Glasgow City Council Evaluation of Glasgow s School Bus Signage Pilot - Final Report September 2015
Contents Executive Summary... i 1. Introduction... 1 2. Driver experiences... 5 3. Bus company experiences... 11 4. Conclusions and recommendations... 13 Appendix 1: Images of bus signs Appendix 2: Detailed methodology
Executive Summary About this study This study evaluated Glasgow City Council s enhanced school bus signage pilot. Currently UK legislation (the Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) Regulations 1994) requires buses and coaches used for journeys to and from school (so-called dedicated school transport) to display signage to indicate it is operating as a school bus. National Transport Scotland guidance 1 suggests that local authorities and bus operators use larger, more conspicuous signs than the statutory minimum and that hazard warning lights are activated when pupils are getting on or off the bus. There has been concern among some that the statutory minimum sign is insufficient to alert other road users to school transport. Although the number of school pupils killed or seriously injured while alighting from school buses is low in statistical terms, there have been a number of such accidents in Scotland in the past, leading to significant public interest in the issue. In 2008, Aberdeenshire Council decided to progress a number of trials to improve the safety of school bus transport, including the trial of new enhanced 2 school bus signage. Following discussions with Transport Scotland, Glasgow City Council agreed to trial enhanced school transport signage and to explore whether and how the current statutory minimum could be enhanced to strengthen its visibility and impact. Transport Scotland supported the pilot by securing independent evaluation support (provided by ODS Consulting). This study mainly explored the impact of three different signs: the statutory minimum sign; a large, full width, chevron sign displaying the words school bus ; and a large, square, chevron sign with flashing lights, displaying the words school bus. In addition, adapted versions of these signs were tested with bus companies. The following research questions were set for the study: To what extent was the enhanced signage more visible and noticeable to drivers? To what extent did the enhanced signage improve driver behaviour? (Alertness, speed, road position.) 1 http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/system/files/documents/guides/improving_school_transport_sa fety_-_guide_-_final.pdf 2 Throughout this report we use the term enhanced to describe signage which has been physically adapted with the intention of making it more visible or better understood. Page i
What were the benefits and challenges of using the enhanced signage on council and other bus services? What we did The evaluation involved: Four workshops with staff to plan and review the evaluation approach. A Hazard Perception Test - a unique, computer based, hazard perception test used to assess awareness of the signs being piloted. Seventy-nine participants were recruited for the hazard perception test. An On-road test - This element of the research aimed to test motorist reactions to the signage on an operational bus (without passengers) in a reallife, on-road setting. A member of staff recorded the speeds of vehicles as they approached and passed the bus. Staff carried out a short questionnaire with drivers of passing vehicles. A total of 447 vehicle speeds were recorded over the two days, and 177 motorists took part in the questionnaire. Piloting the signs with school transport providers - The Council s internal bus operator, Allander buses and First Bus all tested different versions of enhanced signage. Short questionnaires were used to gather 17 bus drivers and six bus managers experiences of using enhanced signage. What we found To what extent was the enhanced signage more visible and noticeable to drivers? We found that: The enhanced signage was more visible and noticeable to drivers than the statutory minimum signage. In particular, the addition of flashing lights appeared to have a significant impact on drawing attention to the bus, especially in darkness. Although the impact was less distinct and inconsistent across tests, the study suggests that the full length sign may be more easily identified as a hazard by participants than the statutory minimum sign. Drivers felt that the increased size, chevrons, text and lights all helped them identify and understand the hazard, compared with the statutory minimum. Given these findings, there is an argument for the use of larger, more visible signage with text and lights in order to improve visibility and understanding. However, it is also important to recognise that even with enhanced signage and the addition of lights, the school buses were poorly identified as hazards in comparison with other hazards. This raises questions about why this might be, and further research would be needed to understand this. The research also drew attention to different practices among bus operators in terms of where signs are displayed, and when. These factors may have a significant impact on the visibility and impact of signage outside test conditions, which could not be taken into account in this study. To what extent did the enhanced signage improve driver behaviour? Page ii
The study found more limited evidence in relation to this research question. We found that: Most drivers involved in this study knew what they should do in response to a hazard slow down, be more aware or cautious, and perhaps adjust position. During the on-road test a notable number of drivers did say they were more cautious, watchful and aware as a result of seeing the bus and other hazards. Although most believed they slowed down during the on-road test, this was not supported by speed data collected. Overall, it is very difficult to determine if the signage changed behaviours. It was fairly poorly noticed (particularly during the on-road test), which reduced the pool of participants who could have actually responded to it. It is also important to recognise the wider factors that influence behaviour. Further work would be needed to understand the impact of signage on behaviour. What were the benefits and challenges of using the enhanced signage on council and other bus services? While the findings were not conclusive, this study suggests the main benefits of the enhanced signage appeared to be improved visibility and understanding. The main challenges related to a wide range of existing practices, and concerns about changes to the signage. In particular, bus operators were concerned about associated costs and damage to buses. Implications of the study This study suggests that it is