TRANSPORT and ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY. Department of the Environment Department of Transport SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT 731

Transcription

1 TRANSPORT and ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY Department of the Environment Department of Transport SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT 731 A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN FOR MOTORCYCLE TRAINING by Pat Wells Any views expressed in this Report are not necessarily those of the Department of the Environment or of the Department of Transport Road User Characteristics Division Safety Department Transport and Road Research Laboratory Crowthorne, Berkshire 1982 ISSN

2 Ownership of the Transport Research Laboratory was transferred from the Department of Transport to a subsidiary of the Transport Research Foundation on 1 St April This report has been reproduced by permission of the Controller of HMSO. Extracts from the text may be reproduced, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.

3 CONTENTS Page Abstract Introduction Method Results 3.1 The trained group 3.2 The untrained group Discussion Acknowledgements References Appendix: Questionnaires 10 (C) CRO WAr COPYRIGHT 1982 Extracts from the text may be reproduced, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged

4 A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN FOR MOTORCYCLE TRAINING ABSTRACT As a result of a TV/radio/poster campaign carried out by the Department of Transport in March/April 1979, about 1400 people enquired about motorcycle training facilities in the West Midlands. These people were contacted in January 1980 to try to assess why the final level of enrolment for training was low, despite the initial interest shown. Completed questionnaires were returned by 957 people, of whom 185 had enrolled for a course of training. Many reasons were given for not enrolling, with several respondents giving more than one answer. No single reason was given by more than 11 per cent of them. The most common reason given was that they did not think the training course would be useful. One interpretation of this is that the leaflets sent as a result of the initial enquiry did not always maintain the interest generated by the campaign. Ten per cent said they had not got round to enrolling and eight per cent were still under age to ride a motorcycle. 1. INTRODUCTION Motorcycle training has been available on a national basis since the Royal Automobile Club and the Autocycle Union set up their joint scheme (the RAC/ACU Scheme) in In 1981, the RAC/ACU scheme had about 350 training centres throughout the UK which provided courses intended to bring the novice motorcyclist up to at least the level of the Department of Transport (DTp) motorcycle riding test. In 1978 STEP Management Services, a company set up by the motorcycle industry, launched the National Training Scheme (NTS). This provides initial training for novice riders (the basic or bronze star course), training to the level of the DTp original one-part learner rider test (the intermediate or silver star course) and higher level training (the advanced or gold star course). Despite training courses being available, it was estimated by the Advisory Committee on Motorcycle Rider Training that only about 10 to 15 per cent of novice riders took any formal training. This could be because they do not realise the benefits of training, or because they do not know how, or where, to obtain training. In order to overcome some of these problems the Department of Transport initiated a major campaign in the West Midlands to encourage motorcyclists to take training by demonstrating the benefits of training. The campaign took the form of television and radio commercials and posters, all of which gave reasons for taking training and urged people to ring a Birmingham telephone number to obtain detailed information about what was available in their local area. Anyone dialling tiffs number was invited to leave a name and address with an ANSAPHONE machine. A leaflet was then sent giving addresses of training centres and a telephone number for each centre where dates and times of courses could be obtained (in most cases this was the telephone number of the local Road Safety Officer). It later transpired that a few people who telephoned the ANSAPHONE claimed that they did not receive this leaflet (see Table 8). An initial research study 1 was carried out to evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign in increasing the number of people on training courses. That study showed that the campaign generated a large number of enquiries: 1404 people left names with the ANSAPHONE machine and an increase was also found in the number of enquiries made directly to Road Safety Officers in the area. Names of people enrolling for training up to 4 months after the

