Enclosure I
2013
Traffic Safety Survey
Executive Summary
Summary Prepared by Debbie Rawson, MSC.
Transportation and Agriculture Services
December 2013
Document: 5474603
2013 Strathcona County Traffic Safety Survey Results- Executive Summary
I.
1
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
In June 2013, Strathcona County asked Strathcona County residents to provide
feedback about aspects of traffic safety in the community. The main purpose of
this research was to establish a foundation of data associated with different
elements of traffic safety and the levels of acceptance of what residents expect
driving habits to be in Strathcona County.
Obtaining primary data from residents directly will provide Strathcona County
departments with information and enable County officials to make decisions that
accurately reflect the perspectives and attitudes of residents.
II.
METHODOLOGY
The questionnaire used in this study was a new survey jointly created by
Strathcona County’s Corporate Planning and Intergovernmental Affairs and
Transportation and Agriculture Services departments. A copy of the full
questionnaire can be found in the complete Traffic Safety Survey Part One:
Quantitative Results report.
Initially, the survey was administered using a random telephone survey
methodology to 500 adults living in urban (70%) and rural (30%) Strathcona
County. The same survey was then presented online, that allowed residents
(and others who accessed the Internet) to complete it online. Overall, usable
data was obtained from 399 people who completed the survey online.
III.
RESULTS
This section of the report presents a summary of the results associated with the
perceptions and awareness of residents and those who completed the survey
online. Demographic comparisons, where significant, are also highlighted.
A. Perceptions about Driving Behavior
Strathcona County residents were initially asked a series of questions about
driving behavior in general. No differences were seen in this section between
rural and urban residents, gender or age.
With regards to running a red light, driving over the speed limit on a residential
street and talking on a cell phone while driving, the great majority (>75%) of
residents indicated that this behavior was Never Acceptable
Respondents were less consistent in their opinions with regards to the
acceptability of rolling a stop sign and speeding up to get through a red light. A
significant number of resident reported that these behaviours were Seldom
Acceptable and Somewhat Acceptable.
2013 Strathcona County Traffic Safety Survey Results- Executive Summary
2
Similarly, when asked how fast it is safe to drive on a main road in Strathcona
County, over half of respondents reported the posted limit, but many believed 5
km/h or 10 km/h over the posted limit was still safe.
With respect to construction zones, the majority of residents felt that one should
slow down to the posted speed limit any time (night or day); however, a sizable
percentage thought this should only be observed if workers are present.
B. Perceptions about Personal Driving Behavior
Strathcona County residents were then asked some questions about their own
driving habits. No differences were seen in this section between rural and urban
residents.
More than 90% of residents indicated that they come to a complete stop at stop
signs greater than 80% of the time. Telephone respondents were more likely to
report that they come to a complete stop all of the time (60%).
Residents were asked what the most likely reason was for driving faster than the
posted speed limit. Most telephone respondents admitted that they just weren’t
paying attention (41.6%), though many also felt that they were keeping up with
other traffic (31.4%). In contrast, considerably fewer online respondents thought
they weren’t paying attention (28.9%), and instead felt that they either were
keeping up with other traffic (33.2%) or felt that the posted speed limit was too
slow (15.7%).
C. Opinions of Traffic Safety
When asked to rate the state of traffic safety in Strathcona County, the majority
of residents (both telephone and online) feel somewhat safe, suggesting that
there is still room for improvement.
FIGURE 1
Rating Overall Traffic Safety in Strathcona County
58.4
60
Percentage
45.8
40
23.6
25.1
14.5
20
19.1
3.4
9.9
0
V ery Safe
Somewhat Safe
Telephone
Somewhat Unsafe
Online
Very Unsafe
2013 Strathcona County Traffic Safety Survey Results- Executive Summary
3
Residents were then asked to state, in their own words, the top two actions
Strathcona County could take to improve traffic safety in the community. Results
illustrated in Figure 2 show that the majority of residents perceive enforcementrelated (46%) and engineering-related (42%) actions as solutions to improve
traffic safety in the County.
When asked about neighbourhood traffic safety, the majority of residents agreed
that traffic safety was a concern in their neighbourhood.
FIGURE 2
Traffic safety is a concern in my neighbourhood
40
38.2
Percentage
35
29.4
30
21.2
20.7
20
17.2
15.3
11.6
10
5.5
5.9
0
Strongly Agree
Som ewhat Agree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Urban
Rural
Som ewhat
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2013 Strathcona County Traffic Safety Survey Results- Executive Summary
4
When asked specifically about neighbourhood traffic safety, the majority of urban
residents cited speeding as a major concern.
FIGURE 3
What is your neighbourhood traffic safety concern?
2013 Strathcona County Traffic Safety Survey Results- Executive Summary
5
D. Attitudes toward Traffic Safety Initiatives in Strathcona County
Residents were then asked to rate a series of statements about traffic safety on
the basis of how much they agreed or disagreed with each statement.
FIGURE 4
I support the use of traffic calming in Strathcona County
37.7
40
Percentage
34.1
30
28.1
21.1
19.5
22.1
20
13.7 14.7
10
4.5
4.4
0
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Urban
S omewhat
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Rural
FIGURE 5
Strathcona County engages its residents in addressing traffic safety
40.5
Percentage
40
39.3
30
20.8
20
11.5
13.6
12
14.1
15.1
18.3
14.7
10
0
Strongly Agree
Som ewhat Agree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Urban
Rural
Som ewhat
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2013 Strathcona County Traffic Safety Survey Results- Executive Summary
6
In Figure 6, the majority of residents, regardless of where they lived, agreed that
traffic enforcement made Strathcona County’s roads safer.
FIGURE 6
Traffic enforcement in Strathcona County makes our roads safer
50
42.1 42.6
P ercentage
40
39.7 38.3
30
20
7.4
10
3.6
7.1 7.7
8.6
2.9
0
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Urban
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Rural
FIGURE 7
Red light cameras make intersections safer
40.3
Percentage
40
30
35.1
26.9
21.8
20
18.3
13.2
10
4.7
18.3
14.9
6.4
0
Strongly Agree
Som ewhat Agree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Urban
Rural
Som ewhat
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2013 Strathcona County Traffic Safety Survey Results- Executive Summary
7
In Figure 8, it can be seen that residents, regardless of where they lived, were
somewhat divided as to whether or not there was enough traffic enforcement in
Strathcona County.
FIGURE 8
There is not enough traffic enforcement in Strathcona County
40
P ercentage
29.5
27.5 28
30
21.5
21
20
23
20.5
15.2
6.8
10
7
0
Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree or
Disagree
Urban
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Rural
In Figure 9, the majority of residents, regardless of where they lived, agreed that
Strathcona County was always working to improve road safety.
FIGURE 9
Strathcona County is always working to improve road safety
48.9 48.4
50
Percentage
40
30
21.6
20
18
15.4
10.4
11.1
11.1
10
7.2
7.9
0
Strongly Agree
Som ewhat Agree
Neither Agree or
Disagree
Urban
Rural
Som ewhat
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
2013 Strathcona County Traffic Safety Survey Results- Executive Summary
8
E. Sources of Information about Traffic Safety in Strathcona County
Residents were asked to rate seven different ways that they felt would be useful
(or not useful) methods of conveying information about traffic safety.
Overall, the method favored most by residents was roadside signs. The next
most popular method was the County newspaper. Other moderately popular
methods among urban residents were information on the County website,
material stuffed in the utility bill, or brochures/newsletters.
Methods that were less favorably received were social media techniques such
as Facebook or Twitter or community events/open houses.