important that policy makers and those commissioning school buses recognise that adapting school bus signage is one of a range of potential measures which may influence driver awareness, behaviour and ultimately the level of accidents. While this study suggests that the existing statutory minimum signs are poorly identified or understood, it cannot be assumed that improving their visibility will in itself be effective (or the most effective) means of improving driver behaviours around school buses. Other interventions might include: awareness raising activities with drivers to promote any signage; raise awareness of associated risks and consequences; and to clarify how drivers should respond to school buses; changes to speed limits or a law on passing school buses; road engineering changes; and awareness raising or other activities with pupils using school transport. Finally, this study suggests that there may be a need for those involved in road safety policy and promotion at a local level to evaluate the importance of school buses as a road safety issue in their area, alongside other road safety issues, and respond accordingly. Page iii
1. Introduction 1.1 This report provides an evaluation of Glasgow City Council s enhanced 3 school bus signage pilot. 1.2 This chapter sets out the context for this pilot, and provides a brief summary of the methodology used for the evaluation. Context 1.3 Currently UK legislation (the Road Vehicles Lighting (Amendment) Regulations 1994) requires buses and coaches used for journeys to and from school (so-called dedicated school transport) to display signage to indicate it is operating as a school bus. 1.4 The statutory minimum sign is shown here. It is retro-reflective yellow with a black border and shows the silhouette of two children. The sign must be shown at the front of the vehicle (at least 250mm by 250mm with a black border of not more than 20mm) and at the rear (at least 400mm by 400mm with a black border of not more than 30mm). 4 1.5 National Transport Scotland guidance 5 suggests that local authorities and bus operators use larger, more conspicuous signs than the statutory minimum and that hazard warning lights are activated when pupils are getting on or off the bus. Although workshops have been held with local authorities to raise awareness of the guidance, use of enhanced signage has been minimal. 1.6 According to advice provided by the Department of Transport 6 on the Road Vehicle Lighting Regulations (1989), the regulations also permit buses showing the signage to: display existing hazard warning lights when children are entering or leaving the vehicle; use an additional pair of rear hazard warning lights to increase visibility; use additional warning signs and illuminated signs (as long as these show a steady rather than flashing light, and are red to the rear and white or yellow to the front). 1.7 There has been concern among some that the statutory minimum sign is insufficient to alert other road users to school transport. Although the number of school pupils killed or seriously injured while alighting from school buses is low in statistical terms, there have been a number of such accidents in 3 Throughout this report we use the term enhanced to describe signage which has been physically adapted with the intention of making it more visible or better understood. 4 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/2280/schedule/1/made 5 http://www.transportscotland.gov.uk/system/files/documents/guides/improving_school_transport_sa fety_-_guide_-_final.pdf 6 https://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3_publicpetitionscommittee/submissions_09/09-pe1223f.pdf Page 1
Scotland in the past, leading to significant public interest in the issue. At the time of this study, the Scottish Parliament s Public Petitions Committee was looking into an ongoing petition calling for enhanced signage on school transport. 1.8 In 2008, Aberdeenshire Council decided to progress a number of trials to improve the safety of school bus transport, including the trial of new enhanced school bus signage. 1.9 A report published by Aberdeenshire Council 7 concluded that the piloted new school bus signage was more effective than existing signs in raising motorists awareness to the presence of school buses and, in turn, the possible presence of pupils. As a result of the pilot, the Council has now adopted the enhanced signage on all its dedicated school transport contracts. 1.10 The Aberdeenshire report recommended: flashing lights may be worthy of further consideration; there may be a need for guidance in the use of signage to ensure it is only used when a bus is taking children to or from school; further studies could usefully engage with school bus operators; and a range of measures (beyond signage) may be needed to improve school transport safety. 1.11 Following discussions with Transport Scotland, Glasgow City Council agreed to trial enhanced school transport signage and to explore whether and how the current statutory minimum could be enhanced to strengthen its visibility and impact. Transport Scotland supported the pilot by securing independent evaluation support (provided by ODS Consulting). Focus of this study 1.12 During discussions with ODS Consulting and Transport Scotland it was agreed that the study should explore (and compare) experiences of three different signs: the statutory minimum sign; a large, full width, chevron sign displaying the words school bus ; and a large, square, chevron sign with flashing lights, displaying the words school bus. 1.13 Images of the main signs tested during the study are shown on the next page. 7 Aberdeenshire Council, New School Bus Signage, Results of Trial in Aberdeenshire, available at https://www.aberdeenshire.gov.uk/transportation/roadsafety/schoolbussignsevaluation.pdf Page 2
Statutory minimum sign Large, full-width, chevron sign displaying School Bus Large, square, chevron sign with flashing lights, displaying School Bus 1.14 These signs allowed the study to explore the impact of: the size of signage; format and materials (reflective surfaces and chevrons); wording; and the addition of lights. 1.15 The above signs were used during the main two elements of the research (the hazard perception test and the on-road test). Various adaptations were made to the signage above to allow enhanced signage to be tested by bus companies during the third element of the research (testing signs with school bus transport providers). The signs used during that element of the research were: the large, full-width chevron sign (the second sign above) which was used by First Bus; a large, square chevron sign, displaying the words school bus similar to the third sign shown above, but without flashing lights - used by the Council s own school transport buses; and a wide, banner sign similar to the second sign above, but displayed inside the back window of the bus, used by Allander. 1.16 Images of all of the signs used during the study are included as Appendix 1. 1.17 To address bus company concerns about ease of use, Glasgow City Council s Road Safety Unit worked with an industrial blind manufacturer to design retractable signs which could be easily stored. However, these signs were never piloted by bus companies because of concerns about fitting and the Page 3
