A History of the Ministry of Information, 1939-46
IV. SOME OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CAMPAIGN
Before going on to discuss general attitudes to the problem of road safety and the publicity campaign it is appropriate to include in this report some results concerned with other aspects of the campaign in the May inquiry and in the previous inquiries.
The inquiry made in March for Campaign Division of the Central Office of Information dealt with the Road Safety film “It might have been you.” In the first inquiry on the subject of Road Safety, made for the Ministry of Transport in July 1945, the public’s reactions to the Highway Code were studied. The results of that inquiry were given in detail in a separate report on that and other aspects of the problem (Report No. N.S. 67), but as one question about the Highway Code asked in the inquiry made in May 1946, a comparison of the results at the two periods is given here. Further the results of some questions asked of parents about Kerb Drill are given in this section.
(1) THE ROAD SAFETY FILM
In March 1946 a sample of the adult population was asked "Have you seen at the cinema a government film about road dangers?” The film referred to was “It might have been you”, and interviewers were told to make sure that the informant had seen this film and not any other film about dangers before classifying the answer as “Yes”.
It should be noted that the film was still being shown at the time of the inquiry and had not been shown all over the country. 57% of the sample were interviewed in towns in which the film had been shown. Thus not all cinema-goers had the chance of seeing it.
9% of those interviewed had seen the film * , and 91% had not seen it or were doubtful as to whether they had seen it or not. Of those who had seen the film 83% were able to say something about it when asked the more detailed questions “What was it called?”, “What were the things that happened in it?" And “Who were the people in it?”.
It should be noted that all the investigators working on the inquiry were shown the film before they began interviewing so that they would not have difficult in identifying it from informants' descriptions.
Analyses by Sex and Age
Table 31
Proportions that had seen the film
| % | Sample | |
| Men | 7 | 858 |
| Women | 11 | 1,156 |
| Age | ||
| Up to 34 | 12 | 733 |
| 35-54 | 8 | 919 |
| 55 and over | 5 | 357 |
| (5 not classified by age) | ||
A slightly higher proportion of women than of men had seen the film. This is of some interest since it was shown in previous sections that higher proportions of men than of women had come across publicity about road safety through the media of posters and newspaper advertisements.
The film had reached only a small section of the public when compared with these other media, but amongst those who saw the film women predominated.
There is a marked decline with age in the proportions seeing the film. It is known from other inquiries that younger people go to cinemas very much more than older people. It will be remembered that older people had less frequently noticed publicity about road safety through other channels also.
Analysis by Economic Group
Table 32
Proportions that had seen the film
| Economic Group | % | Sample |
| Lower | 11 | 682 |
| Middle | 8 | 868 |
| Higher | 8 | 436 |
| (9 not classified by economic group) | ||
A slightly higher proportion of those in the lower economic group who were interviewed than of those in other groups had seen the film. The statistical significance of this difference is doubtful (S.E. of difference = 1.4),but it is known from other inquiries that people in the lower economic groups go to the cinema rather more frequently than people in the higher economic groups.
It was shown that publicity through newspapers and posters was noticed more frequently by those in the higher than by those in the lower economic groups. It is of particular interest therefore that this was not so in the case of the film.
There are no statistically significant differences in the proportions of people seeing the film in different broad regional groups. There would of course be differences between different localities because at the time at which the inquiry was made the film was still being shown. A separate analysis showed that 12% of informants interviewed in towns in which the film had been shown before the inquiry said they had seen it.
The results of this question are interesting because although only a small proportion of people had seen the film this piece of publicity unlike others was noticed as much by the lower as by the higher economic groups and as much by women as by men.
2 KERB DRILL
In the inquiries made in January and May parents of children aged under 15 were asked whether they had heard about “Kerb Drill”. If they said they had heard about it they were asked to describe it, and provided they mentioned the two main points concerned, stopping at the kerb and looking both ways before crossing, they were counted as knowing what Kerb Drill was.
Table 33
Kerb Drill
| January | May | |
| 1946 | 1946 | |
| % | % | |
| Knew what Kerb Drill was | 51 | 76 |
| Did not know | 49 | 24 |
| Sample: (parents) | 616 | 639 |
There was thus a considerable increase in the proportion of parents knowing about Kerb Drill.
Parents who knew about Kerb Drill were further asked whether they taught it their children or discussed it with them if it was taught at school. 96% of the 28 parents with children of a suitable age (three years of over) said that they did teach it to their children or talk to them about it.
(3)THE HIGHWAY CODE
In the early inquiry made in July 1945 informants were asked whether they had seen the Highway Code. Those who said they had seen it were asked to describe it briefly so that the interviewer could make sure that they had seen it and were not confusing anything else with it. The same question were asked in the May inquiry.
Table 34
“Have you seen the Highway Code?“
| July | May | |
| 1945 | 1946 | |
| % | % | |
| Yes | 35 | 46 |
| No or doubtful | 65 | 48 |
| No information | - | 6 |
| Sample | 1,902 | 1,978 |
In the more recent inquiry no information was obtained on this point from 6% of the sample. Nevertheless it is quite clear that there a fairly substantial increase in the proportion that remembered seeing the booklet .
The Highway Code had not been used in the recent publicity campaign and new efforts had not been made on a national scale to draw peoples' attention by the time at which the inquiry was made. *
It is not known whether further copies of the booklet were distributed by local authorities, If so this would explain the result. If on the other hand the number of copies in circulation was the same as before, it may be that people were prompted to look up these copies by the general publicity campaign. Although informants were asked to describe the Highway Code the possibility of confusing this with other publicity about road safety should not be altogether ruled out.
Analyses by Sex and Age
Table 35
(2)not classified by age)
A very much higher proportion of men than of women had seen the Highway Code, and more of those in the middle and younger age groups than of those aged 55 over had seen it. he proportion is highest amongst men in the middle age group.
Similar differences between men and women and between the age groups were found in the inquiry made in July 1945.
Analysis by Economic Group
Table 36
| Economic Group |
% who had
seen Highway Code |
Sample |
| Lower | 25 | 638 |
| Middle | 49 | 790 |
| Higher | 67 | 512 |
| (38 not classified by economic group) | ||
Markedly higher proportions of those in the higher than of those in the lower economic groups had seen the Highway Code. A similar difference was found in the inquiry made in July. The increase in the proportion seeing the Highway Code is rather more marked in the middle than in the other economic groups. 36% of this group had seen the booklet in July 1 945 as compared with 49% in May 1946.