the voice of lay experts: content analysis of traffic accident “talk-backs”

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Transportation Research Part F 11 (2008) 24–36

www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

The voice of lay experts: Content analysisof traffic accident ‘‘talk-backs’’

Fabienne Sikron *, Orna Baron-Epel, Shai Linn

School of Public Health, Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Studies, University of Haifa, Israel

Received 29 March 2006; received in revised form 7 June 2007; accepted 7 June 2007

Abstract

Every year, more than 500 people are killed on the roads in Israel and more than 3000 are seriously injured. The mostdominant factor in understanding the chain of events leading to an accident is the human factor, and understanding dri-ver’s perceptions of the issue are necessary for interventions to be effective. Internet ‘‘talk-backs’’ to accident news itemswere used as an innovative data source in the present content analysis. In contrast to other qualitative techniques, such asfocus groups or interviews, the debate is spontaneous and open to a large audience. The aim of this study was to providestructured and in-depth information about road users’ attitudes and beliefs towards road accidents and their prevention.The total number of ‘‘talk-backers’’ during the 4 months analyzed was 2095. The driver’s behavior as the cause of accidentsconstitutes the most frequently mentioned theme in the ‘‘talk-backs’’, more than the themes regarding the condition of thevehicle or the road infrastructure. The driver’s behavior theme was further divided into sub-categories such as drivingskills, traffic rule violations, aggressive driving and uncivilized behavior. Lay people were also able to suggest preventionstrategies, such as policy, enforcement, road infrastructure, and sanctioning. This information may assist policy-makersand safety experts in identifying the appropriate means of intervention, implementation and communication with thepublic.� 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Talk backs; Lay people; Driver behavior; Road accidents; Qualitative study

1. Introduction

The damage caused by road accidents is known to all. Every year, more than 500 people are killed on theroads in Israel and more than 3000 are seriously injured (The National Road Safety Authority, 2005). In addi-tion, many resources are spent on damages caused by road accidents. Road accidents mainly affect young peo-ple, therefore, the number of years of potential life lost (YPLL) is the greatest compared to death by all otherillnesses (Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC), 1993). Accidents are attributed to many factors

1369-8478/$ - see front matter � 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.trf.2007.06.001

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (F. Sikron).

mailto:[email protected]

F. Sikron et al. / Transportation Research Part F 11 (2008) 24–36 25

such as poor infrastructure, or technical problems of the vehicle, but the professional literature generallyagrees that one of the most dominant factors in understanding the chain of events leading to an accident isthe human factor (Evans, 1996; Petridou & Moustaki, 2000). Even in accidents where road infrastructureor the vehicle’s condition may be a factor, the accident may often be caused by the absence of an adequatereaction on behalf of the driver. Various types of strategies have been developed and implemented, in an effortto reduce road accidents. Some strategies try to change the driver’s behavior through safety education or bet-ter driver training. Other strategies try to change the environment by improving road infrastructure, or devel-oping advanced technologies. Understanding driver’s perceptions of these issues is important as a means toobtain public acceptability of the interventions. For example, if drivers believe the police are motivated to givefines by receiving bonuses they will not cooperate: the driver will violate rules whenever the police are notaround, and some will flash their lights to warn other drivers that the police are around. Even passive inter-ventions such as infrastructure changes can be sabotaged by inappropriate driver behavior. For example, somedrivers move to the opposite side of the street to avoid speed bumps, and this is liable to endanger the driverscoming from the opposite direction, creating a kind of ‘‘boomerang effect’’. Understanding public behaviorsand attitudes is crucial not only for designing interventions, but also for eliciting cooperation with new andinnovative interventions.

Internet ‘‘talk-backs’’ to accident news items were used as an innovative data source in the present contentanalysis. A ‘‘talk-back’’ is a comment to a journalistic article appearing on the internet. People reading newsitems on the net can send comments on-line that will appear immediately below the items. As characterized byan internet researcher, ‘‘‘‘talk-backs’’ are spontaneous, oriented to the immediate, directed to a large audience,one shot, with minimal mediation, and anonymous’’ (Hecht, 2003). The concept of ‘‘talk-back’’ is popular inIsrael. For example, at the website of the most widely read daily newspaper in Israel, called ‘‘Yedioth Ahro-noth’’, there are about 10,000 ‘‘talk-backs’’ published everyday (Peder, 2005; The Yedioth Ahronoth website,2005). Surprisingly, in most of the western countries, this phenomenon less developed than it has in Israel(Peder, 2005). In contrast to other qualitative techniques, such as focus groups or interviews, the option tojoin in on the talk backs is available to a very large audience, and the participation is anonymous.

The aim of this study was to provide structured and in-depth information about road users’ attitudes andbeliefs, as they are presented in an innovative data source- the ‘‘talk-backs’’. This valuable information canassist policy-makers and safety experts when identifying public attitudes and beliefs. This may help identifythe appropriate means of intervention, implementation, and communication with the public.