5 start of the campaign were checked against the ANSAPHONE lists wherever possible. This showed that only a very small number of the ANSAPHONE enquiries resulted in people coming forward for training. After allowing for the fact that some of these might have enrolled for training anyway, it was estimated that only 40 people enrolled solely as a result of the campaign. The purpose of the research reported here was to determine why, after an initially encouraging response to the campaign, the f'mal take-up of training was so low. 2. METHOD In January 1980,every person who had left their name and address with the ANSAPHONE machine was sent an envelope containing two questionnaires, a covering letter, and a return envelope. Two different questionnaires were used because it was believed that while many people contacted the ANSAPHONE machine to obtain information for themselves, some would have been obtaining information for some other person (perhaps a son or daughter). Both questionnaires sought information about the person for whom the information was being obtained but the use of different questionnaires for these two groups simplified the wording of the questions. The questionnaires used are shown in the Appendix. Approximately three weeks after the questionnaires were sent out, a reminder letter was sent to all those who had not replied. After a further four weeks a second reminder, which included a second set of the questionnaires, was sent to those who had' still not replied. 3. RESULTS Of the original 1404 sets of questionnaires wtfich were sent out,a total of 957 questionnaires were returned completed and a further 159 envelopes were returned by the Post Office as 'not known at this address'. This gives a response rate of 68 per cent with a 'not known' rate of 11 per cent. Of the 957 replies, 730 people returned Questionnaire I, giving details about their own motorcycling, and 227 returned Questionnaire II, giving details about the person for whom they had wanted to obtain the information about training. The campaign made use of television and radio advertising and posters, all of which featured the ANSAPHONE machine telephone number. Respondents were asked to say where they obtained the ANSAPHONE number and the results are given in Table 1. The questions asked in both Questionnaire I and Questionnaire II referred to the motorcyclist (or potential motorcyclist) for whom information had originally been requested. In most of the tables which follow, therefore, the results from the two types of questionnaire are combined and the term 'motorcycle group' has been used to cover the people described in the questionnaires. In a few cases, however, differences were found between people who requested information for themselves and people for whom information was obtained by someone else. In these cases the results from Questionnaire I and Questionnaire II have been separated.

6 TABLE 1" Sources of the ANSAPHONE number Source No. of respondents Percentage of respondents TV Radio Posters Friends/relations Press/journals/leaflets Information centre/library Other source Don't know/no answer Total of replies <1 Table 2 shows that about half of the motorcycle group were 18 years old or younger but that those who made the initial enquiry for themselves were significantly older than those for whom information had been requested by someone else. Eighty-three per cent of the motorcycle group were male, 14 per cent were female and 3 per cent did not answer this question (see Table 3). In this case there was no significant difference in the proportion of males to females between the group who asked for information for themselves and the group for whom information was requested by someone else. TABLE 2 Age of motorcycle group (percentages of total) Age Questionnaire I. Percentages of those requesting information for themselves Questionnaire II. Percentages of those for whom information was requested by someone else Percentages for both groups Less than over 35 Don't know/no answer Base numbers ll TABLE 3 Sex of motorcycle group Sex No. of respondents Percentage of respondents Male Female No answer 32 3 Total 957 * Percentages may not total 100 in some Tables. The two possible reasons for this are: 1. Some respondents gave more than one answer to some questions. 2. Individual percentages have been rounded up or down to the nearest whole number.

7 Table 4 shows that 212 of the 957 people in the motorcycle group did not, in fact, own a two-wheeled machine at the time the questionnaire was returned and that 236 did not ride one. This suggests that at least some of the enquiries were made by people (or on their behalf) who never actually acquired a two-wheeler. As might be expected, motorcycles are the most common machines and scooters the least common. The most common size of machine was between 50 and 100cc (see Table 5) though there were some very large machines, too. TABLE 4 Number who currently ride or own a two-wheeler (Base number of people in motorcycle group = 957) Type of machine No. who currently own No. who currently ride such a two-wheeler such a two-wheeler Motorcycle Moped Scooter None of these Don't know/no answer Totals Note: some people owned or rode more than one machine. TABLE 5 Size of machine owned Size Less than 50cc cc cc cc cc cc cc over 500cc Don't know/no answer No. of respondents Percentage of respondents < Total 957 Note: for the purposes of this table only the first machine mentioned in each case was taken. At the time the questionnaires were returned, over a quarter (27 per cent) of the motorcycle group had begun a course of motorcycle training. This is one-third of those who owned a motorcycle when the questionnaires were returned but it is not known how many of those who do not currently own a machine did so at the time of the initial ANSAPHONE enquiry.

8 3.1 The trained group Most of those who had received training were trained under the RAC/ACU Scheme. This was the scheme which was most widely available in the West Midlands area at the time of the publicity campaign and almost all the centres listed in the leaflet sent out in response to ANSAPHONE enquiries were running RAC/ACU courses. However, the National Training Scheme (NTS) was opening new centres and running its own publicity drive at about that time. A number of the ANSAPHONE enquirers received their training through the NTS even though the leaflet did not mention NTS courses. Table 6 shows the number of trainees who received training from each organisation. It also shows the number of trainees who failed to complete a training course they had begun. Eighteen per cent of those who began a course failed to complete it and most of these were on RAC/ACU courses. TABLE 6 Organisations running courses, showing whether trainees completed the course Organisation RAC/ACU NTS No. of trainees Whether trainee completed course Yes No No answer Institute of Advanced Motorists Police Other Don't know/no answer Totals However, at least some of those on NTS courses only took the bronze course and thus completed their training in a single session, while RAC/ACU courses commonly extend over eight to ten weeks. Although the NTS intermediate/silver course extends over six sessions it appears that few of those obtaining training from NTS did this course. Those who failed to complete a course were also asked to give their reasons. A number of different reasons were given with the highest number (26 per cent) claiming that holidays or job commitments prevented them from completing the course. Although most of those who received training began their training within three or four months of receiving information about courses,a significant number did not begin until a longer time had elapsed (see Table 7). The publicity campaign ran in March/April 1979 and the initial research study 1 was continued until the end of June Thus, people who began training after June 1979 were not included in the figures given in the report on that study. The questionnaires from the study described in the present report were sent out in January 1980 so that no information is available on take-up of training after this date. It is, of course, possible that a few of the motorcycle group may have undertaken training since then.

