Development of a discussion-based intervention for learner ... · 3 Development of the Learner...

Published Project ReportPPR454

Development of a discussion-based intervention for learner drivers

B Lang, T Vandrevala and J McWhirter

Transport Research Laboratory

PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT PPR454

Development of a discussion based intervention for learner drivers

by B Lang (TRL), T Vandrevala (TRL), J McWhirter (RoSPA)

Prepared for: Project Record: PPRO 4/001/0024

Phase 2 of Development of Pass Plus Scheme for Newly Qualified Drivers

Client: Department for Transport, Road Safety Research and Statistics Division

Deirdre O'Reilly

Copyright Transport Research Laboratory December 2009

This report has been prepared for the Department for Transport, Road Safety Research and Statistics Division. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Department for Transport.

Name Date

Approved

Project Manager

Lorna Pearce 29/10/2009

Technical Referee

Chris Baughan 29/10/2009

Published Project Report

TRL PPR454

When purchased in hard copy, this publication is printed on paper that is FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) registered and TCF (Totally Chlorine Free) registered.


TRL i PPR454

Contents

List of Figures iv

List of Tables v

Executive summary vi

Abstract 1

1 Introduction 2

1.1 The young, inexperienced driver problem 2

1.2 Scope of the current project 3

2 Background 6

2.1 What factors put novice drivers at risk? 6 2.1.1 Experience 6 2.1.2 Biological/physiological factors 6 2.1.3 Gender 6 2.1.4 Personality 7 2.1.5 Social norm 7 2.1.6 Implications for a learner driver discussion group 7

2.2 What driving-related attitudes, beliefs and motives should be addressed in a discussion group for learner drivers? 8 2.2.1 Additional motives 8 2.2.2 Insufficient awareness of risk and task difficulty 8

2.3 When do driving-related attitudes, beliefs and motives form? 9

2.4 Lessons learned from psychological models of change 9

2.5 Lessons learned from existing discussion based interventions 11

3 Development of the Learner Driver Discussion Group 13

3.1 Development of learning goal matrix, teacher plan and intervention materials 13 3.1.1 The learning goal matrix 13 3.1.2 Fit of the Learner Driver Discussion Group with DSA’s

competency framework 14 3.1.3 The teacher plan 16

4 Piloting the Learner Driver Discussion Group 23

4.1 Scope of the pilots 23

4.2 Recruitment and participant sample 24

4.3 Procedure and measures 25

4.4 Pilot findings: quantitative data 27 4.4.1 Data screening & analysis 27 4.4.2 Driving-related attitudes 27 4.4.3 Subjective norms 29 4.4.4 Behavioural intentions 30


TRL ii PPR454

4.4.5 Self efficacy 32 4.4.6 Knowledge of facts and statistics relating to novice drivers 33 4.4.7 Case study items 33 4.4.8 Feedback form 35

4.5 Pilot findings: Qualitative data 36 4.5.1 Perceived benefits of the Learner Driver Discussion Group 36 4.5.2 Group dynamics 37 4.5.3 Facilitation 39 4.5.4 Attitudes towards implementation 39 4.5.5 Criticisms and recommendations for improvement 39 4.5.6 Revision of the teacher plan 40

4.6 Summary 40 4.6.1 Changes in TPB components 40 4.6.2 Feedback on the intervention 41 4.6.3 Outlook 42

5 An evaluation framework for the Learner Driver Discussion Group 43

5.1 Research questions leading the evaluation 44 5.1.1 Facilitator training for Learner Driver Discussion Group 44 5.1.2 Potential future facilitators and dissemination workshop 45

5.2 Evaluation principles and difficulties inherent in the evaluation of educational programmes 46 5.2.1 (Quasi) experimental designs 46 5.2.2 Levels of evaluation 49 5.2.3 Potential outcome measures on the ‘learning’ and ‘transfer’

level 51

5.3 Summary of suggestions for next steps and conclusion 53

Acknowledgements 56

References 57

Appendix A Overview on existing discussion based interventions for drivers/ riders. 62

Appendix B Learning goals of the Learner Driver Discussion Group 69

Appendix C Learner Driver Discussion Group Teacher Plan 76

Appendix D Materials used in the Learner Driver Discussion Group 87

Appendix E The LDDG Questionnaire 94

Appendix F The LDDG Feedback Round Guide 104

Appendix G Interview guide for interview with the facilitator 106

Appendix H Revised Teacher Plan for the Learner Driver Discussion Group 112


TRL iii PPR454


TRL iv PPR454

List of Figures

Figure 1: Human Bingo sheet. .............................................................................. 17

Figure 2: Safe driver show-card. ........................................................................... 18

Figure 3: Road safety quiz slide. ........................................................................... 18

Figure 4: Scenario show-card. .............................................................................. 19

Figure 5: Hazard show-card. ................................................................................. 19

Figure 6: Insight training activity. ......................................................................... 20

Figure 7: Summary slide. ..................................................................................... 21

Figure 8 Piloting procedure. .................................................................................. 26

Figure 9: Illustration of a before and after design with experimental and control group. 48


TRL v PPR454

List of Tables

Table 1: Intervention components and associated learning goals, objectives and outcomes. .................................................................................................... 21

Table 2: Participant characteristics of all four pilot participants. ................................ 25

Table 3: Comparing participant’s driving related attitudes at before and after the discussion group. ........................................................................................... 27

Table 4: Comparing participants’ attitudes towards a series of driving behaviours before and after the discussion group (composite scales). ............................................ 29

Table 5: Comparing participants’ subjective norms on a series of driving behaviours before and after the discussion group. .............................................................. 30

Table 6: Comparing participants’ intention to perform a series of driving behaviours before and after participation in the discussion group. ........................................ 31

Table 7: Comparing participants’ self-efficacy on a series of driving behaviours before and after participation in the discussion group. .................................................. 32

Table 8: Response distributions for case study items Q57 and Q58. ........................... 34

Table 9: Benefits of attending the LDDG for participants. ......................................... 35

Table 10: Characteristics of the discussion group and facilitation. .............................. 36


TRL vi PPR454

Executive summary

The problem of newly qualified drivers being over-represented in casualty statistics has remained unchanged over many years. Inexperience, high exposure to challenging driving situations, underestimation of risk and the impact of peer group pressure are just some examples of factors that have been shown to put young, novice drivers at risk, particularly during their first 12 months of solo driving. Considerable efforts in the area of driver training are being made to provide mechanisms for accelerating the learning experiences of newly qualified drivers. Traditional driver training programmes have focused on improving vehicle control skills without demonstrable benefits for road safety (Christie, 2001; Mayhew, Simpson, Williams & Ferguson, 1998). Recent research on driver training (e.g. the EU projects GADGET (Siegrist, 1999), TRAINER (Hoeschen et al., 2001) and ADVANCED (Bartl et al., 2002) therefore emphasises the need to incorporate higher order cognitions and motivational orientations (e.g. driver attitudes) to explain why people drive the way they drive and to successfully reduce crash rates. The GDE1

matrix (Hatakka, Keskinen, Gregerson, Glad & Hernetkosi, 2001), a driving taxonomy that has emerged from this research, posits four levels with basic vehicle control at the lowest level (level 1), followed by the mastery of traffic situations (level 2), trip-related goals (level 3) and personal goals and characteristics at the top (level 4). The new direction in research has led to a revision of driver training and assessment systems in several countries with many of the schemes currently being under evaluation.

The Department for Transport (DfT) commissioned the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) in February 2008 with the development of a discussion based group targeted at opportunity samples of young learner drivers. The aim of the two-hour Learner Driver Discussion Group is to improve learner drivers’ driving-related attitudes, risk awareness and behavioural strategies for future solo driving. The scope of the project comprised the development and piloting of the discussion group as well as the development of an evaluation framework that sets out the steps towards a robustly evaluated intervention. A comprehensive evaluation of the discussion group does not form part of this project.

The development of the discussion group was informed by:

• The review of the scientific literature on the development of driving-related attitudes, motives and beliefs as well as psychological models of attitudes and behaviour change;

• Recommendations for contents and methods derived from a one-day workshop with selected national experts in traffic psychology, driver training and testing, and teaching;

• The review of examples of discussion based groups currently used in driver and rider training or other application fields.

The information obtained led to the identification of the following five high-level learning goals:

1. Understanding that being a safe driver is the most important aspect of being a good driver;

2. Reflecting on learners’ current life phase & how solo driving will impact their life;

3. Understanding novice drivers’ vulnerability with regards to accident involvement; understanding what factors may increase their risk;

4. Facilitating learners’ insight into their (perceptual) limitations as drivers and associated underestimation of risk; developing learners’ self-evaluation skills;

1 Goals for Driver Education


TRL vii PPR454

5. Developing learners’ self-efficacy & risk mitigation strategies; encouraging them to take responsibility for their learning process and increasing their awareness of behavioural choice

The five high level goals and associated secondary learning goals were arranged in a learning goal matrix that also referenced existing good practice materials and underlying theory. A DfT/ DSA steering group agreed the matrix which was subsequently used for the development of a teacher plan in collaboration with Dr. Jenny McWhirter (co-author), an experienced educationist. The teacher plan sets out discussion topics, small group exercises, materials and timings for the Learner Driver Discussion Group. As the discussion group is run with small groups of learner drivers who are likely not to know each other, particular attention was paid to group forming exercises that would help the participants feel comfortable to contribute. Rather than vehicle-based skills, the discussion group addresses the wider context of young peoples’ lifestyles, self-perception and social environment in order to impact the way they drive. Participants’ experiences as road users in the past as well as their expectations for driving in future are covered.

Four pilots of the Learner Driver Discussion Group, each with approximately 12 participating learner drivers were conducted after the teacher plan and discussion group materials had been agreed by the project steering group. Sufficient time was scheduled between each pilot to allow for refinements of the intervention between pilots. The pilots aimed to explore if the group discussion could successfully promote safe driving with a diverse range of participants and if the format of the intervention would be accepted by its target group. It also served to explore the content, delivery method and duration of the intervention as described in the teacher plan. To gather indications of attitudinal change associated with participation in the group discussion, a questionnaire was developed based on Theory of Planned Behaviour and administered before and immediately after participation in the Learner Driver Discussion Group. Additionally, all pilots were observed by a TRL researcher who also facilitated a brief feedback round with participants at the end of the group. An in-depth interview with the facilitator of all pilots, the co-author Dr. McWhirter, ensured that suggestions for further improvement of the discussion group were captured.

Participants’ feedback on the discussion group and facilitation suggested that they found the discussion group enjoyable, not too long and pitched at the right level. Learner drivers thought the facilitator was likeable, knowledgeable and took their views seriously. This finding underlines the importance of the facilitator in motivating participants to express their views and to consider their future choices as drivers in a responsible way.

Some significant improvements of driving related attitudes and behavioural intentions after participation in the group were found. Improved attitudes comprised:

• Greater recognition of drivers’ responsibility towards other road users;

• Acknowledgement of the fact that inexperience puts young, novice drivers at risk of crashes;

• Greater disapproval of peer passengers who encourage the driver to take risks;

• Greater acknowledgement of the risk associated with close following;

• Greater disapproval of driving at the limit of one’s capacity.

Participants predicted that as future solo drivers they would more often:

• Take time to plan journeys to unfamiliar destinations;

• Ring ahead before starting a journey if delays would be expected;

• Be assertive as a passenger;

• Seek further information on how to stay safe as a driver;

and would:


TRL viii PPR454

• drink alcohol and drive less often.

Whilst at this point it cannot be ascertained if this change is causally related to the Learner Driver Discussion Group, these results suggest a change in the right direction and are certainly encouraging.

Contrary to expectation, no significant changes were found on any items relating to participants’ perceived ability to implement safe driving behaviours after transition to solo driving. This could be due to the fact that self-efficacy ratings were already high prior to the discussion and further improvement was therefore difficult. It, however, also suggests that further development of the Learner Driver Discussion Group is necessary to improve learner drivers’ self-efficacy.

Whilst the findings from the pilots are indeed encouraging, their significance should also not be overstated. To ascertain reliably the effects of participation in the discussion, and whether such effects are produced by the content of the discussion an experimental design with a control group and randomised group allocation will be required. Here, any changes in comparing before and after measures in learner drivers participating in the intervention could be compared to changes in a control group which had not been exposed to the intervention. Furthermore, longer-term effects of the discussion group on safety need to be explored to ascertain if any positive effects of participation on attitude and behaviour are sustained over time and, critically, until the participants have started to drive solo. Suggestions for further evaluation as well as guiding principles for such efforts are outlined in the last chapter of this report.


TRL 1 PPR454

Abstract

This report describes the development of a two-hour facilitated discussion group aimed to help learner drivers develop safe driving-related attitudes, increase their awareness of the risks novice drivers face and equip them with risk mitigation strategies. The review of the literature on attitude formation and change, good practice examples of existing discussion groups and input from an expert panel informed the development of content and materials, which took place in collaboration with one of the authors who is an educationalist at RoSPA with expertise in safety and risk education for young adults. Pilots of the intervention were run with four mixed (education level, age, gender and likely risk propensity) groups of learner drivers. A questionnaire predominantly comprising Theory of Planned Behaviour items was administered before and immediately after participation in the discussion group to test for short term changes in participant attitudes. Additional qualitative measures included process observation by an independent TRL researcher and a feedback round with participants after each pilot as well as an in-depth interview with the group facilitator after each pilot. The majority of participants found the intervention useful and enjoyable. Significant short term changes towards safer attitudes were observed for some driving-related attitudes, subjective norms and behavioural intentions. Participants’ self-efficacy ratings did, however, not change significantly. Findings from the piloting are merely indicative and some suggestions for steps towards a more comprehensive evaluation of the intervention are discussed in the report.