perceived potential damage to buses. The Council has provided short films 8 of how the signs are intended to work. 1.18 The following research questions were set for the study: To what extent was the enhanced signage more visible and noticeable to drivers? To what extent did the enhanced signage improve driver behaviour? (Alertness, speed, road position.) What were the benefits and challenges of using the enhanced signage on council and other bus services? Overview of the methodology 1.18 The evaluation involved: Four workshops with staff to plan and review the evaluation approach. A Hazard Perception Test - A unique, computer based, hazard perception test was conducted with motorists. This was designed to gather evidence about perceptions of and reactions to the signage, alongside other roadside hazards, in a consistent, test setting. Seventy-nine participants were recruited for the hazard perception test which ran over two days (17 and 18 June) in council offices, in Glasgow. An On-road test - This element of the research aimed to test motorist reactions to the signage on an operational bus (without passengers) in a real-life, on-road setting. A standard double decker First Bus was parked in a clearly marked school zone in a 30 mph speed limit area. Throughout each day a member of staff recorded the speeds of vehicles as they approached and passed the bus. Staff carried out a short questionnaire with drivers of passing vehicles. A total of 447 vehicle speeds were recorded over the two days, and 177 motorists took part in the questionnaire. Piloting the signs with school transport providers - The Council s internal bus operator, Allander buses and First Bus all tested different versions of enhanced signage. Short questionnaires were used to gather bus drivers and bus managers experiences of using enhanced signage. In total six managers and 17 drivers submitted questionnaires. 1.19 All evaluation was carried out by Council staff. A detailed explanation of the methodology is included as Appendix 2, including information about the process sample sizes, and the conditions and hazards explored during the hazard perception and on-road tests. 8 Available at http://youtu.be/3sxvkn6fk1s and http://youtu.be/vfpzzm44mte Page 4
2. Driver experiences This chapter 2.1 This chapter provides a detailed analysis of the findings from the hazard perception and on-road tests. Both these elements tested driver reactions to the statutory minimum and enhanced signage. Hazard identification Responses to the hazard perception test 2.2 During both the hazard perception and on-road tests drivers were asked to identify the hazard they saw, firstly without prompting. Then they were asked if they saw each specific hazard including school buses. Overall, staff members found that school buses were poorly identified compared with other hazards, and that the buses displaying statutory minimum signage were least likely to be identified. Below we discuss these findings in greater detail. 2.3 During the hazard perception test, very large proportions of participants identified the following hazards unprompted: a cyclist (99%); any bus including a school bus (96%); a car coming out at a junction (96%); an older pedestrian crossing between parked cars (92%); a motorcyclist (84%); a person crossing with children (83%); and a pedestrian on a mobile phone (79%). 2.4 Almost all participants who didn t identify these hazards during the test remembered seeing them when prompted at the end of the questionnaire. 2.5 By comparison, a much smaller proportion of participants identified the school buses displaying signage during the six film clips. Even when prompted, the proportion of them recalling school buses as hazards was very small. The table below provides a breakdown of the percentages of participants who recalled each of the signs, with and without prompting. Conditions Signage Unprompted (%) Prompted (%) Didn t see / not sure (%) No. who answere d Daylight Statutory minimum 0 3 97 63 Full length 11 11 78 63 Flashing lights 10 8 82 62 Dark Statutory minimum 0 2 98 63 Full length 2 8 90 63 Flashing lights 63 13 24 67 Page 5
2.6 As the table above shows, no one identified the statutory minimum sign unprompted during the hazard perception test, with only 3% (just two participants) identifying it after prompting. While the larger, full length sign (with chevrons and school bus text) and the large, square flashing lights sign (also with chevrons and school bus text) were more likely to be identified, at least three quarters of participants didn t see either of them in the daylight clips. 2.7 In the clips filmed in the dark, the flashing lights sign was much more likely to be noticed, with almost two thirds of participants identifying this unprompted. However, it was still much less likely to be identified as a hazard compared with the other hazards in the clips. The statutory minimum and full length signs were poorly identified. 2.8 People were asked about the all the hazards they saw, and why then thought these represented hazards when driving. Participants said these: presented a potential danger or risk of an accident; were unpredictable or might behave unexpectedly; and meant drivers needed to be aware, prepare to avoid or slow down. 2.9 During the hazard perception test, participants were asked if there were any buses that stood out either in the light or dark. Eight out of ten (81%) said there were. When those who said yes were asked what made them stand out, most (89%) highlighted the lights or flashing lights. Just 8% mentioned other aspects of the signs, including the chevrons. Responses during the on-road test 2.10 Overall, people seemed much less aware of hazards during the on-road test than they were during the hazard perception test. This may be related to the fact that they didn t know they would be asked any questions, or that most of the occurring hazards were static rather than moving. Although the overall levels of hazard identification were much lower on the on-road test compared with the hazard perception test, a similar pattern of hazard identification was seen with poor reactions to the school buses displaying signage, compared with other hazards. 2.11 The other hazards on the route were: a pedestrian crossing; a 20 sign; junctions to the left and right; a school sign; a 30 sign; buses; and a school bus displaying one of the signs being tested. 2.12 Between 9% and 30% identified these hazards unprompted. The highest response was for the school sign, where 30% identified it unprompted. 2.13 The table below shows the proportions of participants who identified the various school bus signs being tested. Page 6