9 TABLE 7 Month in which training was begun Month March 1979 April 1979 May 1979 June 1979 July 1979 August 1979 September 1979 October 1979 November 1979 December 1979 January 1980 Don't know/no answer No. of trainees I Total of trainees The untrained group The 699 people who had not begun a course of training were asked whether they intended to do so. One hundred and forty of the motorcycle group (20 per cent of those who had not begun a course) said that they planned to attend a course in the future, though only 10 of them gave a definite date or location for the course where they planned to enrol. The reasons given for not going on a training course were many and several people gave more than one answer (see Table 8). Of the 518 people who gave an answer, 11 per cent said they did not think such a training course would be useful and 10 per cent had 'not got round to it'. Nine per cent said that they now drove a car and eight per cent no longer had a motorcycle. A further eight per cent never obtained a motorcycle or were still under age to ride one at the time the questionnaire was completed. Nine per cent were already advanced riders who had been looking for information on advanced training. Of the many reasons given, no single one was mentioned by more than I 1 per cent of the respondents.

10 TABLE 8 Reasons given for not enrolling on a training course Reason given No local centre/too dangerous to get to centre Did not think it useful Clashed with other interests Did not get round to it Clashed with work No longer have motorcycle Already experienced Now drive a car Never got motorcycle/under age Passed DTp test before course was available Too expensive Information failed to arrive Had lessons from friend Long waiting list for training Bike needs repairs Waiting t~ get new bike Injuries due to motorcycle accident Waiting till get DTp test appointment Other reasons Total of replies Number Percentage of those answering DISCUSSION The results from the study show a rather more encouraging picture of the effectiveness of the campaign than was found by the previous research 1. That initial study showed that less than 20 per cent of those leaving names with the ANSAPHONE made further enquiries to the Road Safety Officers about training and only about one-third of these actually enrolled on courses. In the present study it was found that 27 per cent of the motorcycle group enrolled on a training course. This represents 18 per cent of the original 1404 ANSAPHONE enquiries. There are two main reasons for the apparent discrepancy. Firstly, the period covered by the present study was longer and, as can be seen from Table 7, a number of people began their training after June 1979 when the monitoring of enrolment for the previous research ceased. Secondly, the previous research relied on reports of enrolments from RAC/ACU courses and Table 6 shows that nearly one-third of those trained received their training from some other organisation, mostly from the National Training Scheme (NTS).