2. Methods

2.1. Data source

The data source consisted of ‘‘talk-backs’’ on news items that report road accidents involving the death ofat least one person, and published on a daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth’s website, during June and July of2003 and 2005 (The Yedioth Ahronoth website, 2005). The items usually contained about 500 words, and asalient title. The title usually refers to one specific accident, but the body of the text sometimes includes infor-mation about other accidents as well, or about the medical conditions of people recently injured. There is awide range of accident types reported, involving pedestrians, cyclists or other cars, sometimes with one fatalcasualty and sometimes more. The news item appears on the front screen of the site, along with two moreitems. It is replaced by other news items a few hours or a whole day later, depending of the urgency of theother news items. People add ‘‘talk-backs’’ mostly when the news item is on the front page. ‘‘Talk-backs’’can range from only a title or a line to 20 lines of text. On average the text of a ‘‘talk-back’’ consists of5–10 lines. The news items and ‘‘talk-backs’’ are in Hebrew.

2.2. Respondents

As the participation in ‘‘talk-backs’’ is anonymous, no formal demographic characteristics could beobtained. Based on names posted and male or female grammar style, we can conclude that the respondentswere from both genders.

26 F. Sikron et al. / Transportation Research Part F 11 (2008) 24–36

2.3. Data collection

The identification of the news items was performed in three steps. The use of the website search functionwas the first step in which the archives were searched for items with titles containing words such as ‘‘acci-dents’’, ‘‘deaths’’, ‘‘were killed’’. The second step consisted opening the links appearing next to the news items,these generally lead to news items similar in type and content to the primary items found. The third step in thesearch was performed by looking for news written by the journalists responsible for the news items alreadyidentified. These three steps led to 37 news items reporting a fatal road accident during two periods. The firstperiod included 18 items from the period June–July 2003 and the second period included 19 items from theperiod June–July 2005. For each of the 37 news item all the ‘‘talk-backs’’ were collected, this included 2095‘‘talk-backs’’, 650 during the 2003 period and 1445 during the 2005 period.

2.4. Data analysis

The present content analysis was based on traditional guidelines concerning qualitative textual analysis(Shkedi, 2004). In the content analysis phase, the first author read all the ‘‘talk-backs’’, and identified1675 meaning units expressing an opinion about the causes for road accidents or a strategy to preventingthem. Codes were assigned to each meaning unit according to an iterative process of developing themes,refining them, and creating sub-themes. The codes were selected, depending on the context in which the sen-tence was encountered and the style of the whole ‘‘talk-back’’. A code book containing the detailed defini-tion of each theme and sub-theme was formulated. Then, the second author picked out randomly threearticles from the pool, containing about 300 ‘‘talk-backs’’, and created categories of her own, assigning acode to each of the meaning units identified. In the third stage, all the authors checked the agreementand similarity between the categories proposed by the first two authors, analyzed them in light of knowncategories appearing in the professional literature. As a result, an updated code-book was produced. Thefinal step consisted of picking out three more news items, each containing about 100 ‘‘talk-backs’’ The firstand the second author assigned codes to each meaning unit using the updated codebook. No major differ-ences were found between the coding of both the authors. The final themes identified by this mining processare described in Table 1.

3. Results

During the first period studied (2003) an average of 36 ‘‘talk-backs’’ per news item were found, with a rangeof 3–163 ‘‘talk-backs’’ per item. An average of 76 ‘‘talk-backs’’ per news item were found during the secondperiod (2005) with a range of 21–212 ‘‘talk-backs’’. This is a two fold increase in ‘‘talk-backs’’. Although thenumber of talk-backs has doubled from one period to another, the distribution of the themes was stable overtime. Twenty percent of the ‘‘talk-backs’’ could be identified as written by women. The distribution of themeswas similar for both genders. The themes identified in the ‘‘talk-backs’’ included factors involved in causingcrashes as well as strategies for preventing crashes.

3.1. Overall description of the themes

3.1.1. Road user’s behavior

This category constitutes the most common theme in the ‘‘talk-backs’’ (49.2%). It includes comments abouthuman behavior as the principal cause of crashes, usually blaming the driver’s behavior and emphasizing theimportance of changing this behavior. We identified seven sub-themes as follows:

1. The aggressiveness argument was the sub-theme most frequently mentioned. The Israeli driver was seen as aviolent driver who deliberately shows disregard for the safety or well-being of other road users. He/she ishostile, he/she thinks only about his/her own immediate interest and he/she will do anything in order tosatisfy this interest, including offending the rights of other road-users or endangering them. A metaphorcomparing roads to a battle ground was also used frequently.