Conditions Signage Prompted (%) Didn t see / not sure (%) No. who answered Daylight Statutory minimum 0 11 89 56 Full length 3 13 84 64 Flashing lights 25 34 41 56 2.14 During the on-road test, while some people noticed buses on the route, no one identified the school bus with the statutory minimum sign and only 3% identified the bus displaying the full length sign, without prompting. The buses displaying these signs were the least identified hazards on the route, prompted or unprompted with only 11% able to recall the bus with the statutory minimum sign at all, and 16% recalling the bus with the full length sign, with and without prompting. By comparison, the least identified of the other hazards was the 20 speed sign which was still identified by more than half of participants (59%), with prompting. The table below shows the levels of identification of the other hazards on the route. Conditions Other hazards Unprompted (%) Unprompted (%) 2.15 Although the hazard perception test suggested that the full length sign was the best identified hazard of the signs in daylight conditions, when tested in an onroad driving situation the findings were different. As already described, the full length sign was identified at similar levels to the statutory minimum sign during the on-road test. However, the school bus displaying the sign with lights was much more likely than the other signs to be identified during the on-road test with 25% identifying this unprompted, and a further 34% recalling it when prompted. Although it was still not well identified, this sign was identified at a level more similar to other hazards on this route. 2.16 When asked during the on-road test to identify other hazards they saw, 17% of drivers mentioned potholes unprompted mentioning it more often than buses displaying the statutory minimum sign or long chevron sign, or the 20 mph sign on the route. Signage characteristics which drew attention Prompted (%) Didn t see / not sure (%) No. who answered Daylight Junctions 23 72 5 176 School sign 30 58 13 175 Pedestrian crossing 22 63 15 176 30 sign 20 64 16 176 Any buses 21 55 24 173 20 sign 13 46 41 175 2.17 The findings from both tests suggest that the flashing lights were the most effective element of the enhanced signage, although the bigger size, chevrons and reflective surfaces also seem to have improved visibility to some extent. Page 7
2.18 As with the hazard perception test, when asked what drew their attention to any buses, on-road test drivers were most likely to say that the flashing lights on the school bus signs drew their attention. Understanding of the signage 2.19 During the on-road test and towards the end of the questionnaire staff showed images of the signs being tested during the course of the study and asked participants what they thought the different signs meant. 2.20 Only 13% correctly identified the statutory minimum sign as indicating a bus transporting children to school. A quarter (25%) said it represented a place where children were crossing. Other suggestions were that it indicated a school or nursery school nearby, or the presence of children and parents. 2.21 The two signs displaying the words school bus were much better identified than the statutory minimum. The full width chevron sign was well understood by drivers when asked with 45% explicitly indicating this was a school bus, and most others identifying the risk of children crossing and a school nearby. The sign with the flashing lights was identified best of all, with 62% clearly indicating this was a school bus, and most others indicating associated risks, of children disembarking or crossing. What drivers said about their reactions to hazards 2.22 To test driver knowledge of what they should do in response to a hazard during the hazard perception test, participants were asked what would you normally do if you saw a hazard? 2.23 Drivers were most likely to say they would slow down 84% identified this without prompting, and almost everyone else agreed they would do this, when prompted. 2.24 Only a quarter of people (27%) said they would watch the hazard closely, unprompted, although most agreed with this when prompted by a staff member. Only 16% said they would move position unprompted, with most others agreeing with this when prompted. 2.25 When shown images of the signs being tested, and asked specifically how they thought they would react to them, 76% said they would slow down in response to at least some of the signs although several drivers said they would not do this in reaction to the statutory minimum sign. A small proportion (21%) thought they would be more aware, cautious or observant. 2.26 When asked what else might influence their behaviour in response to the signs: 39% said that knowing a school was nearby would influence their behaviour; 28% said the time of day would affect their reaction; and Page 8
27% said actually seeing children in the area would affect what they did. Driver behaviours in response to the signage 2.27 The on-road test offered staff the opportunity to test actual driver behaviour when different signs were being tested. During the on-road test questionnaire staff asked people how they thought they reacted when they saw a bus (including a school bus) or buses. In addition, road safety officers recorded the speeds at 100 metres before the bus displaying signage and immediately after passing it. 2.28 When asked, 52% of study participants said they thought they had slowed down when they saw a bus or buses on the on-road test. However, the speed test results suggest that any change was negligible. We found no significant difference between speeds when using the different signs. A further 19% said they had been more cautious or aware, but we were unable to establish the extent to which this was the case. 2.29 The table below provides an overview of how cars changed speed when different signs were being tested. The findings suggest that speeds were slightly more likely to be reduced with the large chevron and flashing light signs although figures are fairly similar, so it is difficult to establish the significance of this given the different sample sizes and variations in time of day (which may have affected traffic, behaviours and therefore speed). Signage Statutory minimum Large chevron sign Sign with flashing lights % cars decreasing speed %cars increasing speed % cars at same speed Number of cars surveyed Change in average speed (MPH) 46 40 14 50 30.54 to 30.34 (- 0.3) 58 18 24 198 29.2 to 28.3 (-0.9) 56 26 19 199 28.2 to 27.5 (-0.7) 2.30 Because of the range of factors which may affect driving speed during the onroad test (including road layout and traffic speed), it is difficult to isolate the role of the signage on speed. Such factors may have led to the relatively large proportion of cars speeding up at the time of day the statutory minimum sign was being tested, but it is difficult to establish this. Page 9