11 Ten per cent of the motorcycle group said that they 'did not get round' to enrolling for training, perhaps because there were too many steps to go through in the process of obtaining information via the ANSAPHONE. After telephoning and receiving the initial leaflet they still had to make further enquiries to find out about times and costs of training. It is of interest, too, that four per cent of the motorcycle group claimed that they had never, in fact, received the initial information. The 11 per cent who said that there was no local training centre or that it was too dangerous to get to the closest centre are a problem group. Motorcyclists living in rural areas may have to travel to a town to receive training. At the time of this study the incentives to do this were insufficient to make everyone feel that it was worth their while to make the journey. Seven per cent said that they passed the Department of Transport test before a course was available and three per cent gave the long waiting period before a training course was available as a reason for not enrolling for training. Training centres run by RAC/ACU then usually had courses of flxed length and a potential trainee might have to wait until a new course started. However, the low numbers mentioning this suggest that in the West Midlands at least, this was not a major problem, and that the number of places available in training courses were sufficient to meet the demand at that time. One of the reasons for running the publicity campaign in the West Midlands was that there was spare capacity on training courses in that region. However, this may not be the case in other areas. The increase in incentives for training resulting from the 1981 Transport Act is expected to increase the demand for training. The training organisations plan to increase the facilities for training so there should be no increase in the number of potential trainees who complain about delays. Although this study shows that 27 per cent of the motorcycle group enrolled for training, it is still disappointing that the level of enrolments after an intensive advertising campaign was not higher. It is difficult to draw any conclusions or make any definite recommendations since the reasons given for not enrolling were so diverse. However, one possible conclusion to be drawn is that the leaflet sent out as a result of the initial enquiries failed to stimulate interest sufficiently to maintain the impetus of the original advertisements. The leaflet which was sent merely gave information about training centres and it appeared to be assumed that those to whom it was sent were already keen to go in for training. This was not necessarily the case and perhaps a leaflet which made a more definite attempt to 'sell' training might have been more effective in encouraging those who were still undecided to enrol for a course of training. This publicity campaign and the follow-up study were completed before the changes in the law relating to motorcyclists, which were included in the 1981 Transport Act. The incentives for motorcyclists to pass their Department of Transport L-driver test have bcen much increased. The maximum size of motorcycle which can be ridden by a learner will be 125cc (12 bhp/100 kw tonne) instead of the previous maximum of 250cc, and it is proposed that the length of time a rider can hold a provisional licence will be limited to 2 years. This, together with the opportunity available for riders to take Part 1 of their test at the end of their training course will almost certainly result in mote motorcyclists coming forward for training in the future and to take account of this the training organisations plan to increase the facilities for training. Publicity about the needs for training will still be necessary however to encourage motorcyclists to undertake training when they first obtain their machines, since research 2 has shown that the first six months riding is the most dangerous period for a motorcyclist.

12 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The work described in this report was carried out in the Road User Characteristics Division of the Safety Department of TRRL. The author wishes to thank the Central Office of Information for providing the fists of addresses of those phoning the ANSAPHONE. Thanks are also due to Mr S Gronow who coded the questionnaire and Denjon International Ltd for punching and tabulation of the data. 6. REFERENCES 1. MOTORCYCLE TRAINING COURSES. Report on the evaluation of an advertising campaign. Prepared by Research Services Ltd for the Central Office of Information. 2. SCOTT, C and S JACKSON. Accidents to Young Motorcyclists. A Statistical Investigation. Government Social Survey report. London, 1960 (Central Office of Information).

13 7. APPENDIX Questionnaire 1 Transport and Road Research Laboratory Department of the Environment Department of Transport Old Wokingham Road Crowthorne Berkshire RG11 6AU Telex Telephone (Crowthome) 3131 ext IF YOU PHONED THE ANSAPHONE ~-R TO GET INFORMATION FOR YOURSELF PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON THESE PINK SHEETS + 1. Where did you get the ANSAPHONE number? poster TICK ALL THAT APPLY TV radio some other way 'SOI~EOTHF./~WAY' PLF.JkSE SAY HOW 2- What did you do after you got the information sheet via the ANSAPHONE? Did you make further enquiries... pass on the information to someone else... decide not to bother further D... decide to do something else If so: what7. If you made further enquirie~ was this... by phoning one of the numbers listed on the information sheet by writing to someone listed on the information ~eet O g O Q by talking to friends some other way If so: what did you do? I did not make further enquiries 10

14 4. Have you begun a motorcycle or moped training course since phoning the ANSAPHONE? Yes No B IF "NO" PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 10 IF YOU HAVE BEGUN A MOTORCYCLE OR MOPED TRAINING COURSE PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS 5 TO 9 IN THIS BOX 5. Where was the course run? 6. Which organisation runs the course? 7 when did you begin the course? 8. Did you finish the course? Ye No IF 'NO' 9. Why not? NOW ON TO QUESTION Do you plan to go on a motorcycle or moped training course? Yes No Don't know I I IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW" PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 14 II

15 IF YOU PLAN TO GO ON A MOTORCYCLE OR MOPED TRAINING COURSE PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS 11 TO 13 IN THIS BOX 11. Where is the course you plan to go on? 12. Which organisation runs the course you plan to go on? B 13. When will the course you plan to go on be held? NOW PLEASE GOONTOQLrE~TION Wh~ did you decide not to take a motorcycle or moped training course? 15. Do you currently own a motorcycle, moped or scooter? TICK ALL THAT APPLY Yes. I own a motorcycle D Yes. I own a moped ~ Yes. I own a scooter I No. I own none of these 12

16 16. If so, what is its make and engine size 17. Do you currently ride a motorcycle, moped or scooter? TICK ALL THAT APPLY Yes. Yes. Yes. No. I ride a motorcycle I ride a moped I ride a scooter I ride none of these 18. Did you own a motorcycle, moped or scooter when you phoned the ANSAPHONE number? Yes No 19. How old are you? years 20. Are you male female 33 ]3