Table 1Themes and sub-themes (2095 ‘‘talk-backs’’)

Main theme Sub-theme Description

Road users behavior Driving skills The driver does not know how to drive, he is unskilledand was not trained in special conditions

Aggressive driver The driver is hostile, and deliberately shows disregard for the safety orwell-being of other road users, as well as for traffic rules in general

Traffic rule violation The driver violates a specific rule, usually in order to gain advantageover other drivers

Distraction The driver is distracted and makes poor decisions that may endangerhim or other road users

Uncivilized behavior The driver is uncivilized and carelessAlcohol/drugs Drunk driversSafety devices Under-use of safety devices such as safety beltsSpecific road user groups Specific road users are described as behaving in a particularly

dangerous way, including pedestrians, cyclist, motorists, 4 · 4 jeeps,and heavy trucks

Specific demographic group Demographic groups are considered as behaving in characteristic way,including the young, the elderly, women, and Arabs

Enforcement Inefficiency The police are trying to do their job but are not successful in itPreference for easy tasks The police prefer to deal with easy tasksEmphasizing speed The police deal mostly with speed enforcement

Sanctioning The sentence The sentence is too light and not proportionate to the violationRoad infrastructure Development No investment enough in developing infrastructure, building bridges,

widening roadsImproving existing roads There is no planning for improving roads, there are basic problems

such as poor visibility, holes in the roadVehicle design Dangerous cars The cars are old, there are technical problems with the vehicles

Technology Under-use of new technologyPolicy development Corruption The policy-makers are corrupted, they have hidden agenda

Priorities The budget is used for different purposesNon-efficient policy-makers The policy-makers are not efficientPolicy change Need for an overall Policy change


‘‘. . .Drivers cut, flash on purpose, honk at inter-sections to hurry you to go. . .’’.‘‘Drivers on the road behave as if they were on a battle field’’.

Interestingly, many complaints in this category concerned selfish behaviors, which generate annoyance andanger, but have little direct impact on safety, such as using the shoulder to over-take a line of vehicles dur-ing rush hour.

2. In addition to this kind of personal blaming of the driver, ‘‘talk-backers’’ expressed opinions about specificrule violations. The emphasis here was not about the driver as a chronic violator, but about violating onespecific rule. Even when knowing it is clearly forbidden by the law, the driver is tempted because he per-ceives the opportunity to gain advantage, such as saving time. He is also aware of the danger but he delib-erately gambles and believes it will be OK:

‘‘The driver crossed a solid line. This is the kind of things that leads to accidents’’.

3. Another sub-theme that is part of the human behavior theme concerns general uncivilized behavior. People,were described by ‘‘talk-backers’’ as not having respect for values, in any aspect of life, not only driving,they are not courteous, they have no patience and no tolerance towards people in general, and specificallytoward road users, when driving:

‘‘. . .the way we drive is a symptom of the indifference and the degeneration of the Israeli society. We are the

enemies of ourselves, and we are losing in this war. . .’’.

In this context, the participants usually suggest starting the education process from childhood.


4. Another theme expressed was about unnecessary risk taking without thinking about the consequencesincluding being distracted during driving. The driver is blamed of making poor judgments, sometimesdue to lack of concentration or being too tired:

‘‘. . .it’s enough not to be concentrated for a second and you can already loose control. . .’’‘‘. . .drivers talk on their cell phones, smoke, and of course are not paying attention to the road. . .’’.

5. Lack of skills was also mentioned as a problem. The driver does not know how to drive properly, he/shereceived his/her license but he/she was not trained well enough, and he/she was not trained for specific dan-gerous circumstances. In those citations, people suggest strengthening the driver’s skills as a strategy forpreventing road accidents:

‘‘. . .the authorities have to require much more driving lessons, and not only the minimal number required just

to pass the test . . .’’.‘‘. . .Drivers have to be trained to drive on slippery surfaces. . .’’.

6. Some of the ‘‘talk-backs’’ blamed a specific demographic group as being over-represented among thoseinvolved in accidents, such a specific gender, age group, or ethnic sub-population. The responsibility foraccidents was generally attributed to women, very young or very old drivers, and Arabs.

‘‘. . .An 18-year-old kid who drives with his friends, or with a girl, looses his head and thinks he is a kind of

macho or get-away driver. . .’’.

7. Other ‘‘talk-backs’’ referred to specific road users, such as pedestrians, cyclists, motor cyclists, drivers of4 · 4 jeeps and heavy trucks. News items describing accidents involving motorist generally create a passion-ate discussion between motorists who blame other drivers for failing to see them, and drivers who blamemotorists for driving dangerously, cutting them up suddenly, and even sometimes breaking the car’s mirrorwhile moving to the head of the queue. Even the pedestrians, although being generally the victim of acci-dents, receive criticism:

‘‘. . .I witnessed again and again irresponsible pedestrians jumping into the roads from between parked cars

just under the cars’ wheels, and no driver can have enough time to stop. . .’’.

3.1.2. Police enforcement

A smaller portion of the ‘‘talk-backs’’ included criticism of the police (11.4%). Part of the ‘‘talk-backers’’suggested that lack of appropriate enforcement was a major cause of accidents, and part of them suggestedimproved enforcement as a way to prevent accidents in the future. This theme can be divided into a fewsub-themes:

1. Some ‘‘talk-backs’’ accused the police of not doing their job well enough:

‘‘. . . I saw a lot of patrol vehicles along the highway, but they were standing in the shade, doing nothing.Adding more police officers will not help, police is not able to deal with anything. . .’’.

