What strikes me about the general approach to this, and a lot of ineffectual safety initiatives, is the rules-based, eliminate-the-negative approach. These approaches assume that if you discourage dangerous behaviors you get safe behaviors. To paraphrase ILTB, where's the evidence that's working?
I read the study and my take-away is "we're gathering evidence to support future rules and campaigns around specific behaviors". They are not observing situational awareness, which is what matters.
When you are on the road, as a pedestrian, cyclist or motor vehicle operator, you need to maintain situational awareness. That's the positive to be promoted. If we valued situational awareness, then we'd have one over-arching objective and not have rule after rule after rule.
Are you going to take a drink? The situationally-aware person does that when there is no nearby traffic or when stopped. Approaching a railroad track? The situationally-aware person rolls down the window and turns down the background noise. Semi-trailer truck? The situationally-aware person is going to provide it a large margin and will stay out of its blind spots. At a busy urban intersection? The situationally-aware person is fully occupied in getting through that space without incident. Driving 70 mph on a straight interstate during the day with dry conditions and no vehicles nearby? The situationally-aware person knows that will change relatively slowly.
Most people in the United States grow up in a cocoon that is very forgiving, physically, legally and "shared-values-ly" of not maintaining situational awareness.
I'd like to see a study about how we can promote situational awareness on our roads. Maybe fighter pilots can help?
Oh, and transporting things by hand on a bike? That's best left to the professionals:
Snipped from internet but I saw a lot of this in Cairo. You can bet your sweet bippy he's got situational awareness.