TRL 2 PPR454

1 Introduction

1.1 The young, inexperienced driver problem

The fact that newly qualified drivers are at a higher risk of being involved in a road traffic crash than are older, more experienced drivers has remained unchanged over many years (Carcary, Power & Murray, 2001). In Great Britain, the results of two longitudinal studies with cohorts of learner, and later, novice drivers (Forsyth 1992a, b; Forsyth, Maycock & Sexton, 1995; Maycock & Forsyth, 1997; Wells, Tong, Sexton, Grayson & Jones, 2008) showed that the crash rates for 17-18 year olds were 40% higher in the first year of driving compared to the second year of driving. In the second Cohort study, approximately 20% of novice drivers reported a crash within the first six months of their driving after passing the practical test, and much of the excess risk was found to be associated with the lack of driving experience.

The young driver problem is a phenomenon also found in other countries including Australia (Adams, 2003), Canada (Mayhew et al., 2003), Sweden (Engström et al., 2003) and the USA (McCartt, Shabanova, & Leaf, 2003). Research shows that crash rates are highest in the first few months of driving after passing the practical driving test, after which the accident rate decreases during the first 12 months.

Traffic crashes are the single greatest killer of 15-24 year olds in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). In OECD countries, young drivers represent approximately 27% of all drivers killed although people in the same age group only account for approximately 10% of the population (OECD, 2006).

Research (e.g. Maycock, 2002; Clarke, Ward & Truman, 2002) shows that novice drivers are over-represented in single vehicle and loss of control crashes. Young drivers’ crash patterns are associated with a range of risk increasing behaviours. Younger drivers (and in particular young males) tend to drive faster and exceed legal speed limits more often than older drivers (Campbell & Stradling, 2003). They drive closer to vehicles in the front, are involved in more rear-end shunts (Evans & Wasielewski, 1983) and are more likely to engage in risky overtaking manoeuvres than older drivers (Clarke, Ward & Jones, 1998). Young, novice drivers have comparatively more crashes in the evening and early morning which reflects differences in travel patterns and high exposure to situations where fatigue may occur. Their driving performance is likely to be affected by the presence of a same age passenger, particularly if both, driver and passenger, are men (Preusser, Ferguson & Williams., 1998). Novice drivers have been shown to be more susceptible to impairment by alcohol or illegal substances than older drivers (Keall et al., 2004), tend to be more often involved in fatigue crashes because of their driving patterns (Clarke et al, 2002) and crash severity is exacerbated by the fact that especially young male drivers are less likely to wear seatbelts (OECD, 2006).

The reasons underlying the young, novice driver problem are a complex interplay of social, psychological and biological factors that put young drivers at higher risk at a time when their experience of driving and of different traffic situations is typically low (OECD, 2006). Gregersen (1997) makes the point that the majority of novice drivers start their driving career at a time when they are in the midst of a coming of age process that typically comprises the testing and rejection of convention and finding ways of asserting and expressing one’s identity. This implies a greater exposure to risk simply by virtue of young adults’ life styles. It also suggests that any simple solutions will be unlikely to ameliorate the ubiquitous young driver problem.

Continuous efforts in the area of driver training have been made to counteract young drivers’ high crash liability based on the assumption that the accumulation of learning experience can be accelerated in this driver group. Traditional training programmes that merely focussed on teaching better vehicle control skills were found to have no


TRL 3 PPR454

demonstrable safety benefits (Christie, 2001; Mayhew, Simpson, Williams & Ferguson, 1998). This has brought about a shift in national and international research on driver training (e.g. the EU projects GADGET (Siegrist, 1999), TRAINER (Hoeschen et al., 2001) and ADVANCED (Bartl et al., 2002) and an emphasis of the need to target higher order cognitions and motivational orientations that determine why people drive the way they drive in training interventions aimed to reduce the crash risk of young drivers. The integration of motivational and social processes that may influence young adults’ driving styles is reflected in the extension of previous taxonomies of the driving task (Bernotat, 1970 or Michon, 1985) from three to four levels (Hatakka, Keskinen, Gregerson, Glad & Hernetkosi, 2001). The new matrix includes four levels with basic vehicle control at the lowest level (level 1), followed by the mastery of traffic situations (level 2), trip-related goals (level 3) and personal goals and characteristics at the top (level 4). The model suggests that all driving-related behaviours and decisions are influenced by general goals for life and skills for living. This re-orientation of training efforts has led to a revision of driver training systems in a number of countries. As many of these training programmes have been implemented comparatively recently, comprehensive evaluations on their long term impact on safety tend to be not available yet.

1.2 Scope of the current project

The recognition of the need to address motivational and social processes in order to encourage safe driving styles in young, inexperienced drivers led the Department for Transport (DfT) to commission the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) with the development of a facilitated discussion group for learner drivers of approximately two hours duration that should prepare young learners for the requirements of later solo driving and would increase their awareness of the risks they are likely to encounter after passing the driving test. The intervention is intended to further support and enhance the process of learning to drive by:

• Addressing the changes being able to drive will bring about and how learners’ lifestyles may impact the way they drive;

• Alerting learners to the fact that as novice drivers they will be at a higher risk of being involved in a crash;

• Raising learners’ awareness for the most prevalent risk factors that they will face after passing their test;

• Increasing learners’ self-efficacy2 and provide them with appropriate strategies to mitigate risk in situations that typically represent a challenge for novice drivers after passing the driving test.

The discussion session is intended to emphasise that participants are soon become solo drivers and as such will have full control and responsibility as drivers. It covers participants’ concrete experience as road users so far as well as their expectations for driving in future.

A discussion group was considered to be the most appropriate format for the purpose of this intervention: In a small group setting, all participants can be encouraged to join in, to contribute and to benefit from the discussion. Participants can engage and exchange experiences with other learner drivers. Dynamic group processes and peer influence can be used by the skilled facilitator to support safety messages communicated as part of the intervention. The learning goals that recent research on driver training has identified as important to be addressed in learner driver training comprise social and lifestyle issues that are closely associated with peer group processes and influences. Thus encouraging participants to discuss these influences in the peer group setting and to develop strategies for risk mitigation together with peers in the group is likely to

2 Self-efficacy is a concept from social learning theories and refers to a person’s belief that she/ he will be able to accomplish a certain task or to show a certain behaviour.


TRL 4 PPR454

facilitate the use of these same strategies in situations (where peers are present) later in solo driving.

The group discussion format is, however, also associated with potential disadvantages, because of its reliance on group participants to contribute and the variability of outcomes depending on group composition and participant characteristics. It is possible that a particular discussion group may include only learner drivers who endorse risky driving-related attitudes and thus threaten the desired promotion of safe attitudes in its participants. A successful discussion group requires an experienced and skilled facilitator to guarantee that in the worst case attitudes do not deteriorate as a result of participation.

The scope of the current project comprised:

• The development of the facilitated discussion group for learner drivers. To maximise potential effectiveness, the selection of learning goals, intervention setting, timing and format were informed by the following project activities:

• A review of the scientific literature on the development of driving-related attitudes, motives and beliefs in teenagers and young adults before and shortly after they embark on their driving careers as well as a review of pivotal psychological models of attitude and behaviour change relevant for the theoretically underpinning of the planned intervention;

• A one-day workshop with selected national experts in traffic psychology, driver training and testing, and teaching, to obtain good practice examples of discussion-based interventions for drivers, to identify possible content for the intervention and to gather professional opinions and experiences on how learner drivers’ attitudes, motivations and beliefs may best be addressed;

• A review of contents, formats and settings of facilitated discussion groups currently used nationally and internationally in learner driver training. Examples of discussion-based interventions for novice drivers and from other application fields were also included.

• Piloting the intervention with four learner driver groups to test its feasibility with the target group, further refine the intervention and to derive tentative indications for the intervention’s effectiveness;

• Designing an evaluation framework that sets out the guiding principles and steps required towards the robust evaluation of the intervention. This comprises the research design for the medium and longer-term evaluation of the Learner Driver Discussion Group with appropriate metrics for assessing changes in attitudes, self-efficacy and behaviour.

The comprehensive evaluation itself does not form part of the current project.

If the comprehensive evaluation of the intervention finds significant benefits, this could be considered as an additional, voluntary (and possibly incentivised) training module for (young) learner drivers before they take their driving test. This is in line with the endeavour to develop learner drivers’ competence to the highest possible level before the driving test. It furthermore reflects the concern that any post-test intervention would be difficult to make mandatory without simultaneously increasing the number of unqualified drivers on UK roads. However, the potential limitations of running the discussion group as a one-off, pre-licence intervention were well recognised by the project steering group. For example:

• Participants do not yet have any solo driving experience and thus solely rely on their experience as passengers, cyclists, pedestrians or riders. Discussing their motives and behaviours as later solo drivers will be somewhat hypothetical.


TRL 5 PPR454

• The fact that participation in the discussion group and solo driving are considerably apart in time, may limit the potential impact of the intervention on later solo driving as new experiences are superimposed in the learners and messages given out in the intervention are forgotten.

Because of these limitations, there may be further consideration of linking the pre-test discussion group to further sessions that would take place post-test.

The following report describes the research and thinking (Chapter 2) underpinning the development process (Chapter 3) and piloting (Chapter 4) of the Learner Driver Discussion Group. It furthermore sets out suggestions for further steps towards its comprehensive evaluation (Chapter 5).


TRL 6 PPR454

2 Background

Findings from the following project activities were combined to inform the development of the group discussion for learner drivers:

(a) A review of the scientific literature3 on attitudes in young adults before they embark on the learning to drive process and shortly after passing their test; the review of psychological models of attitude and behaviour change.

(b) A facilitated one-day workshop with selected experts (in August 2007).

(c) The review of current national and international discussion-based interventions in driver/rider training4.

2.1 What factors put novice drivers at risk?

As stated before, young novice driver accidents cannot be attributed to a single cause, but result from the interaction of a number of factors. A brief overview of the research on risk increasing factors is provided in the following sections.

2.1.1 Experience

Researchers posit that the reduction of crash liability within the first few month of solo driving is predominantly the effect of increased driving experience (Forsyth et al., 1995; Wells et al, 2008). Driving skills in early stages of the solo driving career are unlikely to be fully automated and are thus likely to require more mental resources. Furthermore, early solo driving confronts novice drivers with a number of new situations (e.g. driving at night, driving with passengers) that put high demands on their processing capacity. Their driving performance is thus more easily compromised by additional demands than that of experienced drivers. There is also evidence to suggest that hazard perception skills in inexperienced drivers are inferior to those of experienced drivers (Quimby & Watts, 1981; Chapman, Underwood & Roberts, 2002; Grayson & Sexton, 2002).

2.1.2 Biological/physiological factors

Recent MRI scan studies from the United States suggest that the human brain is still developing beyond the age of 18. Particularly affected are areas in the frontal lobe that deal with executive functions like planning, impulse control, reasoning and the integration of information (Sowell et al., 1999; Giedd, 2004). The findings suggest younger drivers find it more difficult to anticipate the consequences of their behaviour before choosing a course of action. Additionally, hormonal changes throughout puberty and in early adolescence, especially the increase in testosterone levels in young males, have been linked to sensation seeking (Bogaert & Fisher, 1995) and may explain the higher prevalence of risky behaviours in male drivers.

2.1.3 Gender

Gender differences are already established at pre-driver age (e.g. Parker & Stradling, 2001). Waylen and McKenna (2002) found that compared to girls, boys showed a greater interest in cars, reported a higher anticipated need for thrill seeking when driving, were more confident about their knowledge of driving and were more likely to 3 The main databases searched were TRL Knowledge Base, IngentaConnect and ScienceDirect. Additional publications were identified through the 2006 OECD publication “Young drivers- The Road to safety”, the search of TRL and DfT publications on attitudes in pre-drivers and novice drivers and of national and international conference proceedings. 4 Information on 13 national and international interventions was gathered by contacting of discussion group developers, training providers and practitioners in Europe, Australia and New Zealand, including the Forum of European Road Safety Research Institutes (FERSI) and the International Commission for Driver Testing.


TRL 7 PPR454

think that driving would make them more popular. Marsten (2004) found that young male drivers (18-24 years old) perceive themselves to be more skilled than other drivers and obey road laws for fear of punishment rather than fear of endangering themselves and others. Carcery (2002) found that young male learners were found to be less likely to abide by legal and social conventions for speeding and were also less likely to take heed of any comments relating to their driving that were made by parents or peers.

2.1.4 Personality

A weak but consistent association has been found between personality traits and crash involvement (Arthur et al., 1991). Research on Costa and McCrae’s Big Five Personality Factors (Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Agreeableness and Openness) suggests higher crash involvement for those who score high on Extraversion, low on Conscientiousness, and low Agreeableness (Clarke & Robertson, 2005). There is furthermore evidence for a link between sensation seeking5 and risky driving and life styles as well as crash risk (Wilson & Jonah, 1988; Arnett, 1990; Moe & Jensen, 1990).

2.1.5 Social norm

The majority of novice drivers are young and start to drive at a time in their life that is characterised by the search for independence and autonomy. Parents’ influence is diminishing whilst the influence of peers, of youth culture and group identify increase (OECD, 2006). The influence of peers in the driving context is particularly visible in the effects of passengers on driving performance. Whilst the presence of similarly aged passengers leads to an increased risk level in young drivers, driving with older passengers does not have the same effect (McKenna & Crick, 1994; Chen, Baker, Braver & Li, 2000).

2.1.6 Implications for a learner driver discussion group

According to the literature new situations that have not been encountered in the learning to drive process present a particular challenge to novice drivers and are likely to require additional processing capacity. The finding that impairment (e.g. alcohol or fatigue) and distractions in and outside the vehicle are likely to affect novice drivers more strongly than experienced drivers also puts them at a higher risk that they may be unaware of and unprepared for. Learners may therefore benefit from learning how distraction impacts driving performance and from preparing strategies to successfully negotiate particularly challenging situations such as driving with passengers.