2. Another criticism against the police was that they do not even try to do their job properly, and they delib-erately prefer easy tasks. The ‘‘talk-backers’’ suggested that the police concentrate their efforts on comfort-able tasks and do not deal with the dangerous offenses that require more effort and creativity:

‘‘. . .Pay attention to where there are patrol vehicles, on roads with two lanes and guardrails, but on otherroads, no way. . .’’.

3. Criticism was also expressed against the emphasis police devote to speed enforcement. Among those whoindicated lack of proper police enforcement, many drivers think that speed cameras and laser guns consti-tute a convenient way of making money but not of reducing accidents:

‘‘. . .Police care mostly about making easy money. It is not legitimate to concentrate all the efforts on thiseasy task of playing with the laser gun. . .’’.


One of the frequent criticisms mentioned in this category was that the police hide behind trees to surpriseand catch innocent drivers:

‘‘. . .If the police want to prevent accidents, they have to patrol and inspect and be on the roads, and not hide

behind trees, waiting for a victim who did not turn on his car lights . . .’’.

Another issue raised was the way police deal with the Arab sector. ‘‘Talk-backers’’ accused the policeof avoiding any contact with this population and the Arabs of being aware of that and exploiting thesituation:

‘‘. . .Police are afraid of dealing with the Arab sector, including the Bedouins and the Arabs from the north-

ern part of the country. Arab people see that the police are not doing anything and continue to do whatever

they want . . .’’.

3.1.3. Sanctioning

Another theme that was suggested as a major factor leading to accidents was the lack of appropriate actionof the judiciary system (13.7%). It was also suggested that harsher punishment is the best way to prevent acci-dents. The ‘‘talk-backers’’ mentioned the gap between the maximum punishment provided by the law and theactual punishment imposed by the courts, and suggested implementing harder sanctions.

‘‘. . .Most of the car drivers are not even able to drive a lawn mower to cut the grass. The solution is to lead a

ruthless war against road criminals by taking away their license.. . .’’.

‘‘Talk-backers’’ used this argument in the context of deterrence, arguing that the perpetrators know thesanction will be so light that it does not deter them from dangerous driving. Some of the ‘‘talk-backs’’ alsosuggested better enforcing the revocation of license verdict:

‘‘. . .we have to give long jail sentences to people who drive when their license has been revoked. . .’’.

3.1.4. Road infrastructure

Some of the ‘‘talk-backers’’ pointed to road infrastructure as a cause of accidents, and some suggestedimproving road infrastructure as a major strategy for reducing accidents (9.5%). We identified two types ofcriticism regarding this issue. The first one concerned improving existing roads, in many instances, with ref-erence to specific road sections that were mentioned in the news items:

‘‘. . .motorists, try not to drive on this cursed road. Because of the defective road design, the motorcycle

looses its stability when entering the curve. . .’’.

The roads in the northern part of the country were described particularly as hazardous. The ‘‘talk-backs’’contained criticisms about lack of proper lighting, lack of traffic lights where they are needed, inadequate roadsigns, and insufficient warnings when doing road maintenance. The ‘‘Israel National Roads Company’’, thebody responsible for planning and executing the improvements in infrastructure on intercity roads, was some-times personally designated as responsible for these failures.

The second type of criticism was about more comprehensive changes, such as developing new roads, enlarg-ing the existing roads or building bridges and interchanges. Many ‘‘talk-backs’’ concerning the infrastructurestrategy demanded installing guardrails and safety barriers immediately all along the roads:

‘‘. . .I want to see one person who will say that a guardrail would not prevent the damage. . .’’.

These devices are considered to be the ultimate answer to preventing highway crashes. The roads in Israelare compared to roads in other countries, especially those in Western Europe, which are considered to be highquality.

In many cases, the ‘‘talk-backers’’ blamed the Israeli driver, and then suggested changing the infrastructureto deal with poor performance of the drivers:


‘‘. . .There is no doubt that people are partly responsible, and we can see that from the police investigation.

But there is no doubt that a road with a guardrail would prevent the accident and all accidents of this kind.

With drivers like us, it is apparently the solution. . .’’.

3.1.5. Policy development

Some of the ‘‘talk-backs’’ indicated inadequate policy as the principal cause of accidents and advocatedpolicy development as the major strategy for reducing crash incidence (14.5%). Most of the criticism wasfocused on governmental institutions, such as the ministry of transportation, but some of the criticismwas also against local authorities. Four types of criticism could be identified. The first type of sub-themewas the need for a drastic policy change, including a comprehensive set of governmental decisions that shouldbe implemented together, such as developing the underground mass transportation, or creating bicycle paths.Many suggestions were proposed, all of them attributing responsibility to the authorities:

‘‘. . .the government has to reduce the taxes for buying new cars so that we will see fewer old cars on the

road. . .’’.