17 Questionnaire 2 Transport and Road Research Laboratory Department of the Environment Department of Transport OtdWokingham Road Crowthorne Berkshire RG11 6AU Telex Telephone (Crowthome) 3131 ext IF~OU PIK)NEDTHE AMSAPHONE NUMBER TOGKT INFORMATION FOR SOMEONE~SE PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON THESE YE/2~0W SHEETS I. Where did you get the ANSAPHONE number? poster TV radio some other way IF 'SOME OTHER WAY' PLEASE SPECIFY HOW 2. Did you phone on behalf of... your son or daughter your husband orwife another relative % a friend someone else IF 'SOMEONE ELSE' PLEASE SAY WHO 3- Has he or she begun a motorcycle or moped training course since you phoned the ANSAPHONE? Yes No Don't know IF 'NO' OR 'DON'T KNOW' PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 9 14

18 IF HE OR SHE HAS BEGUN A MOTORCYCLE OR MDPEDTRAINING COURSE PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS 4 TO 8 IN THIS BOX 4. Where was the course run? 5. Which organisation runs the course? 6. When did the course begin? 7. Has he or she finished the course? Ye6 No Don't know IF 'NO' 8. Why not? 1 [ NOW PLEASE GO ON TO QUESTION Does he or she plan to go on a motorcycle or moped course? Yes ~ No Don't know, IF 'NO' OR 'DON'T KNOW' PLEASE GO TO QUESTION 13 15

19 IF HE OR SHE PLANS TO GO ON A MO~RCYCLE OR MOPED TRAINING COURSE PLEASE ANSWER QUESTIONS 10 TO 12 IN THIS BOX 10. Where is the course he or she plans to go on? I 11. Which organisation runs the course? 19 2O 12. When will the course be held? NOW PLEASE GO ON TO QUESTION Why did the person you requested information for decide not to go for motorcycle or moped training? 14. Does the person you requested information for currently own a motorcycle, moped or scooter? Yes. A motorcycle TICK ALL THAT Yes. A moped APPLY Yes. A scooter 27 No. 16

20 15. If so, what is its make and engine size 2.;, L 2'). 16. Does he or she currently ride a motorcycle, moped or scooter?. Yes. Yes. Yes. No. A motorcycle A moped A scooter i Did he or she own a motorcycle when you phoned the ANSAPHONE number? Yes No Don't know 18. How old is he or she? ~ years Is this person male female 54 (1133) Dd ,300 7/82 HPLtdSo'ton G1915 PRINTED IN ENGLAND 17

21 ABSTRACT A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN FOR MOTORCYCLE TRAINING: Pat Wells: Department of the Environment Department of Transport, TRRL Supplementary Report 731 : Crowthorne, 1982 (Transport and Road Research Laboratory). As a result of a TV/radio/poster campaign carried out by the Department of Transport in March/April 1979, about 1400 people enquired about motorcycle training facilities in the West Midlands. These people were contacted in January 1980 to try to assess why the f'mal level of enrolment for training was low, despite the initial interest shown. Completed questionnaires were returned by 957 people, of whom 185 had enrolled for a course of training. Many reasons were given for not enrolling, with several respondents giving more than one answer. No single reason was given by more than 11 per cent of them. The most common reason given was that they did not think the training course would be useful. One interpretation of this is that the leaflets sent as a result of the initial enquiry did not always maintain the interest generated by the campaign. Ten per cent said they had not got round to enrolling and eight per cent were still under age to ride a motorcycle. ISSN ABSTRACT A FOLLOW-UP STUDY OF AN ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN FOR MOTORCYCLE TRAINING: Pat Wells: Department of the Environment Department of Transport, TRRL Supplementary Report 731 : Crowthorne, 1982 (Transport and Road Research Laboratory). As a result of a TV/radio/poster campaign carried out by the Department of Transport in March/April t979, about 1400 people enquired about motorcycle training facilities in the West Midlands. These people were contacted in January 1980 to try to assess why the final level of enrolment for training was low, despite the initial interest shown. Completed questionnaires were returned by 957 people, of whom 185 had enrolled for a course of training. Many reasons were given for not enrolling, with several respondents giving more than one answer. No single reason was given by more than 11 per cent of them. The most common reason given was that they did not think the training course would be useful. One interpretation of this is that the leaflets sent as a result of the initial enquiry did not always maintain the interest generated by the campaign. Ten per cent said they had not got round to enrolling and eight per cent were still under age to ride a motorcycle. ISSN