Personality, gender and biological factors are “pre-existing conditions” that are not amenable themselves to change through training. However, learner drivers need to be aware of the increased risk they are likely to suffer as a result of their gender or personality as it may help them to take mitigating action. Appropriate ways of conveying this information are extremely important as any labelling of young adults as “bad” or “immature” will very likely reduce learners’ willingness to accept the message.

Similarly, the social context young adults find themselves in when coming of age and establishing themselves as autonomous individuals must be accepted as a phenomenon that cannot be changed in itself. However, the exploration of the benefits the ability to drive will bring about could also emphasise the responsibility that accompanies it. This point is a reminder of the importance of the skills of the discussion facilitator who should guide the participants through a process of (self-) discovery. This point will be explored in more detail later on.

5 Sensation seeking is defined as a need to experience novelty, excitement and danger (Zuckermann, 1979).


TRL 8 PPR454

2.2 What driving-related attitudes, beliefs and motives should be addressed in a discussion group for learner drivers?

The literature review and expert workshop led to the identification of the following problem clusters in novice drivers which were proposed as the main areas the learner driver discussion group is to address:

2.2.1 Additional motives

In their zero-risk theory, Näätänen and Summala (1976) state that drivers normally do not perceive any risk when they drive and that therefore extra motives (e.g. time gains, thrill seeking etc.) will influence a driver’s driving style. Similarly, Gregersen (1997) posits that safety motives are typically “negative” motives, which means that their consequence is either neutral (e.g. no crash) or negative (crash) whereas “positive” motives such as time gains, expression of self through driving etc. provide the driver with an immediate reward. He concludes that a driver who feels that the safety motive is sufficiently catered for, will choose a driving style which, without jeopardising the driver’s assessment of personal safety, will provide immediate reward for as many additional motives as possible. Fuller (2005) argues that it is the feeling of risk that determines how difficult a driver allows the driving task to become (mainly through the manipulation of speed, but possibly also through engaging in secondary tasks) and that local variations may impact the amount of risk a driver may accept at any point in time. The theories, however, all agree on the existence of driving motives that are in addition to a driver’s wish to travel from A to B and are likely to influence the driving style. Research into extra motives shows that showing off and sensation seeking is typical for the driving profile of high risk drivers (Gregersen & Berg, 1994). Further evidence for the association between additional motives, driving behaviour and crash involvement in young, novice drivers comes from a study carried out by Wahlquist (1996). Drivers who reported to often drive for pleasure, to vent frustrations or to seek adventure displayed a driving style that was more aggressive, faster and left smaller safety margins.

Participants of the expert workshop argued that the majority of young, novice drivers do not set out to hurt other road users, but mean to drive safely. Their understanding, however, of what may constitute safe driving, may be deficient and thus requires the provision of opportunities to develop an insight into actual risk levels.

According to the workshop participants a small proportion of novice drivers purposefully violates safe driving rules and engages in unsafe driving practices. They argued that such “delinquent” attitudes were unlikely to be effectively influenced by methods aimed at developing insight. The workshop suggested that for these drivers the group should be used by the facilitator to ostracise the promotion of violating behaviour and to allow them to learn that their behaviour was not considered to be “cool” by other young adults.

2.2.2 Insufficient awareness of risk and task difficulty

Young novice driver have been shown to perceive their actual driving ability inaccurately. They frequently rate themselves to be better than other drivers (Gregersen, 1993; 1994; Wells, Tong, Sexton & Jones, 2008), a pattern, that seems most typical amongst men. McKenna et al., (1991) asked drivers to assess themselves and the average driver on separate scales. Whilst the average driver received ratings above the average of the scale, the ratings of drivers’ own ability was even higher and supported the view that the prevailing attitude in respondents was “I was good” rather than “the others are bad”. In another study McKenna (1993) showed that drivers’ underestimation of their own likelihood of being involved in a crash was the result of imagined control rather than the result of unreasonable optimism. Dery (1999) argues that the greater acceptance of risk in young driver may be a result of their greater difficulties of fully detecting risks.


TRL 9 PPR454

Participants of the expert workshop argued that novice drivers’ illusion of control and over-estimation of skills were important topics to be addressed in the learner driver discussion group. The expert felt that a lack of insight was responsible for the over-estimation of driving skills in novice drivers that may be caused by the fact that important topics such as the effects of impairment or distraction are currently not covered in learner driver training. Young drivers were reported to frequently hold incorrect beliefs about driving that put them at particular risk early in their solo driving career. Experts also felt that the lack of coverage of these topics led novice driver to expose themselves to driving situations for which they did not have appropriate risk mitigation skills.

2.3 When do driving-related attitudes, beliefs and motives form?

Research suggests that the formation of many attitudes related to driving and people’s definitions of what constitutes “good” driving takes place long before individuals actually enter the learning to drive process and is influenced by early social learning experiences. In a longitudinal study Vassallo, Smart, Sanson, Harrison, Harris, Cockfield & McIntyre (2007) identified three types of clusters aged 19-20 years who differed reliably in their engagement with risk-related driving behaviours such as excessive speeding, drink-driving, drug-driving, driving when fatigued and failure to put on seat-belts. The high risk cluster (7% of the sample of 1135 young adults), predominantly male (77%), were found to be involved in more speeding offences and collisions. Compared with the other clusters they were more antisocial in behaviour and choice of friends, more aggressive, more irresponsible, showed less empathy and were more likely to engage in maladaptive coping (such as multi-substance use). The cluster characteristics of antisocial behaviour and aggressiveness were already found at age 5-8 years and persisted throughout later childhood and adolescence.

Links have been found between the crash involvement of parents and their offspring Ivett (2001) as well as between young adults’ crash involvement and parental disapproval of alcohol misuse (Shope, 2001). This is confirmed by Lang and Stritzke (1993) who argue that parents and peers act as role models in the process of forming alcohol cognitions and dispositions through observational learning. Waylen and McKenna, (2002) state that risky driving behaviours of young, novice drivers result from individual characteristics, the social context and environment. Findings from qualitative research with pre-drivers, learner drivers, delayers and their parents (DfT, 2007) showed that participants tended to use a driver’s confidence as a proxy measure of skill.

These findings suggest that interventions aimed to increase drivers’ safety should to start as early as possible and certainly before young adults embark on their solo driving career if safe driving-related attitudes are to be promoted successfully. Whilst this requirement goes beyond what a single session intervention for learner drivers can deliver and thus needs to be considered in the wider context of lifelong learning in road safety education, it suggests that discussion group participants could benefit from reflecting on observations they have made as passengers and on the sources of influence that may have had an impact on their driving related attitudes and beliefs.

2.4 Lessons learned from psychological models of behaviour change

The early stages of the project examined a number of psychological models of behaviour change to identify those that had implications for the design of the Learner Driver Discussion Group. This section briefly outlines main points from selected models and provides recommendations arising from the models for the Learner Driver Discussion Group. As the target audience for the intervention does not have any experience of fully independent solo driving and therefore does not yet have a behavioural repertoire that may put it at risk, theoretical models that focus on changing existing problem behaviour were not included in this summary.


TRL 10 PPR454

The Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura, 1986) emphasises the importance of learning through observation and particularly from people that are perceived as important or high status. The likelihood of successful behaviour change is higher if the intervention’s messages are given out by a person the members of the group will perceive in a positive way and be keen to imitate. If on the other hand, a group member who is perceived to have high status endorses risky attitudes, this may affect other group negatively. According to the theory the discussion group facilitator should be perceived in a positive way to maximise his or her influence over the group. Social learning also points at the potential influence of group members that are perceived to have high status. The theory furthermore implies that discussion material that uses the endorsement of safe driving by high status individuals outside the group (e.g. celebrities endorsing road safety messages) may be helpful in achieving the desired behaviours.

Social Cognitive Theory therefore implies that participants in the learner driver discussion group should be encouraged to consider what role model influence(d) their driving-related attitudes and later solo driving and who they are likely to imitate. The discussion group could help participants challenge inappropriate role models, develop their awareness of the possibility to behave differently than the role model and increase their self-efficacy to actually do so.

The Health Belief Model (Rosenstock, 1974) conceptualises perceived susceptibility and perceived threat of a "condition" (e.g. an unsafe driving style) as important precursors of behaviour change. The literature (e.g. OECD, 2006) has identified the feeling of invincibility to be one of the reasons why young drivers may take more risks and engage in potentially dangerous behaviour. Risky driving behaviours ferquently seems to be unintentional and may be the result of an insufficient perception of threat. Thus, an important task of the planned intervention is to develop learners’ insight into the fact that they are susceptible to road crashes and that the consequences of such crashes may be grave and severely impact their lives.

The Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1985) posits that attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control are the three components that need to be addressed in an intervention in order to change the individual’s intention to behave and, eventually, behaviour. “Perceived behavioural control”, combines an individual’s feeling that the execution of the new behaviour is possible and within the individual’s capability (this belief in one’s own ability is also referred to as “self-efficacy”). The concept of self-efficacy is also a key concept in several other of the behaviour change models. To increase self-efficacy, the planned intervention for learner drivers should comprise the training of new behavioural strategies and the planning of how and when these new behaviours can be implemented, e.g. through the development of behavioural implementation intentions that are written down as if-then plans detailed in behavioural contracts (Elliott & Armitage, 2006). Participants’ ability to implement the desired behaviour changes should also, as recommended by the AIDS Risk Reduction Model (Catania, Kegeles & Coates, 1990), be boosted by providing access to informal or formal support resources, by developing their ability to communicate with relevant others (e.g. passengers) and improving their problem solving skills.

The Prototype-Willingness Model of risk-taking behaviour (Gibbons & Gerrard, 1995) proposes that attitude, subjective norm and prototypes have an indirect effect on behaviour, via their effect on behavioural willingness. In contrast with theoretical models that postulate the influence of intentions on behaviour, such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour, this model assumes that many risky behaviours are not intentional or planned in advance, but rather are opportunistic and situation specific. As a person’s attitude towards a certain behaviour becomes more positive and this person thinks that significant others want him/her to perform the behaviour, the greater their willingness to engage in the behaviour (Litchfield & White, 2006). The model furthermore proposes that people hold prototypes of what sort of people engage in risky behaviours. It suggests that adolescents who maintain more favourable prototypes are more likely to engage in the associated risk behaviour (Gibbons & Gerrard, 1995). For young (learner)


TRL 11 PPR454

drivers the influence of peers and role models on their (future) driving style is highly relevant. The model suggests that novice drivers may react spontaneously to situational circumstances when engaing in risky driving styles and to prototypes that are present in the situation. If learner drivers can identify situations, in which the occurrence of risk behaviour will be highly likely (e.g. driving too quickly for the conditions when driving to a party with friends) and develop plans for safe behaviour in these situations in advance, a spontaneous recation to situational cues may be prevented. Identifying and discussing potentially risky situations and prototypes in the group could help participants to develop strategies that will reduce their willingness to behave in a risky way when confronted with the actual situation in later solo driving.

The I-Change model (De Vries et al. 2003) incorporates several behavioural change models. It acts as a reminder of the interplay of large sets of variables, including predisposing, motivational, awareness, information and ability factors in determining the effectiveness of any intervention aiming at behavioural change. The models suggests that to maximise the effectiveness of an intervention, it should be tailored as much as possible to the requirements of its target group. For the Learner Driver Discussion Group this requirement puts particular onus on the facilitator as the effectiveness of the interventions depends on his/her skills to successfully convey the learning goals to a diverse group of young learners. Ideally, the facilitator should be able to adjust his/her facilitation, the work exercises and topics depending on a particular group’s requirements to maximise the likely success of the intervention.

2.5 Lessons learned from existing discussion based interventions

The review of discussion based interventions in the driving context showed that interventions targeted at pre-drivers or learner drivers (five of the thirteen interventions reviewed6) were generally focussed on raising awareness of participants’ driving-related attitudes and motives and of risks associated with young adults’ typical traffic participation (for an overview of the groups please refer to Appendix A). This included the discussion of journey purposes, effects of impairment on journey safety, lifestyle factors and peer group pressures. Scenario based approaches or film sequences were used in some interventions to present situations that young adults are familiar with and which pose challenges to novice drivers. The interventions generally aimed to empower participations and to increase their communication skills and problem solving strategies in social situations. As no evaluation results on the effectiveness of the schemes, their methods or components were available at the time of the review there is no objective evidence here, upon which the selection of content and methods for the Learner Driver Discussion Group could be based. Scheme evaluations were planned or ongoing for all five interventions.

Participants in the expert workshop proposed that the Learner Driver Discussion Group should assist the learning to drive process by targeting those issues that are difficult to address by the driving instructor in the in-car environment. They recommended that in the absence of expressive driving, which young drivers start engaging in after the transition into solo driving, the planned discussion group should focus on preparing the participants for later solo driving.

Workshop participants agreed that the Learner Driver Discussion Group should empower participants, acknowledge them as independent decision makers and motivate them to take responsibility for their driving. They felt that negative motivators (avoiding negative outcomes) such as the presentation of crash pictures with young driver fatalities for risky driving were inappropriate for the planned intervention. Experts argued that young adults would quickly habituate to such contents or may consider such scenarios as too far removed from their own behaviours to be affected by them. Equally, they 6 Pre-driver and learner driver interventions included Driving Ambition (UK), Traffic Safety Work Taken Seriously (Germany), In the Driving Seat (UK), ScooterZ (UK) and discussion groups that form part of the Norwegian Category B Training Curriculum.


TRL 12 PPR454

recommended refraining from using threats of punishment (e.g. loss of licence) as this would reduce participants’ feeling of responsibility for their driving and could furthermore not be guaranteed given the prevailing enforcement levels. Experts argued that group participants should instead be encouraged to reflect on factors that influenced their driving decisions, should be helped to realistically assess their abilities against the requirements of the driving task and should be supported in developing plans for dealing with challenging situations. Delegates particularly recommended scenario-based approaches as they would help participants consider for specific situations:

• How they would feel;

• What they would think; and

• What they would do.