Some of the ‘‘talk-backers’’ accused stakeholders of inefficiency and called for policy-makers to resign:

‘‘. . .This government does everything except what it has to do. Enough, I can’t stand it anymore, how long

can the people suffer from you. Just resign, immediately. . .’’.

Some of the ‘‘talk-backs’’ referred to unfair division of the State budget, choosing to give priorities to lessimportant issues. People blamed the government for investing funds in issues that are less critical than safety:

‘‘. . .Where is all the money going, money for fees and licenses of all kinds? Only 0.001% is invested in

safety. . .’’.

The fourth sub-theme in the context of policy concerned hidden interest and agendas among policy-makers,these contributing to no change in policy:

‘‘. . .the government earns 500 million shekels a year from speeding tickets, do you really expect them to

invest in a less profitable activity. . .’’.

Additional categories, such as vehicle design, represented only 1.7% of the ‘‘talk-backs’’ and therefore arenot detailed further.

The link between the ‘orientation’ of the papers and the contents of the talk-backs.As talk-backs are comments written in reaction to news item, it is interesting to see how the specific news

content influences the type of talk-backs appearing just after. As the main accident reported occurred the sameday, most of the details about the circumstances and the causes of the event are still unknown. But despite this,we could identify different writing style, and different contents that influenced the way people react to thenews. For example, we could distinguish between two different approaches in the way the bold title was for-mulated. The ‘‘accusing’’ approach emphasizes a driver’s error and the item was written with active verbs orterms: ‘‘the young driver bumped into an electric pole’’; ‘‘the driver killed two people’’. The ‘‘neutral’’approach describes the accident in terms of passive verbs: ‘‘the child was ejected from the window’’; ‘‘two peo-ple were killed by a truck’’. The average number of comments was higher as a reaction to the 18 ‘‘accusing’’approach articles than to the 19 ‘‘neutral’’ articles (mean of 64 and 50 ‘‘talk-backs’’, respectively), and the per-centage of human factor comments was higher when the approach was an accusing one (56% and 48%,respectively).

In order to investigate the influence of the news item content on the talk-backs, we analyzed the content ofnews item with the highest proportion of talk-back in each theme.

In the first new item that generated the highest proportion of behavior theme talk-backs, a young drivercrashed into an electricity poll. He arrived at a T intersection and went on straight into a pillar. The policeestimates that the driver did not stop at a stop sign. In the second news item, the accident involved an Arabdriver who turned over with his car, extracted himself from the car and was run over by another car. In bothcases, the talk-backers blamed the drivers who were apparently distracted and made a fatal error.


‘‘ I’m now old enough and I’m looking at those young drivers that loss their lives just because they drive with

their nerves and not with their head, and because they think they are the king on the road’’.

The news item that generated the highest proportion of enforcement talk-backs concerned a driver whoruns over a pizza delivery person on a motorbike. According to the news item, the driver, an Arab, exceededthe permitted speed, and suddenly deviated from the road. The police officer said in an interview that drivinghabits among Arab drivers should be improved and the police put an effort into enforcement. The talk-backersblamed the police of being afraid of entering Arab villages. In the second new, a young boy was killed whenthe driver, a young boy too, participated in a race, and crashed into an electricity poll. The news item reportedthat the police was doing its best to enforce speed limits on this road. The police officer interviewed said theaccident would not occur if the law was respected. Here too, the talk-backers said the enforcement wasinappropriate

‘‘Police is looking after tickets and they don’t really worry about road accidents. They prefer to catch inno-cent drivers’’.

In News items containing the highest proportion of sanctioning talk-backs there was always a report ondrivers already convicted in the past. For example, one item described a driver that was already convictedin the past for drunk driving, his license was retailed but it was returned to him two months after. He wasalso convicted of nine other severe traffic rule violations and received a three months suspended sentence.In another item, a jeep driver deviated, passed six lanes and killed a motorcyclist. After the police interrogatedhim, he sat alongside and smoked a cigarette. The journalist on the site wrote that the driver seemed indiffer-ent, as if nothing happened. In both the cases, the talk-backers demanded more severe punishment, includingputting violators in jail.

‘‘I’m sure the guilty driver will not receive any sanction, he will go back home and call his insurance to get

another car’’.

In News items containing the highest proportion of infrastructure talk-backs there was a description of thedriver as a victim even if he was to blame. For example, in one news item an accident in which the father fellasleep on the wheel and crashed into a tree is described. His wife was killed and his children were severelywounded. He admitted that he fall asleep for a second, he had no previous convictions. At the end, the jour-nalist reported that the father cried. In the second news item, the driver apparently deviated from his lane andcrashed into another car. He and his wife were killed, their children were injured. The news specified that a lotof accidents occurred at the same place. In both the news items, the title was neutral, and the writing style wasempathic. The talk-backs mostly suggested infrastructure improvements such as cutting down trees by theroads, (in the first case) and adding security fences in both the cases. One of the talk-backers, for example,wrote:

‘‘A security fence beside the road and separation fence between the lanes would prevent this fatal accidentand prevent damage to the car. Roads are supposed to be forgiving’’.