Key findings 2.31 This section of the report suggests that: The school bus signage enhanced or otherwise was generally poorly identified when compared with other hazards. The statutory minimum sign was especially poorly recognised as a hazard, and its meaning was not well understood. Lights and chevrons appeared to draw attention to the enhanced signs. The lights were particularly effective in the dark during the hazard perception test and during the on-road test drivers felt the lights drew their attention. The school bus text on the enhanced signage seemed to help people understand what the sign meant, compared with the statutory minimum signage, which was not well understood. Page 10
3. Bus company experiences This section of the report 3.1 This section of the report explores the experiences of bus companies testing enhanced signage, based on an analysis of questionnaires with bus drivers and bus managers. Bus companies were asked to test the signage for a week. 3.2 It should be noted that the enhanced signage used during this testing was different to the signs used during the hazard perception and on-road tests, and varied between bus operators. 3.3 The signs used during that element of the research were: the large, full-width chevron sign which was used by First Bus; a large, square chevron sign, displaying the words school bus used by the Council s own school transport buses; and a wide, banner sign displayed inside the back window of the bus, used by Allander. 3.4 Images of all the signs used in the evaluation are shown in Appendix 1. Current use of signage 3.5 The questionnaires with bus managers and drivers found that they clearly understood where the current signage should be displayed with almost all saying they were placed on the front and rear screens. Some internal council drivers indicated signs were permanently fixed, because buses are only used for school transport. 3.6 When asked who was responsible for deciding when and where to display the signage, bus drivers highlighted their own responsibilities, and the role of their manager or company. Experience of the statutory minimum signage 3.7 When asked what do you think about the current statutory minimum signage? just over half of drivers who responded (53%) felt it was satisfactory or good. But 46% felt it didn t work well or could be improved. Most commonly they felt it was insufficient, or not large enough. One driver said no one pays attention to it. 3.8 When asked whether, in their experience, the statutory minimum sign has a positive impact on driver behaviour, only 12% of drivers said yes. A further 41% said no, and 47% said they were unsure. The two drivers who said it impacted on driver behaviour both worked in more rural areas. 3.9 When asked why they thought the signage didn t make a difference, 50% of those answering thought drivers were too busy to notice or that it didn t stand out. Page 11
3.10 When managers and drivers were asked if there were any issues or problems with the current statutory minimum signs, they said: it isn t large enough, bold enough, or visible enough; there are issues putting them on or removing them with some too easily removed by passengers, and others saying they were too hard to remove when the bus is not being used for school transport; signs get dirty or fade; or signs are placed where they cannot be easily seen. 3.11 When asked how the statutory minimum sign could be improved, drivers and managers made the following suggestions unprompted: larger signs; brighter colours or patterns to draw attention; and the addition of lights. Experience of enhanced signage 3.12 As discussed earlier, different providers tested different enhanced signs. 3.13 Under a third (29%) of drivers felt that the enhanced signage had had a positive impact during the test period, although no further detail was provided. Thirtyfive percent said it had not, and a further 35% said they weren t sure. 3.14 When asked if there had been any issues or problems with the enhanced signage, several drivers mentioned problems with removing the signs or that they were too bulky. One manager said that while the sign that slots into the advertising board had worked well, it limited advertising opportunities. There was some concern that signs being fixed inside the back window of buses were being removed by young people. 3.15 Council staff heard anecdotal feedback that bus companies would be concerned about issues of fixing signs to buses (there is a perception this could lead to damage); cost of new signage; and any reduction to advertising opportunities if signage covered space for banner ads. 3.16 Overall, drivers and managers wanted to see signs that were even more visible, but easier to use. One driver said there is a need for awareness raising with the public, so that drivers understand what the sign means, and how they should behave. Page 12
4. Conclusions This chapter 4.1 This chapter draws together the evidence in relation to each of the research questions for the study, explores methodological issues, and makes suggestions for the future. To what extent was the enhanced signage more visible and noticeable to drivers? 4.2 This study suggests that the enhanced signage was more visible and noticeable to drivers than the statutory minimum signage. 4.3 In particular, we found that the addition of flashing lights appeared to have a tangible impact on drawing attention to the bus, especially in darkness. The findings of the on-road and hazard perception tests both indicate the lights drew attention to the vehicle and made drivers aware that it was a hazard. The flashing lights had a particularly strong impact in the dark. 4.4 Although the impact was less distinct, the study suggests that the full length sign may be more easily identified as a hazard by participants than the statutory minimum sign. This was particularly the case during the hazard perception test, during which this sign was the best identified of the enhanced signage during daylight. However, during the on-road test, participants did not identify the buses using this sign much more than they did the statutory minimum sign. Unsurprisingly, study participants felt that the size, chevrons and text all helped them identify and understand the hazard. 