To form a link between anticipated and actual behaviour the inclusion of a second discussion group session once the learners have passed their test was recommended by educational experts7. This would allow participants to compare their expectations of solo driving to actual experiences, to refine any strategies for safe driving they may have developed in preparation for solo driving and to discuss new situations that present a challenge with other novice drivers of similar age.

The review of existing discussion groups comprised examples of interventions located in post-test extended probationary periods for the B licence category. Most multi-phasic schemes8 included feedback drives and track training, and in the cases where evaluation results were available, it was not possible to determine the effects of the discussion group on novice driver safety separately. However, as these discussion groups partly serve to discuss experiences made during feedback drive and track training, these components are interwoven. Second phase training components aim to provide additional support for solo drivers in a period where their accident risk is known to be particularly high. In addition to exchange of experience of early solo driving, second phase discussion group contents most frequently focussed on the development of self-evaluation skills, of risk mitigation strategies and of the insight into one’s own limitations as a driver. Similar contents were covered on post-licence interventions, which have comparable aims. Participation in post-licence interventions tended, however, to be voluntary rather than compulsory. The two post-licence interventions9 that were identified used discussion group and in-car elements to address learning goals.

Characteristics of successful interventions were furthermore extracted the evaluation of 21 discussion-based healthy eating interventions in school or university settings on behalf of the Health Education Authority (Roe, Hunt, Bradshaw & Rayner, 1997). These include:

1. Theoretical model: Using a theoretical model that describes the assumed pathway for behavioural change and specifies any modifying variables that may influence the likelihood of behavioural change renders the intervention more effective than developing it without theoretical rationale. Interventions should make explicit the theoretical basis for creating change. They should specify the target audience and the context in which the intervention will be administered. The superiority of theory based interventions has been confirmed for interventions in road safety; road safety messages which are underpinned by socio-psychological models have greater impact on outcomes such as collision reductions than those that are not (Delhomme et al., 1999).

2. Duration and intensity: The length and intensity of the interventions and the length of post-intervention follow-up have an effect. Longer, more intensive interventions with a sound theoretical basis (e.g. curriculum-based programmes in

7 It was, however, acknowledged that the introduction of a second session after learners had passed their test would be fraught with logistic difficulties, particularly, if the intervention was run on a voluntary basis. 8 Including Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria and Australia 9 ATSB Novice Driver Coaching Programme (Australia) and Kirklees Enhanced Pass Plus Scheme (UK)


TRL 13 PPR454

schools) are more likely to bring about change than short interventions with limited input (such as brief one-off health surgeries with health practitioners).

3. The setting of the intervention: School, university, and workplace based interventions, where the intensity of the intervention is more easily maintained, provide settings in which the interventions show medium term success.

4. Participant motivation: The greatest magnitude of change in outcomes on an individual basis is found among highly motivated volunteers in intensive programmes.

5. Feedback: Effective interventions included the provision of feedback on individual changes with regards to behaviour and risk factors.

6. Targeted message: The message of the intervention should be clear and specific. It should, where possible, only target one area of change. For example, healthy eating interventions that targeted only a change in diet were more effective than those targeting multiple changes, e.g. in diet and exercise.

3 Development of the Learner Driver Discussion Group

Based on the findings and recommendations from previous project activities the Learner Driver Discussion Group emphasises participants’ imminent transition to solo driving and the associated gains in independence as well as responsibility. The group discussion focuses on participants’ experience as road users so far and in future and aims to equip learners with strategies and plans for the safe negotiation of challenging situations in early solo driving. The intervention is grounded on the assumption that the majority of drivers do not intentionally take risks as drivers but may nevertheless drive in a risky way due to lack of experience, prevalence of motives that run counter safe driving and (perceptual/workload) limitations. It is acknowledged that a small proportion of learner drivers may advocate riskier driving styles and may thus be reticent to take on board the messages promoted by the intervention. The challenge of participants purposefully engaging in risky driving styles will be further discussed in chapter four which summarises the piloting of the Learner Driver Discussion Group.

3.1 Development of learning goal matrix, teacher plan and intervention materials

3.1.1 The learning goal matrix

The selection of topics for inclusion in the Learner Driver Discussion Group was guided by consideration of what learning goals would particularly benefit from being addressed in a group setting rather than in the car by the driving instructor. For example, most learning goals relating to journey purpose and navigation (the third level of the GDE matrix) such as reading a map, planning a route, looking for directions whilst simultaneously driving or retracing one’s steps after having lost one’s way, were judged to be more efficiently practised in the car with the instructor rather than in a group setting.

Five high-level learning goals were selected to guide the development of content for the proposed discussion group. These are:




TRL 14 PPR454



5. Developing learners’ self-efficacy & risk mitigation strategies; encouraging them to take responsibility for their learning process and increasing their awareness of behavioural choice.

The five high-level learning goals formed the basis of a matrix that identified lower level learning goals and objectives, and also summarised the justification for the inclusion of learning goals on the basis of theory and examples of existing interventions using comparable approaches.

High level learning goals were described in the first column of the matrix. A number of secondary aims associated with each high level goal were specified in the second column. Learning outcomes for participants were described in column three. Column four comprised references to the scientific literature and theoretical models of change relating to secondary learning goals. Existing examples of how specific aims had been translated into discussion based intervention components were included in the fifth and final column of the learning goal matrix. The learning goal matrix is given in Appendix B.

A steering group comprising DfT and DSA representatives reviewed the learning goal matrix in August 2008 and agreed it as the basis for the subsequent development of a teacher plan that would specify the components, timings and materials required for the running of the discussion group. Steering group participants felt that a two hour intervention would not allow the coverage of all secondary aims laid out in the learning goal matrix but thought that it was not feasible to extend the duration of the discussion group. They raised the concern that a longer group discussion would likely exceed learner drivers’ attention spans and deter interested learners from participating but also argued that a breakdown of the intervention into multiple sessions would render it logistically unfeasible. It was thus agreed that a subset of the learning goal matrix should be implemented.

3.1.2 Fit of the Learner Driver Discussion Group with DSA’s competency framework

The recognition of the need for further measures to reduce casualty numbers has led the British Driving Standards Agency to undertake a wide ranging consultation on and reform of driver training and testing. In the consultation, proposals for changes to the driving test, for an increased quality of preparation for the driving test and for the targeting of social and emotional aspects of driving were set out. Examples of proposed interventions targeting social and emotional aspects of driving include the Safe Road Use Certificate, and the Attitude Advisor. The Safe Road Use Certificate is based on an optional course available from age 14 and covering topics such as planning journeys, the Highway Code, social attitude, fatigue and peer pressure. The Attitude Advisor comprises a computer-based, voluntary self-evaluation to make learners aware of their attitudes towards risk and safety.

At the core of the reform envisaged by DSA and the new training tools is the vision of “Safe Driving For Life” and the introduction of a competency framework for safe car and light van users that describes in detail the elements which constitute good driving performance. The framework marks a fundamental paradigm shift, away from the previous focus on the identification and elimination of driving errors and faults, towards the training and assessment of competence on a range of dimensions relevant to the driving task. The framework is theoretically underpinned by the GDE matrix (Hatakka et al., 2001) which describes the risks, the driving and self-evaluation skills and knowledge relating to each of four postulated hierarchical levels of the driving task. The competency


TRL 15 PPR454

framework is divided into five roles, for each of which purposes, knowledge requirements and attitudes that may threaten safe driving are specified. The five roles and associated units are:

1. Preparing car/light van and its occupants for the journey:

a. Prepare occupants of car/ light van for the journey;

b. Make sure car/ light van is roadworthy;

c. Plan journey;

2. Guiding and controlling the car/ light van:

a. Start, stop and leave the car/ light van safely and appropriately;

b. Drive the car;

3. Using the road in accordance with the Highway Code:

a. Negotiate the road correctly;

b. Comply with signals, signage, markings and traffic calming measures;

4. Driving safely and efficiently in the traffic system: Interact appropriately with other road users;

b. Minimise risk when driving;

c. Manage incidents effectively;

5. Reviewing and adjusting driving behaviour over the life time:

a. Keep up to date with changes;

b. Learn from experience.

To ensure the fit of the Learner Driver Discussion Group with DSA’s new training structure and suite of tools developed to achieve the vision of ‘Safe Driving For Life’, the Discussion Group’s learning goals matrix was compared against the competency framework for cars and light van drivers. Whilst the competency framework seeks to describe all knowledge, skills and attitudes relevant to the safe and responsible driving of a car or light van, the Learner Driver Discussion Group as a one off, two hour intervention could cover only a subset of those aspects, which particularly lend themselves to discussion in a group setting rather than instruction in the vehicle. The intervention furthermore emphasises the change of attitudes that are likely to threaten the safe operation of a car and the development of strategies for mastering potentially dangerous situations. It particularly addresses the following subset of topic areas/attitudes of the competency framework):

U.1.1. Prepare occupants of car/ light vans for the journey:

E.1.1.2: Make sure that you are physically and mentally fit to drive;

E.1.1.3: Control the risks associated with carrying passengers, loads and animals;

U2.2. Risky attitudes relating to driving the car:

• Driving manoeuvres are less risky than they are;

• Crash risk for particular situations is lower than it actually is;

• Driving is an innate skills and not learned;

• You are a better driver than you actually are;

• A car is not very powerful;

• Gaining a driving licence is a right, not a privilege;

• Once you get out of your car it is not your responsibility;


TRL 16 PPR454

U.4.1. Interact appropriately with other road users;

E.4.1.2: Cooperate with other road users;

U.4.2. Minimise risks when driving:

E.4.2.1: Identify and respond to hazards;

E.4.2.2: Drive defensively;

U.5.2. Learn from experience:

E.5.2.2: Recognise personal characteristics and changes which affect driving performance

The Learner Driver Discussion Group aims to complement the in-vehicle instruction process by increasing participants’ awareness of young, inexperienced drivers’ particular vulnerability during early solo driving and by encouraging them to reflect on how peer group and lifestyle factors may impact the way they will drive after passing their test.

3.1.3 The teacher plan

The development of a teacher plan and of intervention materials was based on previous project outputs and took place in collaboration with the co-author, an experienced educationalist from RoSPA, Dr. Jenny McWhirter, and with input from DSA representatives. A copy of the teacher plan can be found in Appendix C. In addition to the five high-level learning goals, five objectives were specified in the teacher plan. These include:

1. Recognising the value being able to drive will add to participants’ lives;

2. Reflecting on what participants have already learned about being a safe road user/awareness of other vulnerable road users;

3. Considering some of the skills participants will need, which they may not develop fully while learning to pass their driving test;

4. Identifying some of the factors which can influence how participants drive, now and in the future;

5. Knowing some of the common causes of accidents for young drivers;

6. Identifying some steps towards becoming a safer driver;

7. Developing appropriate self-efficacy with respect to learning to drive.

As DSA/DfT envisage the discussion group to be carried out with opportunity samples of learner drivers rather than pre-existing groups such as pupils in a class, heavy emphasis was put onto the support of group forming processes. This was felt to be a prerequisite for making participants feel at ease and to enable them to express their views in the group.

Sufficient time was planned between the four pilots, in order that some refinement could take place over the course of the pilots. Slight modifications to the teacher plan were made during piloting of the Learner Driver Discussion Group (see section 4.5.6 of this report). A brief description of the activities included in the teacher plan is provided in the following. A copy of all paper based materials used in the intervention can be found in Appendix D.


TRL 17 PPR454

Figure 1: Human Bingo sheet.

Human bingo

The exercise forms part of the introduction and helps to get participants to know each other before sitting down. Participants receive a copy of a paper with six cells, each cell describing a skill. Participants are to approach other participants to identify someone in the group who has the required skill. This person’s name is written into the respective cell and the participant who is able to complete all cells first is the winner (see Figure 1). To ensure that participants get to know all learner drivers, cells must be completed using different participants. Note that some, but not all, of the skills in the matrix are driving related. The facilitator and any non participating adults participate in the exercise. Further cells can be added to the matrix for bigger participant groups.

Being a learner driver

Participants sit down in a circle of chairs. The facilitator asks them to write on three slips of paper

• One skill that learner drivers need to acquire when learning to drive, e.g. controlling the vehicle;

• One thing that learner drivers typically find difficult;

• One thing that being able to drive will allow them to do.

Paper slips are collected by the facilitator, who draws and reads out slips for subsequent discussion by the whole group. During the pilots the need to write on paper slips was removed in favour of verbal contributions from participants to ensure the intervention would not put learners with reading and writing difficulties under pressure.

Prior learning

Again, this activity comprises discussion with the whole group. Participants are asked to report on their previous experience as road users in response to the following series of questions:

• How did you get here today? Did any of you not use a road?

• What have you learned about being a safe road user which is helping you to learn to drive?

The facilitator leads the group to understand that everyone is a road user. The group participants reflect on their experience as non driving road users. The facilitator records learners’ responses to the question of how this previous experience helps learners when driving on a flip chart. Participants are asked to provide real life examples to illustrate their points.

The facilitator concludes that other road users, including drivers, frequently make mistakes and suggests that experienced drivers have learned that other road users may behave contrary to expectation. The facilitator shows the group a power-point slide that presents findings from the Cohort II study, suggesting that novice drivers who rate their driving skills to be higher than average have significantly higher crash rates than novice drivers who rate their skills to be average or even below average. Participants are encouraged to develop possible explanations for this finding.


TRL 18 PPR454

The facilitator concludes that an important skill of an experienced driver is to expect other road users to make mistakes and allow for this by increasing safety margins.

What is a safe driver?

The facilitator divides the group into two small groups with a mix of driving experience in each group (based on previous participant responses). Each group receives a show card with a line drawing of a young person to discuss (see Figure 2). Groups should be working at two tables with sufficient distance to each other so they cannot overhear each other.