The news items that generated the highest proportion of policy talk-backs were those in which policychange could be a possible solution.

For example, two elderly people crashed when traveling in a small car designated for handicapped or oldpeople and called ‘‘kalnoit’’. The police officer said that the ‘‘kalnoit’’ driver did not give the right of way tothe car. As a result of the crash, the driver and the passenger of the kalnoit were killed. The officer also saidthat ‘‘kalnoit’’ drivers in general do not respect traffic rules. Talk-backers wrote that the ministry of Transpor-tation has to forbid ‘‘kalnoit’’ cars to be on roads. A representative talk-back was, for example:

‘‘Kalnoit drivers should be allowed to drive only on road where the maximum speed permitted is 20 km/h’’.

Another news item generating many policy talk-backs was about an old driver that drove backward andkilled a person. The police officer interviewed said the man was now being interrogated but he will go backhome soon because he is very old and he is a sick person. The talk-backs expressed the feeling that the Min-istry of Transportation should decide not to renew the license of those kinds of people.


3.2. Combinations of categories

Only 17% of the ‘‘talk-backers’’ used more than one main theme, and among them only a few used morethan two (15%). In most of the combinations, talk-backers used a similar format, starting with blaming thedriver’s behavior, and then suggesting an intervention to reduce road accident, according to the specific dri-ver’s behavior and circumstances. The most frequent combination of themes was the combination between theroad user’s behavior and policy (63 ‘‘talk-backs’’). That was the case for the accidents described previously:talk-backers demanded the Ministry of Transportation forbid the use of the ‘‘kalnoit’’ on regular roads ornot renewing the license of sick and old people. In both cases the talk-backers blamed the drivers anddemanded the Ministry implement new laws that will prevent dangerous situations.

The combination between behavior and sanctioning was also frequent (59 ‘‘talk-backs’’), as well as thecombination between behavior and enforcement (45 ‘‘talk-backs’’). In those combinations too, the road user’sbehavior was presented as a causal component, explaining that the driver is the one who is responsible for theaccident, and then, an intervention was suggested, using a sanctioning or an enforcement strategy to overcomethe human factor.

‘‘The human factor is responsible, but why don’t police travel on those roads, using cameras to film driverspassing a continuous line?’’

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to provide structured and in-depth information about road users’ attitudes andbeliefs, using an innovative data source. Internet ‘‘talk-backs’’ were used as the data source to reveal the majorthemes the public perceives as explaining road accidents. It appears that the public identified themes such asthe human factor, enforcement and road infrastructure, which are similar to those found in the professionaland scientific literature. Moreover, and in accordance with the literature, the human factor was the most com-monly cited cause of accident (Evans, 1996; Petridou & Moustaki, 2000). The fact that people mostly made adispositional attribution is in accordance with the ‘‘fundamental attribution error’’, in which people attribute anegative event to someone’s disposition and not to a situation that might explain the event (Heider, 1958;Jones & Nisbett, 1972).

4.1. Themes and sub-themes

The ‘‘talk-backers’’ presented different sub-themes within each main theme: the human factor for instanceincluded specific concepts, such as aggressive driving, traffic violations, lack of skills and distractions. Thisdifferentiation exists in the literature too. In a series of studies examining the association between drivingstyle and involvement in road accidents, a distinction was made between three major components of thedriver’s aberrant driving behavior: deliberate violations, errors, and slips. In this context, it was found thatdrivers who deliberately violate the law are more involved in accidents than drivers who often err (Reason,Manstead, Stradling, Baxter, & Campbell, 1990). It should be noted that each of these different aspectsneeds an appropriate intervention approach. For example, while traffic violations should be dealt with byincreased enforcement or education of values, lack of skills should be dealt with by improving drivingtraining.

4.2. Comparison between lay people and experts

Although the ‘‘talk-backers’’ identified themes that have similarity to those used in the scientific literatureabout causes of accidents, it is possible that the weight associated to each sub-theme as explaining accident willbe different compared to the weight transport experts attribute to it. In a study comparing lay people andexperts, differences were found with the way they ranked risk of specific rule violations (Moyano-Dı́az,1997). For example, lay people considered that driving under the influence of alcohol and excessive speed werethe most important causes of accidents, while the experts considered tailgating and distraction as the most


important causes. A systematic quantitative study should be done in order to be able to analyze the frequencyof the themes.

4.3. Aggressive driving

Aggressive behavior was largely used to explain road accidents. This perhaps reflects the increasing phe-nomenon of aggression and violent behaviors on the roads, as suggested by reports from Europe and theUSA (Parker, Lajunen, & Stradling, 1998; Mizell, Joint, & Connell, 1987). This problem is receiving attentionin Israel too. One of the State attorney department members in Israel said that aggressive driving is a kind ofviolent behavior on the road, and it is time to recognize it as a separate category of violation and specifyappropriate punishments (Ben-Or, 2003).