4.5 The addition of the words school bus appeared to significantly improve driver understanding of what the signs indicated. 4.6 Given these findings, there is an argument for the use of larger, more visible signage with text and/or lights in order to improve visibility and understanding. The impact of lights may suggest that the promotion of guidance on the use of existing hazardous lights would be beneficial. 4.7 However, it is also important to recognise that even with enhanced signage and the addition of lights, the school buses were poorly identified as hazards in comparison with other hazards during both tests. During the hazard perception test this included moving hazards (such as pedestrians) and during the on-road test these were mostly stationary (including speed signs and aspects of road layout). This raises questions about why this might be, and further research would be needed to understand these. 4.8 The research also drew attention to different practices among bus operators in terms of where signs are displayed, and when. These factors may have a significant impact on the visibility and impact of signage outside test conditions, which cannot be taken into account in this study. Page 13
To what extent did the enhanced signage improve driver behaviour? 4.9 This is a much more challenging question to answer, given the limitations of the methodology, and the range of factors that may affect an individual s driving behaviour. 4.10 The findings of the hazard perception and on-road tests both indicate that most drivers involved in this study knew what they should do in response to a hazard in general slow down, be more aware or cautious, and perhaps adjust position. And during the on-road test most drivers believed they did slow down when they saw the school bus. However, the speed tests did not support this claim. Due to difficulties in measurement, this study did not attempt to quantify changes to road positioning, and relatively few people mentioned they had moved as a result of seeing hazards. 4.11 A significant number of drivers did say they were more cautious, watchful and aware as a result of seeing the bus and other hazards. 4.12 Overall, it is very difficult to say if the signage changed behaviours. The enhanced signage was fairly poorly noticed (particularly during the on-road test), which reduced the pool of participants who could have actually responded to it. Further work would be needed to understand the impact of signage on behaviour. It is also important to recognise the wider factors that influence behaviour. During the on-road test, drivers drew attention to the proximity to a school, time of day and other issues which might affect their behaviours. 4.13 The low levels of identification of the school buses as hazards might be in part due to lack of understanding of the risks associated with this. It is possible that drivers perceived some hazards to be more important than others, but further work would be required to understand this too. Further research might explore the interpretation of the risks and consequences of particular hazards. This may help understand the extent to which signage can really improve behaviours, alongside other interventions such as awareness raising work with the public, or further legislation. What were the benefits and challenges of using the enhanced signage on council and other bus services? 4.14 The main benefits of the enhanced signage appeared to be improved visibility and understanding. 4.15 The testing of different signs by bus operators drew attention to a wide range of existing practices, and concerns about changes to the signage. In particular, bus operators were concerned about associated costs and damage to buses. 4.16 These findings raise practical questions about how best to influence those providing school bus services. In particular, the study suggests that current regulations (in relation to when signage is used) and guidance (in terms of displaying enhanced signage) are not always being followed. Local authorities, Page 14
Transport Scotland and the Department of Transport may wish to consider measures to monitor compliance and enforce existing regulations, and further promote existing guidance. 4.17 Given the concerns expressed about costs and perceived damage to buses, local authorities such as Glasgow may wish to look to contracting arrangements to leverage change in relation to signage. For example, making enhanced signage a necessity for the award of any new contracts. However, this report does highlight there is no obvious one-size fits all signage arrangement, given the wide range of buses used for home-to-school transport and the challenges of fitting signs to different vehicle sizes and models. If local authorities wish to encourage rather than enforce enhanced signage, further work will be needed to identify a cost effective sign which bus companies will readily use. 4.18 In considering the implications of this study, it is important that policy makers and those commissioning school buses recognise that adapting school bus signage is one of a range of potential measures which may influence driver awareness, behaviour and ultimately the level of accidents. While this study suggests that the existing statutory minimum signs are poorly identified or understood, we cannot assume that improving their visibility will in itself be effective (or the most effective) means of improving driver behaviours. Other interventions might include: awareness raising activities with drivers to promote any signage; raise awareness of associated risks and consequences; and to clarify how driving behaviour should respond near school buses; changes to speed limits or the law on passing school buses; road engineering changes; and awareness raising or other activities with pupils using school transport. 4.19 Given that road type, speed limits, and the type of buses delivering services vary across Scotland, the likelihood and severity of accidents is likely to vary geographically. Therefore, there may be a need for those involved in road safety policy and promotion at a local level to evaluate the importance of school buses as a road safety issue in their area (alongside other road safety issues) and respond accordingly. Page 15
Appendix 1: Images of signs used in the study Statutory minimum signage tested during the hazard perception, on-road tests and during piloting with transport providers Image of enhanced signage - with flashing lights, used during the hazard perception and physical route tests Image of enhanced signage used during the hazard perception test, on-road test, and by First bus during piloting with transport providers Image of enhanced signage used by Council internal transport during piloting with bus companies Image of enhanced signage used by Allander during piloting with transport providers Page 16