The text on the show cards is almost identical only that Dani is described as a “safe” and Sam is described as a “good” driver:

“You are a passenger in a car with Sam (who could be male or female). Sam is a good driver. How can you tell that Sam is a good driver? How do you feel when you are driving with Sam?”

Ideas generated by both groups are collected by the facilitator on a flip chart. The whole group compares the characteristics of a safe and good driver. Ideally, the characteristics of safe and good driving should be identical; instances of discrepancies of definition should be explored and (gently) challenged by the facilitator.

The facilitator invites participants to ask themselves if they are more likely to resemble Sam or Dani.

The activity ends with participants formulating a message they would give to someone who is learning to drive about becoming a safe driver. These are written on post –it notes, collected on a flip chart and can be reviewed by participants during the following 20 minute break.

Who is most at risk?

The activity is introduced by the facilitator asking participants who they believe is particularly at risk of being involved in a crash. Participants are subsequently divided into three teams, each comprising a mixture of male and female participants. A series of eight questions (plus two practice questions) and answer options on road safety trends and novice driver crash involvement is presented on power point slides (see Figure 3). Participants have to make notes of the answers they believe are correct.

When all questions have been completed the facilitator displays the correct answers, concludes that novice are at particular risk of being involved in crashes. Local crash statistics for novice drivers can be presented to the group to illustrate risk in the

Figure 2: Safe driver show-card.

Figure 3: Road safety quiz slide.


TRL 19 PPR454

area participants are likely to expose themselves to once fully qualified. Whilst this has the benefit of presenting information that is specifically applicable to participants, it should be considered that KSI figures can be lower than expected by group participants and may thus run counter the desired learning aim.

Solo driving skills

The whole group subsequently discusses the reasons that may underlie the higher crash involvement of novice drivers, including factors such as age, experience, underestimation of risk etc. This leads on to the discussion of what learner drivers can do to become safe solo drivers and what skills they may still need to develop after passing the test such as navigating in unfamiliar areas or driving at night. The facilitator invites participant to reflect for themselves on what skills they will find most challenging in later solo driving.

Scenario planning

Participants are allocated to three groups for this activity and take their seats around separate tables. Each group receives a show card (see Figure 4) describing one of three typical novice driver scenarios.

Participants should work on identifying any challenges that they would anticipate to face in the situation and how they could deal with them. One group member documents the suggestions made.

After a few minutes all groups receive another show card describing one of three situational developments and potential hazards (see Appendix D). Participants are to consider how the hazard may impact the situation and how they could safely deal with it.

Scenarios, situation developments and strategies to deal safely with the situations are subsequently discussed in the whole group. The facilitator encourages participants to consider how willing the participants would be in the situation to actually behave in a safe manner and what influences could make it difficult to behave safely for the novice driver. The aim of the exercise is to encourage participants to identify risks and to plan for situations that are likely to prove challenging when beginning to drive solo. It should also make them aware of the options available to them in any driving situation. The exercise thus strives to establish safe risk mitigation strategies that can later be accessed when necessary. Participants could also conclude that certain situations such as agreeing to be the designated driver for a night out are likely to be too difficult to deal with at the beginning of the solo driving career and should thus be avoided until some routines have been established.

Figure 4: Scenario show-card.

Figure 5: Hazard show-card.


TRL 20 PPR454

Insight training

Sitting in the whole group the facilitator asks for a volunteer to sit down in front of the laptop for a computer-based task programmed by TRL for the purpose of the group. The first task is a simple reaction time task. The volunteer is presented with a slide showing a stop sign. Upon pressing the space bar to start the activity, a blue screen appears for a variable amount of time (1 to 10 seconds). The blue screen is then replaced by the picture of the stop sign. The participant is to press the space bar as quickly as possible in reaction to the appearance of the stop sign. A result screen displays the time between the appearance of the stop sign and the key press of the volunteer. This is also translated into distance travelled at various speeds (30, 40 and 70 mph). The trial can be repeated as often as needed. To demonstrate the effects of distraction on reaction time the facilitator can engage the volunteer in a conversation or ask him or her to count in steps of five.

The simple reaction time task can also be offered to participants before the start of the group or during the break to enable as many learners as possible to engage with the task. Once all or most participants have tried the task the facilitator explains that the tasks allows learners to test their reaction time under the best possible conditions with only a simple reaction being required and that even with such a simple task, performance decrements are immediately visible if learners’ attention is distracted.

The facilitator leads over to the complex reaction time task (see Figure 6). This task starts with an instruction screen. Once the activity is started (pressing the space bar), a blue screen appears for variable amount of time (1 to 10 seconds), followed by the presentation of the picture of a road scene. The participant has to press the right arrow key if a pedestrian is present in the scene and has to press the left arrow key if no pedestrian is present. Reaction times are measured, transformed into distance travelled and displayed to the volunteer on a results screen. Three road scenes are available, thus allowing the running of the exercise three times.

As a whole the group discusses why the second task takes longer. The facilitator concludes that humans have limitations in how fast they can perceive and react to visual information, even if they are young and fast. Participants are encouraged to consider that driving in an environment that requires the continuous monitoring of and reaction to dynamic hazards is infinitely more complex than selecting and pressing a key in a computer-based tasks. The group concludes that avoiding high speeds and source of distractions will allow novice drivers to adequately scan their environment, enlarge their safety envelope and reduce their risk, even if this risk may not be felt by the driver.

Figure 6: Insight training activity.


TRL 21 PPR454

Summary

With the whole group the facilitator summarises the activities and topics covered in the discussion group, namely:

• Understanding the value of being able to drive;

• Considering how past experience of using roads can increase safety in early solo driving;

• Recognising that being a good driver involves being a safe driver;

• Understanding that novice drivers are particularly vulnerable to crashes and why;

• Knowing strategies for dealing with challenging situations (see also Figure 7, above, summarising driving tips for participants);

• Understanding that early solo driving requires considerable and undivided attention.

It is emphasised that the discussion should help learners to make the first few months of solo driving safer and more enjoyable.

Action planning

The final activity requires participants chose an aspect of the driving task feel they still need to improve on based on the discussions they had in the group. Participants write on a piece of paper a reminder to themselves about what they would like to work on next time they go out driving with their instructor or accompanying driver. This message is put into an envelope participants address to themselves to be sent to them as a follow on a short while after participation in the intervention.

The group is subsequently closed by the facilitator. Table 1 gives an overview of the intervention components and associated learning goals, objectives and outcomes.

Table 1: Intervention components and associated learning goals, objectives and outcomes.

Intervention component

Activity Objective Learning goal

Outcome

Introduction and welcome

Human bingo

Getting participants to relax and to get to know each other.

Being a learner driver

Identify • One skill they need to learn

• One thing learners find difficult

• One benefit of being able to drive

1, 3 2 Participants are aware of the benefits associated with being able to drive; They can say which additional motives may influence their driving.

Prior learning

Exchange experience so far Experience brings with it the expectation of other road users’ mistakes

2, 3 1 Participants can relate their experiences as road users so far; they understand that road users do not always behave in a predictable way. They can identify skills learners still need to acquire.

Figure 7: Summary slide.


TRL 22 PPR454

What is a safe driver?

Safe driver exercise & safe driver characteristics

2, 3, 4, 6 1 Participants understand that being a safe driver is the most important aspect of being a good driver. They know the characteristics of a safe driver.

Who is most at risk?

Risk quiz Conclude that young inexperienced drivers are most at risk

5 3 Participants understand that in comparison to other age groups, novice drivers’ lack of experience puts them at higher risk of an accident. Participants can name the factors that affect the accident risk of novice drivers including:

• Underestimation of risk; • Overestimation of skill; • Gender; • Lack of experience.

Solo driving skills

Identify risks/ tasks that explain over-involvement of young drivers in accidents

3, 4, 6, 7 2, 3 Participants understand that solo driving brings with it the removal of support from the driving instructor & increased difficulty resulting from:

• Driving on the motorway; • Driving with passengers; • Choosing & planning routes; • Navigating in unfamiliar

environments; • Exposure to situations that require

responsible decision making; • Driving in a variety of environments

& conditions. Scenarios Identify risk

mitigation strategies in scenarios

4, 6, 7 1, 3, 5 Participants understand passengers’ influence on their driving. Participants know how to take action to ensure safe driving regardless of passengers. Participants have strategies to handle potentially challenging situations, e.g. being the designated driver in charge of drunk friends who interfere with the driving task

Reaction time (simple and complex)

Develop insight into human processing limitations and effects of distractions

4, 5, 6 4 Participants understand human processing limitation and the effects of distractions on driving. They understand that:

• Human information processing takes time;

• Driving requires the constant processing and assessment of information:

• Perceiving hazards;

• Recognising hazards as a hazards;

• Deciding what course of action to take;

• Taking action.

• Humans find it difficult to spot change that may occur during brief interruptions or when distracted, e.g. by the content of a conversation;


TRL 23 PPR454

• It’s important for novice drivers to allow more time for the identification and dealing with hazards by driving more slowly and by avoiding distractions from the driving task.

Summary Review: • Importance of

driving; • Influence of

past experience;

• Safe driving is a pre-requisite of good driving;

• Vulnerability of young/ inexperienced drivers;

• Limitations of processing and effects of distractions;

• Strategies for becoming a safe driver.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

5 Participants understand that they have choices as solo drivers in most situations & that considering their options may help them to reduce risk. Participants can realistically assess their own driving style, risk taking & problem solving skills

Action planning

Participants write letter to themselves with practice aim

6, 7 5 Participants understand the importance of learning proactively, know where they are in the learning process & know what they still need to learn

Close Facilitator thanks participants & closes group

4 Piloting the Learner Driver Discussion Group

4.1 Scope of the pilots

The great disparity of learner drivers with regard to demographic as well as attitudinal or personality variables mean that the developed intervention needs to be carefully tested before it can be rolled out on a national basis. The work in the current project was, however, restricted to the gathering of initial indications of effectiveness and recommendations for a comprehensive evaluation of the intervention are summarised in the last chapter of this report. The four pilots thus aimed to explore if the group discussion could successfully promote safe driving with a diverse range of participants and if the format of the intervention would be accepted by its target group. It also served to explore the content, delivery method and duration of the intervention as described in the teacher plan.

As group composition is likely to serious impact effectiveness of a discussion-based intervention, it was of essence to include a mixture of participants representing a) different educational levels, b) male and female learner drivers, and c) non-British participants. Geographic differences between learner drivers in Great Britain were not considered as an important variable at this stage. Therefore, to maximise cost effectiveness, two pilots were held at TRL, the third at Warwickshire (close to the facilitator’s place of work).


TRL 24 PPR454

Social psychology research has demonstrated that people in groups tend to make riskier decisions than when alone (e.g. Myers & Bishop, 1970; Wallach, Kogan & Bem, 1954). This research implies that particular attention needs be paid to the testing of the intervention’s robustness against the promotion of risky attitudes by antagonist group members and a “risky shift” in group members. It was required that the Learner Driver Discussion Group should infallibly lead to safety-positive or at least safety-neutral outcomes. To test dynamic group processes with participants who would be likely to promote unsafe attitudes and driving-related behaviours, the fourth pilot was conducted in Buckinghamshire, where the Council was able to provide access to (predominantly male) learner drivers from deprived backgrounds, often with a history of offending. This group was expected to hold riskier attitudes and thus to test if the discussion group could potentially lead participants to endorse riskier attitudes than prior to group participation.

4.2 Recruitment and participant sample

The four pilots of the learner driver discussion intervention used samples of learner drivers who represented a genuine mixture of learners in terms of their educational, gender, ethnic background. To ensure that the pilots tested the conditions under which a Learner Driver Discussion Group would be most likely to be rolled out, DfT stipulated that learners should not know each other prior to participation in the group. Furthermore, the number of participants that had attempted but failed the practical driving test was to be kept to a minimum to avoid any biases resulting from this experience.

Participants for three of the pilots were recruited through driving instructors and a newspaper advert in a local newspaper. The fourth pilot recruited participants through a local youth café and targeted young male learner drivers with backgrounds in offending. To ensure that the right mixture of participants was achieved, learner drivers interested in participating in a pilot underwent a brief screening interview gathering information on their age, gender, highest educational qualification, ethnicity and driving experience. Fourteen participants were recruited for each pilot with a view to actually achieve ten participants at the pilot.

The recruitment specification included trials with narrower and wider age ranges:

• Pilot 1 & 4 (TRL & Warwickshire): 14 learner drivers (10 to participate), aged 17-18, equal representation of male and female learners, two non-British participants and a mixture of educational attainment;

• Pilot 2 (Buckinghamshire): 14 learner drivers (10 to participate), aged 17-21, two non-British participants, predominantly males, from deprived backgrounds, with history of offending.

• Pilot 3 (TRL): 14 learner drivers (10 to participate), aged 17 and older with equal representation of male and female learners, two non-British participants and a mixture of educational attainment;

A total of forty-two participants participated in the pilots. Table 2 shows the achieved participant characteristics of the four pilots. The table illustrates that a good mixture of participants was achieved; however, participants from non-British backgrounds were under-representation in the pilots.


TRL 25 PPR454

Table 2: Participant characteristics of all four pilot participants.

Pilots Gender Ethnicity Age Educ. Months learning

Accom. practice

Pilot 1 (n=12)* TRL 1

6 female 6 male

All British17-18 yrs m=17.3 s=0.5

9 GCSE 3 AS

3-11 mts m=5.7 s=2.4

8 Yes 4 No

Pilot 2 (n=12) Bucks.

3 female 9 male

11 British 1 Non-Brit

17-21 yrs m=17.6 s=1.2

3 GCSE 4 AS 2 A-level 3 Other

3-25 mts m=9.4 s=7.3

8 Yes 4 No

Pilot 3 (n=12) TRL 2

5 female 7 male

10 British 2 Non-Brit

17-26 yrs m=18.6 s=2.9

5 GCSE 2 AS 3 Degree

1-39 mts m=7.4 s=11

8 Yes 2 No

Pilot 4 (n=9) Warwicks.