Lay people were also able to suggest different strategies of prevention, such as policy development orsanctioning.

4.4. Police enforcement

Some of the ‘‘talk-backers’’ referred to the way police officers were doing their job. They were accused oflooking for the easiest way to increase income and of choosing comfortable missions that are not necessarilyrelated to accidents. One of the ‘‘talk-backer’s’’ claims was that speed enforcement receives too much atten-tion. On the other hand, other ‘‘talk-backers’’ expressed their beliefs about the importance of speedingenforcement as a way to reduce road accidents rate. The importance of reducing speed and the effectivenessof this strategy in reducing road traffic collisions and related casualties is controversial in the literature too(Pilkington & Kinra, 2005). Respondents also mentioned the way police hide behind trees and suddenly catchthe drivers without warning. They feel trapped. In France, in the past, people said that police enjoy trappingthe drivers. The ‘‘league against road violence’’ understood the detrimental effect this view could have on dri-ver’s cooperation, and they decided, together with the police, that police officers would not hide anymore, andthey would post warning signs to alert drivers when they enter an area of increased police surveillance (Perri-chon, 2003).

4.5. Sanctioning

The sanctioning category was also mentioned, and the judiciary system was blamed for not using itspower to sanction drivers already caught by the police. People want the sanctions to be higher. In contrastto this trend, in a debate between lawyers concerning adjudication in road transport, they all agreed thatthey prefer light sentences, even below the minimal sentence imposed by the law (The Research Instituteof Human Factors in Road Safety, 2006). So it seems there is a gap between lay people and professionalson this issue.

4.6. Road infrastructure

The issue of road infrastructure was raised too. Talk-backers criticized the road maintenance system andthe activity of the ‘‘Israel National Roads Company’’. Here too, it seems that talk-backers claims are sup-ported by data and facts. The Head of the ‘‘Israel National Roads Company’’ said that accidents on the25 most dangerous road segments cost the state of Israel more than 400 billion dollars, and if we would investa third of this amount in road improvement, it would prevent many accidents (Barak, 2004). Data from theIsrael Central Bureau of Statistics show that over the last fifteen years, the yearly mileage increased by 114%but the surface area of the roads has increased only by 54% and the roads’ length by 31% (Central Bureau ofStatistics, 2005). It seems that the State of Israel does not develop infrastructure at the speed the number ofdrivers and the number of vehicles increases, therefore road density is increasing. An Israeli study estimatedthe contribution of the infrastructure to highway crashes and found that low crash-rate infrastructure such as


two-lane rural highways, can reduce the crash rate by 44% versus high crash-rate infrastructure (Polus,Pollatschek, & Farah, 2005).

4.7. Policy development

Demanding Policy developments suggests that people see the authorities as partly responsible for the vehi-cles, the infrastructure, and perhaps also the driver’s behavior. The public demands an effective and honest useof the budget; they want policy-makers to be more creative and active. It is interesting to mention than therewere two different ministers of transportation during the periods examined, and they were both asked toresign.

The link between the ‘orientation’ of the papers and the contents of the talk-backsAs mentioned before, we found that the overall average number of talk-backs and the percentage of human

factor comments per news item were higher when the journalist used a more accusing approach. It seems alsothat the ‘‘talk-backers’’ are influenced by the way the facts were presented, and the specific emphasis the jour-nalists choose to give. For example, when the news item described someone who was already convicted andwas involved again in an accident, people demanded stronger sanctions. It seems also that even when the dri-ver is presented as obviously responsible for the accident, but he or his family were killed, the talk-backerslooked for an external way to improve safety, instead of blaming him. Based on these findings, it seems thatthe style in which the news item is written may have a profound effect on the public’s attitudes and opinionsexpressed. Use of mass media in forming public opinion is a challenge for all those working to decrease roadaccidents.

It should be mentioned that on the one hand, the emphasis of the news item seems to influence people’sopinions, but on the other hand, it is possible that people prefer to write comments when the news item isin accordance with their previous beliefs. In this case, it is possible that the effect just depicted is artificialand in reality, different people write comments to different types of news.

4.8. Combination of categories

People usually used one category of cause or prevention strategy, but in some cases, they used more cate-gories. The most frequent combinations of themes were combinations of the road user behavior and interven-tion strategies to overcome the human factor. This distinction is related to a confusion sometimes heardconcerning the share of the human factor in road accidents. ‘‘Talk-backers’’ expressed the idea that even ifthe road-user’s behavior can explain most of the accidents, this does not exempt authorities from the respon-sibility of implementing strategies for reducing road accidents.

4.9. Comparison between two periods

The average number of ‘‘talk-backs’’ per article has doubled during the two years studied. An overallincrease in ‘‘talk-backs’’ is probably due to a general increasing availability and accessibility of computers,and an increase of people writing ‘‘talk-backs’’. The number of ‘‘talk-backs’’ is also determined by the numberof hours the news item appears on the front page of the web site; however, there is no reason to presume thishas changed. Even though the amount of talk-backs increased, the type of themes remained similar, and so didtheir relative frequency even though they were written by different people, about different accidents, and in adifferent political context.