Appendix 2: Detailed methodology 1.1 This appendix provides a detailed description of the methodology used during this evaluation, and the profile of participants. Developing an evaluation plan and methods 1.2 Glasgow City Council s Road Safety Unit met with Transport Scotland and ODS Consulting in January 2015 to plan the evaluation of the pilot. This workshop explored: the main research questions for the evaluation; the target groups and methods; the respective roles of ODS and road safety staff within the council; and the audience, style and format of the report. 1.3 ODS Consulting delivered two further workshops with Road Safety Unit staff to design specific elements of the evaluation, and plan fieldwork. These workshops focused on designing: a hazard perception test and questionnaire to explore car driver responses to the signage and other hazards; an on-road test to explore car driver responses to the signage in a real life setting; and questionnaires and discussion guides for use with bus companies and drivers. 1.4 ODS Consulting prepared an evaluation plan, which Glasgow City Council and Transport Scotland reviewed and commented on. The plan provided the framework for the fieldwork, analysis and report writing. Evaluation challenges 1.5 At the initial planning workshop those involved discussed the following difficulties in this type of evaluation. In particular, the: challenges in attributing driver behaviour to signage or other isolated interventions designed to improve safety; sampling issues including size and representativeness; and mitigating or taking account of the range of factors affecting driver knowledge, interpretation of signage and behaviours. 1.6 Given these issues, it was agreed that the evaluation should use a mixture of different methods to gather both quantitative and qualitative data for comparison. Plans were put in place to ensure fieldwork could be delivered in ways which reached the largest possible number of drivers, and to reduce the impact of wider factors. Page 17
Hazard Perception Test 1.7 A unique, computer based, hazard perception test was designed to conduct with motorists. This was designed to gather evidence about perceptions of and reactions to the signage, alongside other roadside hazards, in a consistent, test setting. This allowed staff members to limit the range of factors affecting perception and behaviour, and would test reactions to a range of comparable hazards. 1.8 The signs tested were: the statutory minimum sign; the large, full width, chevron sign displaying the words school bus ; and the large, square, chevron sign with flashing lights, displaying the words school bus. 1.9 The hazard perception test involved viewing six one minute film clips, and completing a related questionnaire. To isolate the impact of other factors it was decided that: each clip should follow the same route, and test one of the signs; each clip should show one sign, and include a number of other hazards; the school bus displaying the sign to be tested should be parked in the same position in each clip, close to a school, in a 30mph busy bus route; half of the clips should be in daylight, and the other half in the dark in order to test light conditions on summer and winter school journeys (so that each of the three signs were tested once in the light, and once in the dark); and film clips should be displayed in a random order so that any influence ordering might have on the viewer will be minimised. 1.10 Six scenarios were filmed from inside a vehicle, on this basis. The filming was carried out while the vehicle was travelling through a marked school zone at a steady 30 miles per hour. 1.11 Actors were used to create additional road hazards, and some others emerged in the normal course of driving along a busy route. Hazards included in the clips were: Physical hazards including signage, road markings, and junctions; Moving hazards cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles; and Environmental hazards road conditions, weather, and visibility. 1.12 Participants for the hazard participation test were recruited by advertising among council employees. In total, emails were sent to over 5,000 people. People working in road safety were excluded from participating. The test was advertised as road safety research, without explaining the focus was on bus signage. Participants were entered into a prize draw (for a 100 shopping voucher), as an incentive to become involved. 1.13 Seventy-nine participants were recruited for the hazard perception test which ran over two days (17 and 18 June) in council offices, in Glasgow. Page 18
Chart : key facts about participants in the hazard perception test 1.14 Before beginning the test, a staff member (from the Council s Road Safety Unit) would explain the broad purpose of the research, the process, and outline what was meant by a hazard. It was explained that the time of day in the film was between 8am and 4pm. Participants were told the research was anonymous. Page 19
1.15 During the test participants were asked to watch the six film clips (displayed in a random order), and press a button when they saw a hazard. They were asked to note what the hazard was, and a staff member recorded the responses on a questionnaire. 1.16 At the end of the test, the staff member recapped on what the person had seen, and asked final questions from the questionnaire. The questionnaire explored: the hazards they had seen and why they considered these hazards; how they would normally react to hazards like the ones they had identified; the buses they identified, and what made them stand out; how they identified any school buses, and what made them noticeable; how they would normally react if they saw a school bus sign; and what other factors might influence their reaction to school bus signs. 1.17 At the end of the test a staff member explained how the information would be used. They asked the participant not to discuss the content or outcome of the test with their colleagues as this could affect the results. 1.18 Staff involved in delivering the research reviewed what had worked well, and what could have been better about this method during a review workshop facilitated by ODS Consulting in July 2015. The main points made were: Staff had managed to engage with people with a range of driving experiences, genders, age, and work roles. The introduction and process worked well. Using the film clips to prompt discussion alongside the questionnaire worked especially well. Participants took the research seriously, concentrated well, and provided considered responses. Page 20