6 female 3 male

8 British 1 missing

17-19 yrs m=17.4 s=0.7

5 GCSE 2 AS 1 A-level

2-18 mts m=8.2 s=6.3

4 Yes 5 No

*Questionnaire data from three of these participants were incomplete and were excluded from analysis.

4.3 Procedure and measures

The pilots of the Learner Driver Discussion Group included qualitative as well as quantitative research elements. This comprised:

• Pre-post Attitude Questionnaire: A 69 item questionnaire was developed based on previous examples of applications of the Theory of Planned Behaviour in the driving context (e.g. Elliott, Armitage & Baughan, 2003) to measure the attitudes, social norms, behavioural intentions and self-efficacy of the participants before and immediately after participation in the discussion group. The development also took account of the DSA’s “Attitude Advisor”10 and questionnaires developed as part of the evaluation of the Driving Ambitions programme (Milewski & Pierce, 2006), run by Warwickshire County Council and included in addition to the TPB items case study items (n=2) and knowledge testing items (n=2) to test the appropriateness of such item format for the target group. The questionnaire was pre-piloted with n=3 young adults prior to its use in the main pilots to ensure that all questions included were easy to understand and that the time for completing it (13-20 minutes) was not excessive. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix E.

• Group observation: A TRL researcher sat in on all four pilots to observe how the discussion was conducted, to make notes of the facilitator’s and the participants’

10 The Attitude Advisor is a computer-based psychometric tool developed by CAS on behalf of the DSA that can be used on a voluntary basis in the learning to drive process. Developed with particular reference to Theory of Planned Behaviour, three dimensions of the tool are postulated: (1) social responsibility, the likelihood of an individual engaging in behaviour that may negatively impact on others; (2) compliance, the likelihood that an individual is likely to comply with road rules and regulations; and (3) individual risk taking, the likelihood of an individual deliberately engaging in behaviour that puts him/her at risk.


TRL 26 PPR454

input and to document the duration of the different intervention components. Audio-recordings of the discussions were made for all four pilots and pictures of the group were taken at one pilot with the permission of the participants.

• Feedback form: The 19 item form gathered participants’ views on the content, length and facilitation of the discussion group as well as on its perceived effect on their future behaviour as drivers. Attached to the post-intervention questionnaire, the form was to be completed by participants immediately after the discussion group. A copy of the form can be found at the end of the questionnaire in Appendix E.

• Feedback session: The 20 minute session, facilitated by a TRL researcher in the absence of the facilitator aimed to establish:

o If the intervention was interesting, engaging and easy to understand;

o If the way the intervention was structured could be improved;

o If the discussion group was successful in making learners reflect on their driving;

o Which parts of the discussion group were viewed favourably by participants and why; and

o What could be changed to improve the intervention.

A copy of the topic guide can be found in Appendix F.

• Facilitator interview: The interview served to capture the facilitator’s perception and experience of each pilot, including changes made to the teacher plan, group dynamics and ideas for further improvement. A copy of the interview guide can be found in Appendix G.

As shown in Figure 8 participants completed a questionnaire before the start of the discussion group. The discussion was immediately followed by a facilitated feedback session. Subsequently participants completed the post-discussion questionnaire. It would have been preferable to collect participants’ views and attitudes on the discussion group before they could potentially be influenced by the feedback round. However, the pre-piloting of the questionnaire had shown that the time taken for completion varied between participants. To request learner drivers to complete the post-discussion questionnaire before participating in the feedback round would have meant considerable waiting times for some of the participants. These may have negatively affected their views on the discussion group in the feedback round. It is possible that the feedback round reduced the variability in participants’ views subsequently expressed in the post-discussion questionnaire by establishing “group consensus” on the perception of the discussion group.

Each pilot was concluded with an in-depth interview of the facilitator. The co-author, Dr. McWhirter, who had also been instrumental in the development of the teacher plan, facilitated all four pilots. Whilst the facilitator is likely to have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the intervention, it was decided to avoid the introduction of another source of variation at this stage of the research.

Figure 8 Piloting procedure.


TRL 27 PPR454

4.4 Pilot findings: quantitative data

4.4.1 Data screening & analysis

Visual inspection of the data showed that some participants did not complete all items. Data were screened for false entries and one incident of a false entry was corrected.

Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS 14.0.

Paired two-sided t-tests were carried out to identify significant changes between pre and post data for the participants. In the tables below significant differences at the 5% level are marked (*), and differences at the 1% level are marked (**). Items that showed significant differences at either of these levels are shaded in grey. It should of course be noted that in such a small sample, failure to reach statistical significance cannot be taken as conclusive evidence of lack of effect. It is also true that in a set of independent comparisons like those presented below, a proportion would be expected to be statically significant by chance. However, given the exploratory nature of this pilot trial, it was felt that a more rigorous statistical treatment was unnecessary.

4.4.2 Driving-related attitudes

Attitudes were assessed through participants’ 24 ratings of agreement with statements on five or six point Likert scales (1= strongly disagree; 5= strongly agree).

It was expected that attitudes addressed by the Learner Driver Discussion Group would change towards safer, more responsible driving dispositions in participants. As the topics covered by the intervention rely to some degree on the contributions of the participants a wide range of items was included in the questionnaire to capture any occurring change.

Sixteen items measure participants’ perceptions of what constitutes safe driving, novice drivers’ risk of crashes, attitudes towards drink driving/ drug driving, overtaking, distraction (e.g. mobile phone use, tuning radio), seat belt wearing, adhering to speed limits, driving on unfamiliar roads and responsibility associated with driving. The findings from the analysis are shown in Table 3. As the items measuring attitudes were worded positively and negatively, column three of the table indicates if the post-group score should be higher (↑) or lower (↓) to indicate an improvement in the attitude.

Table 3: Comparing participant’s driving related attitudes at before and after the discussion group.

No Item Improvement if post-score is…

n Mean pre

Mean post

S11 pre

Spost

Sign.

Q1 A good driver expects other road users to make mistakes

↑ 42 4.12 4.31 0.97 0.84 .253

Q2 Confident drivers are better drivers

↓ 41 3.24 3.41 1.04 1.16 .291

Q3 Changing lanes frequently to make progress makes it difficult for other drivers to understand where you want to go

↑ 33 4.21 3.85 0.48 1.14 .129

11 S stands for Standard deviation.


TRL 28 PPR454

Continued Improvement if post-score is…

n Mean pre

Mean post

S12

pre Spost

Sign.

Q4 A good driver can exceed the speed limit and still be safe

↓ 42 2.00 2.12 0.94 0.92 .342

Q5 Selecting a higher gear decreases CO2 emissions

- 40 3.05 3.35 1.18 1.17 .116

Q6 Young, novice drivers are less at risk of a crash because they have better reflexes than middle-aged drivers

↓ 42 1.98 1.79 0.92 0.81 .253

Q7 Being able to drive brings with it responsibility for other road users

↑ 41 4.05 4.39 0.81 0.74 .000**

Q8 A good driver avoids distraction from driving

↑ 42 4.24 4.26 0.69 0.86 .830

Q9 There are things that novice drivers can do to reduce their accident risk

↑ 41 4.02 4.24 0.76 0.62 .071

Q10 A good driver can have a few drinks and still be safe

↓ 42 1.40 1.48 0.67 0.55 .372

Q11 A skilled driver can overtake safely, even before blind bends in the road

↓ 41 1.56 1.56 0.63 0.71 1.00

Q12 Drugs don’t reduce the ability to drive safely

↓ 41 1.17 1.22 0.38 0.42 .534

Q13 Compared to experienced drivers, driving on unfamiliar roads is more difficult for newly qualified drivers

↑ 33 3.82 3.76 0.92 1.10 .737

Q14 Lack of experience is an important reason why young, novice drivers have crashes

↑ 41 3.83 4.17 0.80 0.63 .011*

Q15 Even good reflexes may not prevent me from reacting to a hazard in time

↑ 41 3.98 4.12 0.69 0.87 .393

Q16 My risk of being involved in a crash after passing my test is very low

↓ 41 1.85 1.68 0.62 1.01 .280

Statistically significant improvements in participants’ attitudes were found on two items: Learners felt more strongly that being a solo driver is associated with responsibility for other road users after attending the LDDG. In addition, participants were more aware of novice drivers’ particular vulnerability after attending the LDDG. It is also worth noting that the scores on many of the items show that many participants already had reasonably ‘safe’ attitudes before the discussion thus reducing scope for improvement. 12 S stands for Standard deviation.


TRL 29 PPR454

An additional set of eight attitude items required participants to rate a series of driving behaviours on six point Likert scales on three pairs of adjectives: very unsafe/very safe, very boring/ very exciting and very unacceptable/very acceptable. For each attitude item the three ratings were combined to a composite scale and the following tables shows the mean composite ratings were 1= very negative (unsafe, exciting, unacceptable) and 6 is very positive (safe, boring, acceptable). Table 4 presents the results of the paired two-sided t-tests.

Table 4: Comparing participants’ attitudes towards a series of driving behaviours before and after the discussion group (composite scales).


n Mean pre

Mean post

Spre

Spost

Sign.

Q17 Driving after having had a few drinks is…

↓ 39 1.36 1.32 0.59 0.59 .711

Q18 Friends in the car who encourage you to take risks…

↓ 38 1.64 1.43 0.66 0.58 .016*

Q19 Continuing your car journey when you feel sleepy is…

↓ 39 1.87 1.78 0.64 0.78 .377

Q20 Driving close to the car in front is…

↓ 39 2.17 1.78 0.80 0.64 .00**

Q21 Driving and using a mobile phone is…

↓ 38 1.39 1.26 0.52 0.57 .143

Q22 Driving without a seatbelt is…

↓ 37 1.26 1.20 0.37 0.42 .422

Q23 Ignoring the speed limit is…

↓ 37 1.59 1.41 0.59 0.52 .068

Q24 Driving right at your limit of capability is…

↓ 37 3.00 2.24 1.22 1.08 .001**

The findings indicate significant changes towards safer attitudes on three items: friends in the car who encourage the driver to take risks, driving too close to the car in front and driving right at the limit of the driver’s capability were rated to be less safe after participation in the discussion group. All other unsafe driving related behaviour also received less favourable ratings; these changes, however, failed to reach statistical significance.

4.4.3 Subjective norms

Participants rated on five point Likert scales, how much people who were important to them would approve or disapprove of them engaging in a series of risk taking behaviours (1= strongly disapprove; 5= strongly approve). The expectation was that social norms would not be influenced by participation in the discussion group, as their influence operated outside of the content of the discussion group. The findings are shown in Table 5.


TRL 30 PPR454

Table 5: Comparing participants’ subjective norms on a series of driving behaviours before and after the discussion group.

No Item n Mean pre

Mean post

Standard deviation pre

Standard deviation post

Sign.

Q25 Drove after having a few drinks

41 1.34 1.44 0.53 0.48 1.00

Q26 Exceeded the speed limit

41 2.07 1.83 0.69 0.80 .049*

Q27 Didn’t wear a seatbelt when driving

41 1.39 1.32 0.54 0.52 .474

Q28 Used a mobile phone when driving

41 1.63 1.46 0.80 0.75 .181

Q29 Continued driving when feeling sleepy

41 2.07 2.02 0.72 0.79 .858

Q30 Drove when you could be distracted from the driving task

40 2.60 2.53 0.87 0.90 .570

Q31 Read or write text messages when driving

41 1.56 1.56 0.87 0.84 1.00

Q32 Took risks when driving 41 1.61 1.61 0.77 0.80 1.00 Q33 Drove under the

influence of drugs 41 1.02 1.10 0.16 0.37 .262

Q34 Took time to plan the journeys to a place you hadn’t been to before

41 4.34 4.12 0.91 1.12 .264

In line with expectation, participants’ subjective norms remained mostly unchanged by the participation in the Learner Driver Discussion Group. The only significant change observed related to exceeding the speed limit. Participants felt after participation that important persons in their life would look less favourable upon them exceeding the speed limit. A change on this TPB component was not envisaged, because those described as “important others” by the learner drivers such as friends or family members were unlikely to be present in a discussion group where participants did not know each other and could thus not be influenced in their approval or disapproval of the learner’s behaviour. A possible explanation for the change found may be that the discussion group encouraged participants to reflect more deeply on how important others would regard their speeding behaviour and felt that exceeding the speed limit would be regarded less favourably than previously assumed. This explanation, however, cannot account for the absence of statistically significant change on the other subjective norm items.

4.4.4 Behavioural intentions

Behavioural intentions were measured through ratings of anticipated frequency of engaging in a series of risk taking or risk reducing activities (1= never; 5= always) after passing the driving test. As the Learner Driver Discussion Group aims to prepare learners for later solo driving, significant changes towards better planned driving were hoped for. Results are displayed in Table 6.


TRL 31 PPR454

Table 6: Comparing participants’ intention to perform a series of driving behaviours before and after participation in the discussion group.


n Mean pre

Mean post

Spre

Spost

Sign.