4.10. The importance of this study

The present study provided a classification of the public’s perceptions concerning road accidents, theircauses and options for prevention. This is important because, as Slovic (1987), if those promoting and regu-lating health and safety do not understand how people think about and respond to risk, well-intended policiesmay be ineffective (Slovic, 1987). Heider suggested, people act on the basis of their beliefs (‘‘Naive’’ Psychol-ogy) (Heider, 1958), therefore, beliefs must be taken into account if we want to understand human behavior.


This is not about what is true but about what people perceive is true. A further quantitative research can beimportant in order to study the relative value public attribute to each of the themes and sub-themes identifiedin this study.

4.11. Limitations

A major limitation of this study is that ‘‘talk-backers’’ are not a representative sample of the Israeli pop-ulation, as it includes only people using internet and writing ‘‘talk-backs’’, but, as a qualitative study, muchcan be learnt from the themes mentioned. Moreover, it is possible that young people are over-representedamong the respondents, but they are also over-represented among drivers involved in accidents.

5. Conclusion

Lay people expressed a wide range of factors causing road accidents and suggested strategies for preven-tion. They emphasized the human factor, with its many different aspects, and aggressive driving in particular.It is also obvious that the talk-backers are influenced by the style of the news item emphasizing the importanceof the media in forming public opinions. This information can assist policy-makers and safety experts in iden-tifying the appropriate means of intervention that can be acceptable by the drivers, and in identifying messagesthat need to be communicated to the public.

Acknowledgement

This research was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Science and the National Authority for RoadSafety, Israel.

References

Barak, B. (2004). The infrastructure is guilty. Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, 13/6/04.Ben-Or, N. (2003). Proceeding from the Or Yarok Convention Panel – Legislation, Law and Punishment. Tel-Aviv 10/12/03.Central Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Statistical Abstract of Israel 2004. Jerusalem, Israel, Publication No. 55.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (1993). Years of potential life lost before age 65–United States, 1990 and 1991.

MMWR Morb Mortal Weekly Report, 42(13), 251–253.Evans, L. (1996). Comment: The dominant role of driver behavior in traffic safety. American Journal of Public Health, 86, 784–786.Hecht, Y. (2003). The struggle for hegemony in digital content – The talk-back case. Israel Internet Association Magazine, Nov. 2003 (in

Hebrew).Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of the behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E.

Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79–94).Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Mizell, L., Joint, M., & Connell, D. (1987). Aggressive driving: Three studies. Washington. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. <http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=roadrage>.

Moyano-Dı́az, E. (1997). Evaluation of traffic violation behaviors and the causal attribution of accidents in Chile. Environment and

Behavior, 29(2), 264–282.Parker, D., Lajunen, T., & Stradling, S. (1998). Attitudinal predictors of interpersonally aggressive violations on the road. Transportation

Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behavior, 1(1), 11–24.Peder, Y. (2005). A leftist and Tendentious Article. YNET editor-in-chief. Yedioth Ahronoth Newspaper, 26/7/05.Perrichon, C. (2003). A glance from abroad. The president of the league against road violence in France. In Proceedings of the paper

presented at the Or Yarok convention. Tel-Aviv, Israel. 10/12/03.Petridou, E., & Moustaki, M. (2000). Human factors in the causation of road traffic crashes. European Journal of Epidemiology, 16,

819–826.Pilkington, P., & Kinra, S. (2005). Effectiveness of speed cameras in preventing road traffic collisions and related casualties: Systematic

review. BMJ, 330, 331–334.Polus, A., Pollatschek, M. A., & Farah, H. (2005). Impact of infrastructure characteristics on road crashes on two-lane highways. Traffic

Injury Prevention, 6(3), 240–247.Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and violations: A real distinction? Ergonomics, 33(10/

11), 1315–1332.

http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=roadrage

http://www.aaafoundation.org/resources/index.cfm?button=roadrage


Shkedi, A. (2004). Words of meaning: Qualitative research – Theory and practice. Tel-Aviv: The Ramot Tel-Aviv University Press.Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236(4799), 280–285.The National Road Safety Authority. (2005). Road accidents data. The Research and Development Department. <http://pasim-

lev.mot.gov.il/> Retrieved 15.09.05.The Research Institute of Human Factors in Road Safety. (2006). Adjudication in Road Transport: Theory and Practice. In Proceedings of

the paper presented at the 9th international scientific conference. Rishon Letsion, Israel. 8–9 February 2006.The Yedioth Ahronoth website. (2005). www.ynet.co.il (in Hebrew) (Retrieved August 2005).

http://pasimlev.mot.gov.il/

http://pasimlev.mot.gov.il/

http://www.ynet.co.il

the voice of lay experts: content analysis of traffic accident “talk-backs”

Documents