and before-after studies following conversion from layby to curbside stops or from curbside to layby stops.

Emotional reactions to cycle helmet use.

It has been suggested that the safety benefits of bicycle helmets are limited by risk compensation. The current article tests if previous helmet use influences the response to helmets as a safety intervention. This was investigated in a field experiment where pace and psychophysiological load were measured. We found that after having removed their helmets, routine helmet users cycled more slowly and demonstrated increased psychophysiological load. However, for non-users there was no significant change in either cycling behaviour or psychophysiological load. We discuss the implications of these results for a hypothesis of risk compensation in response to helmet use. We also show that heart rate variability is a promising measure of psychophysiological load in real-world cycling, at least in situations where there is limited physical demand.