Q35 Drink any alcohol and drive

↓ 42 1.40 1.21 0.54 0.61 .019*

Q36 Take time to plan journeys to places you haven’t been to before

↑ 42 3.52 4.00 0.92 0.88 .00**

Q37 Answer your mobile when driving

↓ 42 1.52 1.43 0.94 0.89 .323

Q38 Keep to the speed limits

↑ 42 4.00 4.17 0.86 0.79 .090

Q39 Ring ahead before you start your journey if you are likely to be late

↑ 41 3.56 3.98 0.92 1.04 .005*

Q40 As a passenger, tell other drivers if you are feeling uncomfortable with their driving style

↑ 42 3.12 3.83 1.13 1.08 .001**

Q41 Read or write text messages when you are driving

↓ 42 1.38 1.36 0.76 0.82 .822

Q42 Wear a seat belt when driving, even for short trips

↑ 42 4.95 4.93 0.22 0.26 .570

Q43 Adjust the radio or music player when driving

↓ 42 3.29 3.12 1.11 0.97 .146

Q44 Drive when distracted from the driving task

↓ 42 2.74 2.90 1.04 1.02 .267

Q45 Drive under time pressure to reach your destination

↓ 42 2.88 2.62 1.02 0.91 .147

Q46 Leave big gaps to the vehicle driving in front

↑ 42 3.95 4.07 0.80 0.71 .281

Q47 Wear a seatbelt when being a passenger

↑ 42 4.93 4.95 0.34 0.22 .710

Q48 Be particularly cautious when confronted with new driving situations

↑ 42 4.24 4.26 0.73 0.83 .864

Q49 Seek further information on how to stay safe as a driver

↑ 42 3.33 3.83 1.41 0.99 .001**

Q50 Pull over for a nap when you feel tired

↑ 41 3.34 3.56 1.15 1.27 .193

Q51 Take a taxi/ring your parents if your designated driver has drunk alcohol

↑ 42 4.55 4.60 0.74 0.73 .675

Q52 Take any drugs and drive

↓ 42 1.00 1.05 0.00 0.31 .323

Q53 Avoid driving when feeling sleepy

↑ 42 3.81 3.48 0.94 1.31 .099


TRL 32 PPR454

In line with expectations the findings suggest that after participation in the Learner Driver Discussion Group participants had significantly higher intentions to abstain from drink driving, to take time to plan unfamiliar journeys in advance, to ring ahead if they were running late, to be more assertive as a passenger and also seek further information on how to stay safe as a driver.

4.4.5 Self efficacy

The self-efficacy component of the questionnaire required participants to rate their confidence of being able to carry out risk reducing behaviours once they had become solo drivers (1= not at all confident; 5= very confident). Again, the expectation for this component of the TPB was to see significant improvement of self-efficacy in learner drivers after participation in the discussion group. Table 7 displays the findings.

Table 7: Comparing participants’ self-efficacy on a series of driving behaviours before and after participation in the discussion group.


n Mean pre

Mean post

Spre

Spost

Sign.

Q59 Not answer the mobile phone when it’s ringing whilst you are driving

↑ 41 3.88 4.07 1.31 1.31 .323

Q60 Wear a seatbelt even if other people in the car are not wearing one

↑ 41 4.61 4.73 0.92 0.74 .491

Q61 Not take drugs and drive ↑ 41 4.61 4.71 1.14 0.98 .553 Q62 Tell your designated

driver that you won’t be getting into the car if he/she takes drugs

↑ 41 4.41 4.56 1.10 0.87 .403

Q63 Ask a driver to slow down if you are feeling uncomfortable with his/her driving speed

↑ 41 3.83 4.02 1.14 0.99 .282

Q64 Stay within the speed limit even when your friends want to go faster

↑ 41 4.07 4.27 0.88 0.87 .282

Q65 Ask the driver to slow down if he/she is breaking the speed limit

↑ 41 3.59 3.88 1.00 1.03 .135

Q66 Tell your designated driver that you won’t be getting into the car if he/she drinks alcohol

↑ 41 4.44 4.49 0.90 0.95 .803

Q67 Avoid driving when feeling sleepy

↑ 41 3.59 3.93 1.02 0.96 .085

Q68 Take time to plan journeys to unfamiliar destinations

↑ 41 3.71 3.98 0.98 0.99 .117

Q69 Avoid driving when being distracted from the driving task

↑ 41 3.07 3.41 1.13 1.14 .133

Q70 Think about all options open to you and consider the risks when making driving-related decisions

↑ 41 3.90 4.17 0.89 0.92 .117


TRL 33 PPR454

Contrary to expectations, there were no changes in participant’s level of confidence to perform the driving related behaviours before and after attending the LDDG. However, at the pre-pilot stage, ratings ranged from 3.07 to 4.61, on a five-point Likert scale where 1 denoted ‘not at all confident’ and 5 denoted ‘very confident’. This rather high level of confidence may have produced a ceiling effect, limiting the scope for the discussions to improve the scores further.

4.4.6 Knowledge of facts and statistics relating to novice drivers

Two items were included to measure participants’ knowledge of facts and statistics relating to young novice drivers’ crash risk to test the appropriateness of this item format for potential later inclusion in the comprehensive evaluation. These questions were taken from the road safety quiz that formed part of the discussion group content. The two questions were:

Q 54: If you are a recently qualified driver your chances of having at least one collision in the first year after your test are… a) One in five, b) One in ten and c) One in twenty

Q 55: In 2006 more young car drivers aged 17 to 25 were killed than in 1996… a) True b) False

For Q54 47.6% of learner drivers gave the correct answer before participating in the discussion group and this percentage increased to 90.5% after participation. This suggests a significant increase in knowledge and statistics relating to novice drivers. However, for Q55 90.5% of learner drivers correctly answered before participation, but only 50% after participation in the discussion group. Discussing this finding with the group facilitator and the TRL researcher who had conducted the feedback session, the most likely explanation of this finding is that the message contained in the road safety quiz was too sophisticated to be grasped by discussion group participants in the time available for this intervention component. Specifically, the quiz made two statements about crash risk of young novice drivers: (1) the number of young people aged 17 to 25 years seriously injured in crashes has fallen between 1997 and 2007; (2) the number of young people aged 17-25 years killed in crashes has risen between 1996 and 2006. The responses to item Q55 seems to suggest that participants remembered the earlier trend and did not pick up on the fact that the number of killed young drivers had actually risen. This suggests that messages in the road safety quiz need to be simplified to ensure that correct conclusions are drawn by all participants.

4.4.7 Case study items

A further two items tested the applicability of a case study format for potential later inclusion in the comprehensive evaluation. The items aimed to measure improvements in participants’ ability to choose strategies of safely dealing with potentially dangerous driving situations. The findings from the literature suggested that the TPB successfully measures planned and intentional behaviour, but may be less appropriate to account for more spontaneous behaviour that may be triggered by situational circumstances. The case study approach was thus employed to test participants’ willingness to behave in situations where spontaneous behaviour was likely to occur (e.g. “I’ll just quickly make a call, because my friend is waiting”). The two items included were:

Item Q57: You have agreed to pick up your friend Alex in town after a doctor’s appointment. Inner city traffic is heavy and you are going to be late. What do you do?

1. Alex will have to wait a little. I have already warned Alex that traffic might delay me.

2. It’s too late to warn Alex. Alex will have to wait.


TRL 34 PPR454

3. I’ll make a quick call on my mobile when waiting at a red traffic light to let Alex know I’ll be late.

4. I’ll quickly text Alex that I’ll be late whilst driving along.

Item Q58: You are going out clubbing on a Saturday night and your friend Chris has offered to be the designated driver. Later at night, however, you discover that Chris has been drinking. What do you do?

1. It’s Chris’s responsibility and licence. I’ll still let Chris drive me home.

2. I persuade Chris to take a taxi and fetch the car in the morning.

3. I ring my parents or friends to come and pick us up.

The optimal answer options were option 1 for Q57 and 2 or 3 for Q58. Response frequency distributions for both items are shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Response distributions for case study items Q57 and Q58.

Q57 Item response options Pre Post

1 Alex will have to wait a little. I have already warned Alex that traffic might delay me.

35 (85.4%) 38 (95.5%)

2 It’s too late to warn Alex. Alex will have to wait. 5 (12.2%) 4 (9.5%)

3 I’ll make a quick call on my mobile when waiting at a red traffic light to let Alex know I’ll be late.

1 (2.4%) 0 (0%)

4 I’ll quickly text Alex that I’ll be late whilst driving along.

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Q 58 Item response options Pre Post

1 It’s Chris’s responsibility and licence. I’ll still let Chris drive me home.

0 (0%) 0 (0%)

2 I persuade Chris to take a taxi and fetch the car in the morning.

15 (35.7%) 18 (42.9%)

3 I ring my parents or friends to come and pick us up.

27 (64.3%) 24 (57.1%)

The results suggest that ceiling effects were prevalent for both items indicating extreme item difficulty13. Whilst more learner drivers chose safe strategies after participating in the intervention, they selected safe strategies to deal with the described situations even prior to the Learner Driver Discussion Group. Hence, whilst case study formats may in principle lend themselves to measuring improvements in attitudes and safe strategy selection, the development of item response options will require considerable effort to achieve a set of case studies that leave sufficient scope for improvements in scores and that allow to discriminate between those participants who know what safe strategies are and those who are not. This question could be of particular relevance for later evaluation stages where comparisons between participants and a control may be made (see Chapter 5).

13 Item difficulty is a concept from test construction and refers to the percentage of a group who answered the item correctly. Item difficulty reveals whether an item is too easy or too hard. Items of extreme difficulty are undesirable because they don’t aid the differentiation between responders who remember the previous learning material and those who do not.


TRL 35 PPR454

4.4.8 Feedback form

The 20 item feedback form, which formed part of the post-intervention questionnaire, asked learner drivers to express how participation in the intervention had affected them by indicating the applicability of a series of statements on five point Likert scales (1= not at all true, 5= very true). The results are shown in Table 9.

Table 9: Benefits of attending the LDDG for participants.

No Item m std min maxQ71 I am more aware of the risk of young novice drivers

being involved in a crash 4.46 0.87 1 5

Q72 I better understand that a good driver is also a safe driver

4.24 0.80 1 5

Q73 I am more aware of other people’s influence on my driving style

4.39 0.80 1 5

Q74 I better understand the risks I will face once I have passed my test

4.41 0.95 1 5

Q75 I feel I am better able to deal with hazards when driving 4.10 1.07 1 5Q76 I feel I am better prepared for the risks associated with

solo driving 4.17 0.97 1 5

Q77 I feel more responsible for the sort of driver I am going to be

4.24 0.94 1 5

Q78 I am more aware of the things I still need to learn to become a safe solo driver

4.32 0.97 1 5

Q79 I feel it helped me to develop a more courteous and considerate attitude towards other road users

4.00 1.10 1 5

As illustrated in the table, participants were generally very positive about their experience of attending the Learner Driver Discussion Group. They thought that they had become more aware of the risk of being a young, novice driver and more aware of other people’s influence on their driving. They felt that they had developed a better understanding that safe driving is a pre-requisite for good driving. Participants indicated that they had gained a better understanding of the risks they would face once they had passed their test and were better prepared to deal with them. Participants felt they had learnt to be a more responsible and a safer driver and they felt that the intervention had helped them develop a considerate attitude towards other road users.


TRL 36 PPR454

Participants were also asked to rate some characteristics of the discussion group and the facilitation using five point Likert scales (1= strongly disagree; 5= strongly agree). The findings are summarised in Table 10.

Table 10: Characteristics of the discussion group and facilitation.

No Item m std min maxQ80 I enjoyed participating in the learner discussion group 4.39 0.54 3 5Q81 Participating in the learner discussion group was a waste

of time 1.54 0.84 1 5

Q82 The discussion group was too long 2.44 1.00 1 5Q83 The content of the discussion group was easy to

understand 4.61 0.54 1 5

Q84 The facilitator was likeable 4.54 0.60 3 5Q85 The facilitator respected me and my opinions 4.56 0.59 3 5Q86 The facilitator seemed knowledgeable of road-safety

related matters 4.63 0.54 3 5

Q87 The facilitator encouraged me to contribute to the discussion

4.46 0.67 3 5

Q88 I would recommend the discussion group to other learner drivers

4.37 0.77 2 5

Q89 The time spent at the discussion group was time well spent

4.34 0.79 2 5

Results showed that participants enjoyed participating in the discussion group and found the content easy to understand. They did not regard the discussion group to be a waste of time and thought that the length of the discussion group was appropriate. Participants stated that they would recommend the discussion group to other learner drivers. Their views regarding the facilitation were also very positive: they thought the facilitator was likeable, respected them and their opinions, seemed knowledgeable of road-safety related matters and encouraged participants to contribute to the discussion.

4.5 Pilot findings: Qualitative data

The observations made by the TRL researcher at each of the Learner Driver Discussion Groups pilots, the group feedback received from participants at the end of each pilot and the interviews with the facilitator at the end of every pilot are combined in this section to illuminate the perceived benefits of attending the discussion group, outline observed group dynamics, facilitation characteristics and recommendations for further improvement of the intervention.

4.5.1 Perceived benefits of the Learner Driver Discussion Group

Prepares for independent driving

Many participants felt that the Learner Driver Discussion Group encouraged them to consider their driving habits and attitudes after they had passed their test. Some had not considered the challenges of driving independently and enjoyed discussing these with other learner drivers.

“Instructors teach you more how to pass your test and not exactly how to drive…you have to really think about what you’re going to do when you’re in a car on your own, you have to think about these things.” (Participant from LDDG 3)


TRL 37 PPR454

“I learnt some things about driving I did not know and it has made me more aware of things that go on after I have passed my test, for instance I did not think about planning a journey before I go out.” (Participant from LDDG 4)

Increases awareness of vulnerability of novice drivers

The feedback from participants indicated that the Learner Driver Discussion Group increased participants’ awareness for the vulnerability of novice drivers. Prior to attending the discussion group, none of the participants had appreciated the over-representation of new drivers in road accidents.

“Made me more aware of what I need to know as a young/novice driver and more aware of what is going on. I feel like I could change how I would act in a car. I need to be more calm and aware of people around me. Tonight has helped me think about that.” (Participant from LDDG 1)

“Made me more aware of things that are going on with people of their age group, how they drive. My take home message will be to take my time with driving.” (Participant from LDDG 2)

Identifies the steps towards becoming a safer driver

Learner drivers felt that the theory test equipped them with the theoretic knowledge of safe driving. However, discussions with other learner drivers in the group setting helped them consider the realities and practicalities of driving safely, such as the importance of staying calm, planning journeys and minimising distractions.