People tried to provide a lot of detail about the hazards they saw. If using this method again, it would be beneficial to let participants know they just needed to name the hazard. Undertaking each test took considerably longer than anticipated, and it would be helpful to allow a longer time between tests in the future. On-road test 1.19 This element of the research aimed to test motorist reactions to the signage on an operational bus (without passengers) in a real-life, on-road setting. A standard double decker First Bus was parked in a clearly marked school zone in a 30 mph speed limit area on the 21 and 22 April 2015. 1.20 The signs tested were: The statutory minimum sign; The large, full width, chevron sign displaying the words school bus ; and The large, square, chevron sign with flashing lights, displaying the words school bus. Sign Statutory minimum Full length Flashing lights Date and time of testing 22 April 2015, 10.00 am 11.15 am 21 April 2015, 11.30am to 12.30 pm and 22 April 2015, 12.15 pm 1.15 pm 21 April 2015, 12.30 pm to 1.15 pm and 22 April 2015, 11.15am to 12.15pm 1.21 In this element of the study, no additional hazards were set up, although there were a number on the route at various times. 1.22 Before beginning testing, staff checked all signs could be clearly seen from at least 100 metres on approach. 1.23 Throughout each day a member of staff recorded the speeds of vehicles as they approached and passed the bus, and any changes they made to their road position. The speed equipment and linked camera allowed two operators on the bus to monitor the speed and position of each approaching vehicle from 100 metres as it approached the bus and immediately after it passed the bus. Staff measured the speeds of 50 vehicles passing the statutory minimum sign; 198 vehicles passing the full width chevron sign; and 199 passing the sign with flashing lights. 1.24 Staff carried out a short questionnaire with passing vehicles. Police Scotland supported the project by agreeing to stop motorists at the roadside to staff to ask people to participate. The checkpoint included a coned off lane approximately 200 metres from the parked bus. The checkpoint could not be Page 21
seen by drivers as they passed the bus. The checkpoint was out of view of drivers as the approached and passed the bus displaying the signage being tested. Drivers were reassured by the police and road safety staff that participation was entirely voluntary and if they didn t wish to participate, they could just drive on. 1.25 The questionnaire explored: the hazards they saw; what made them aware of these hazards; what they noticed about any buses they saw; what buses they saw, what made them stand out, and what they thought the dangers associated with these might be; how they thought they reacted when they saw the bus or buses; their reactions to images of the statutory minimum sign and full length sign being tested. 1.26 Staff recorded responses to the questionnaire on paper based copies, and transferred these to the online version shortly after completion. 1.27 A total of 447 vehicle speeds were recorded over the two days, and 177 motorists took part. 1.28 All participants were asked basic information about them, to help staff understand their profile. This is displayed on the chart below. Chart : key facts about participants in the on-road test 9 9 Note: The profile of people reviewing the full length chevron sign was slightly different from the other groups, with almost a third (30%) aged 45-54, and a much lower proportion (13%) of people over 65 than testing the other signs. Page 22
1.29 During a review workshop, staff noted the following points about this method: The method was straight-forward to deliver. Having the Police stop motorists to ask if they wished to participate voluntarily did not seem to adversely affect the study, or influence attitudes towards participation. The survey was quite long. If carrying out similar research in the future, staff felt there would be value in prioritising issues, and reducing the number of questions. Many of the drivers use the route regularly, and knew a school was nearby, which may have influenced their driving or reactions to the signage. Piloting the signs with bus companies 1.30 Responding to one of the recommendations from the Aberdeenshire study, this pilot sought to test the practical issues relating to using enhanced signage with bus drivers and bus companies. The Council s internal bus operator was used as well as private providers. Page 23
1.31 Due to concerns about the use of the main signs being tested, transport providers tested different versions. 1.32 The internal buses tested large, square chevron signs that could be fixed in the same position as they normally use the statutory minimum sign, as shown opposite. 1.33 Allander tested a wider, laminated sign which was displayed inside the back window of the bus. 1.34 First Bus (which does not currently run school buses in Glasgow but does use the statutory minimum signage in other local authority areas) tested the full length sign (tested during the on-road test and hazard perception test) in Balfron, Stirlingshire. Images of all the signs used in the study are included in Appendix 1. 1.35 All providers were asked to test enhanced signage for a week. A short questionnaire was designed for bus drivers (available in paper form or online), and a discussion guide provided to the road safety team to carry out telephone interviews with managers in each of the participating bus companies. The discussion guide was later converted to a questionnaire, as managers felt this was an easier way for them to participate. 1.36 The questionnaires explored: views about whether the enhanced signage made a difference; and the practical challenges and benefits of each set of signage. 1.37 Despite agreeing to participate in the study, it proved difficult to encourage drivers and managers to complete the questionnaires. Anecdotal feedback was also gathered from managers. In total six managers and 17 drivers submitted questionnaires. This included three Allander drivers, nine First Bus drivers, and five internal bus drivers. Most managers were very experienced, with most having worked for the organisation for 21 or more years. Most responding drivers had at least three years experience driving buses. The length of time they had worked for their current employer varied. 1.38 During the review workshop the following factors were highlighted: the significant challenges of engaging drivers and managers in the questionnaires; and concerns about costs and potential damage to buses, which affected participation and which signs could be tested. Page 24