“Made me more aware of what safe driving actually is, and the need to plan ahead.” (Participant from LDDG 3)

“Stay calm on the road whatever happens, will make me a safer driver.” (Participant from LDDG 4)

“Reminded me how much there is to concentrate on, have started to get into habit of chatting in the car.” (Participant from LDDG 2)

Increases self-efficacy with respect to learning to drive

According to the participants the discussion group had improved their driving-related knowledge, awareness of risks and confidence in their ability to manage difficult situations when driving.

“It has reminded me that you need to be prepared for situations that can occur that you did not expect. I did not know most of the facts that I have been told tonight and I think it has made me a bit more aware and more confident about my driving.” (Participant from LDDG 4)

“Not get too worried about what other drivers are doing, try to be confident that she can cope with whatever happens.” (Participant from LDDG 1)

4.5.2 Group dynamics

Interaction in small groups

The Learner Driver Discussion Group adopted an adult learning approach, where participants worked together in small groups and the facilitator guided the discussion. The success of the intervention was reliant on participants taking part and contributing to the discussion. Participant feedback suggests that learner drivers enjoyed the interaction.


TRL 38 PPR454

“Interaction in smaller groups was good because you had to contribute.” (Participants from LDDG 2)

“It is different from seeing a horrible thing like you get in most road safety stuff because you are interacting with other people and it makes you think about it personally. Chatting in the group made me think about what I do on the road and what other people do on the road, rather than being horrified and scared and I think that was good.” (Participant from LDDG 3)

The facilitator noted that participants tended to be more vocal in the smaller group exercises, while discussions with all participants tended to be dominated by two or three participants:

“In this group, there were only one or two vociferous people. Apart from that people were quite quiet, except for when they were in small groups. In small groups they talked quite a lot. It is a disadvantage that people don’t know each other because they think ‘do I dare to say this, because I may get the evil look’ or ‘they will think I’m silly.’” (Facilitator after LDDG 2)

Participants known to each other versus participants unknown to each other

In three of the four discussion groups, none of the group members knew each other prior to the intervention. Participants thought that it took a while to feel comfortable to express their views freely. Some, however, also suggested that not knowing each other helped in discussing their opinions and that they were more likely to be honest.

“If I was doing this at school I would want to chat with my mates instead of thinking about it.” (Participant from LDDG 4)

“It’s a bit of both because if you know them you might not be as truthful –you won’t worry about upsetting someone because it does not matter. If you know them you might be a bit more careful of what you say. If I say that they might think a bit differently of me.” (Participant from LDDG 2)

Some participants in the Buckinghamshire pilot, who knew others in the group, reported that this allowed them to feel relaxed and to enjoy the discussion. Participants also felt that knowing other participants would allow them to carry on these discussions outside the group.

“Some different views were expressed in some task which not all of us were comfortable with (e.g. speed). It was helpful to think about what the consequences of speeding were and think about whether it was ok to speed. I think knowing each other helped because we all felt comfortable and able to express our views even if they did not agree with each other”. (Participant from LDDG 3)

For the facilitator it was challenging working with groups that did not know each other. She reported having had to work harder to achieve rapport with the group and to create an atmosphere where participants would be comfortable to freely express their views. She also noted that in the pilots where participants did not know each other they were hesitant to divulge personal information during the discussion. According to the facilitator the inclusion of activities such as role playing is not feasible in a group setting where participants do not know each other, because trust cannot be established quickly enough during the discussion session.

With regard to group composition, the facilitator advocated that it was important to have learner drivers with a variety of driving experience in the group to be able to effectively refer to prior learning experience.

The facilitator found small groups easier because she could remember names and something about each participant, thereby making it easier to build a rapport with the participants. However, she reported that it was difficult for a single facilitator to control


TRL 39 PPR454

ongoing discussions in small group work to ensure that no risky attitudes were promoted during such activities. She therefore advocated the use of two facilitators to be able to monitor messages at all times.

4.5.3 Facilitation

Participants positively commented on the facilitator’s ability to challenge their views rather than telling them that the views were wrong. They felt that the facilitator had the required skills to engage them in the discussion, including being sociable, cheerful, friendly, and easy to interact with. In addition, they suggested that the facilitator was credible and had knowledge of road safety. The examples used in the group to illustrate points were perceived to be clear and appropriate.

“We were given a chance to express our views freely. Our views were questioned rather than corrected. I liked the fact that we did not get preached at.” (Participant from LDDG 3)

“I liked the fact that (name of facilitator) talked to us on our level. She did not act like she knew so much more.” (Participant from LDDG 2)

“It’s really important for facilitators of the discussion group to have a sense of humour, good interpersonal skills, not be judgemental and be an experienced driver so that he/she can draw upon their skills.” (Facilitator)

4.5.4 Attitudes towards implementation

Attending the learner driver discussion group was regarded as useful when learning to driver, and participants reported that they would recommend it to their peers.

“It is useful to do the discussion group while you are learning to drive or just after qualification because it reiterates the importance of being careful.” (Participant from LDDG 3)

However, participants also suggested that learner drivers may not be likely to participate if the discussion group was voluntary. Any expense of paying for attending the group activity would further deter learner drivers from participating.

“It’s one more expensive activity to fork out for. It’s expensive enough learning to drive.” (Participant from LDDG 3)

“It will be nice to do this in school; driving is expensive and there is so much you have to do that young people are unlikely to do this if it’s voluntary.” (Participant from LDDG 2)

Having attended the discussion group, participants felt that they would recommend it to other learner drivers.

“I would recommend it; it’s good because it teaches you so much more than a driving instructor or the theory test.” (Participant from LDDG 4)

“I think a lot of it is stuff you already know, but I’d recommend it. It’s good because it shows you how to deal with passengers too, which ADIs don’t always do.” (Participant from LDDG 3)

4.5.5 Criticisms and recommendations for improvement

Some participants suggested that the content of the discussion group was repetitive and they were already familiar with the content and did not learn new information.

“It was slightly repetitive, but I suppose it’s just trying to get the message across.” (Participant from LDDG 2)


TRL 40 PPR454

“It felt like a school lesson especially with its reliance on paper tasks. I think it would have been nice to have more group activities and more variety on the tasks… It felt like the same messages were being given to us in each of the tasks. It was very repetitive.” (Participants from LDDG 1)

“Most of the stuff, I already knew about, so there’s not a huge take-home message.…It did feel like it was aimed at a school audience, like the bit where you had to say the vulnerable road users, kind of getting it out rather than just saying…everyone seemed to know what was coming up next…that felt a bit like school.” (Participants from LDDG 1)

Some participants suggested that the Learner Driver Discussion group could have been improved by including shocking facts and pictures.

The addition of more visual and multimedia material was frequently requested. Other suggestions included more in-depth explanations or addressing of other driver groups.

“More shocking figures. Something that will change people’s behaviour.” (Participant from LDDG1)

“Perhaps some pictures of videos of what crashes. Visual materials are more likely to be remembered.” (Participant from LDDG 1)

“In-depth explanations would have been useful. For example, why partially blind people are vulnerable?” (Participant from LDDG 2)

“How to handle other drivers, for example, aggressive drivers, because there are a lot of them who don’t pay attention to the fact that you’re a new driver. It gets quite scary at times.” (Participant from LDDG 4)

4.5.6 Revision of the teacher plan

In-depth interviews with the facilitator after each discussion group pilot were used to collect ideas for improving the Learner Driver Discussion Group further. Based on the review of all findings from the pilots, the teacher plan was revised in collaboration with the facilitator. In particular, improvements were made to the process by changing the order of some intervention components, expanding on the planning of strategies to keep safe, inclusion of further discussion on the importance of social norms on driving. A copy of the revised teacher plan can be found in Appendix H.

4.6 Summary

4.6.1 Changes in TPB components

The comparison of participants’ driving-related attitudes and behavioural intentions indicated that in line with expectations some significant changes had taken place between pre and post intervention. Improved attitudes comprised:

• Greater recognition of drivers’ responsibility towards other road users;

• Acknowledgement of the fact that inexperience puts young, novice drivers at risk of crashes;

• Greater disapproval of peer passengers who encourage the driver to take risks;

• Greater acknowledgement of the risk associated with close following;

• Greater disapproval of driving at the limit of one’s capacity.

With regards to behavioural implementation intentions, participants predicted that they would more often:


TRL 41 PPR454

• Take time to plan journeys to unfamiliar destinations;

• Ring ahead before starting a journey if delays would be expected;

• Be assertive as a passenger;

• Seek further information on how to stay safe as a driver;

and would:

• drink alcohol and drive less often.

According to the three highest ratings on the participant feedback form, learners felt that they were more aware of young, novice drivers’ risk of being involved in a crash, that they better understood the risks they were going to face once they had passed the driving test and that they were more aware of other people’s influence on their driving style. These ratings seem to support the notion that the intervention was successful in alerting and preparing learners for the challenges of solo driving as well as to make them aware of the factors that may have influenced the way they drive. It should, however, be noted that for all feedback forms items that addressed the perceived benefit of the intervention, ratings of scale point 1 occurred, suggesting that the intervention was not regarded positively by all participants.

The social norm component of the TPB was not expected to show any significant changes as the values held by important others in the life of learner drivers can arguably not be influenced by the Learner Driver Discussion Group (assuming that important others are not other participants in the intervention). Contrary to expectation, a significant change was found on one of the items measuring subjective norm. This suggested that after participation in the intervention, participants felt that important others in their life would disapprove more strongly of them if they exceeded the speed limit. A possible explanation for this finding is that participants may have been encouraged by the intervention to consider more deeply how their behaviour would be judged by important others. However, this explanation fails to account for why this deeper processing would only be reflected in speeding behaviour.

Contrary to expectation, no significant changes were found on any items relating to participants’ perceived ability to implement safe driving behaviours after transition to solo driving. For some items the scope for improvement was low anyway, since self-efficacy ratings were already high prior to the discussion. However, closer inspection of the items seems to indicate that participants thought it more difficult to act decisively in situations where an unsafe process was already ongoing. Learner drivers seemed to be more confident to be able to avoid becoming involved in a potentially dangerous process. For example, participants were more confident that they could tell their designated driver that they would not get into the car if he/she drank alcohol than that they could ask the driver to slow down if she/he was breaking the speed limit. The lower ratings for the ‘ongoing’ situations, and the fact that the discussion did not improve these ratings significantly, indicates a clear need for improving the Learner Driver Discussion Group further. Strategies for safe driving need to be conveyed that participants find realistic and are confident to be able to implement in challenging situations as later solo drivers. This could imply the inclusion of assertiveness training elements such as role play in the intervention. Whilst such elements could be a useful addition to improve self-efficacy, it may be a bridge too far for a group of participants who do not know each other and may not want to betray too much about themselves.

4.6.2 Feedback on the intervention

Participants’ feedback on the discussion group and facilitation seemed to suggest that the intervention was enjoyable, not too long and pitched at the right level. Learner drivers found the facilitator likeable, knowledgeable and felt that their views were taken seriously. This finding underlines the significance of the facilitator in bringing about the improvement of attitudes and the importance of unconditional positive regard towards


TRL 42 PPR454

learner drivers that enables them to express their views and consider their future choices as drivers in a responsible way.

The Learner Driver Discussion Group was developed to rely on the input from its participants, to encourage them to reflect, express and re-evaluate rather than rely on multi-media tools that require participants to just sit, watch and absorb. A prerequisite for open discussion and participation is, however, the willingness of participants to disclose their views and feelings. Feedback from participants and the facilitator shows that speaking out in a group of strangers is a difficult task and that group forming processes need to be encouraged to ensure its success. The current pilots, which included one group where some participants knew each other, allowed the comparison of prior acquaintance with other participants with no such acquaintance. Feedback suggests that the former enabled participants to interact more freely and that this pilot, despite that fact that it comprised potentially high risk drivers, was the most successful and enjoyable pilot of the four.

The inclusion of activities is also likely to be limited by what rapport can realistically be established in a group where participants have never met before. This may mean that formats such as role play cannot be included in an intervention that is limited to 2.5 hours.

4.6.3 Outlook

In summary, the results are encouraging as they suggest that participation in the intervention has not lead to any significant deterioration in participants’ driving-related attitudes. Instead, significant improvements on a range of items have been identified. The changes seem to relate to the planning of and responsibility for driving, the allowing of greater safety margins to allow for one’s own and others’ mistakes and the effects of distraction/ peer pressure. Items that relate to the execution of driving itself such as speed choice or overtaking which were, as the observation of all pilots showed, not explicitly addressed in any pilot of the Learner Driver Discussion Group did not change significantly. This suggests that the attitude improvements result from the content of the discussion rather than simply from participation, or from a bias towards producing socially acceptable responses and demand characteristics14.

It could also be argued that the fact that the activities and content of the intervention were changed slightly between pilots should increase variability of responses on the dependent variables and should thus make it harder for any effect to become significant. However, whilst the findings are indeed encouraging, their significance should also not be overstated. To ascertain reliably the effects of participation in the discussion, and whether such effects are produced by the content of the discussion an experimental design with a control group and randomised group allocation will be required. Here, any changes in comparing before and after measures in learner drivers participating in the intervention could be compared to changes in a control group who had not been exposed to the intervention.

Furthermore, longer-term effects of the discussion group on safety need to be explored to ascertain if any positive effects of participation on attitude and behaviour are sustained over time and, critically, until the participants have started to drive solo.

Recommendations as to how the effectiveness of the Learner Driver Discussion Group can robustly ascertained are outlined in the final chapter of this report. The aim of the pilots reported here was limited to testing the intervention with the target sample and deriving preliminary indications of its effectiveness – this aim was attained with clear evidence in favour of the intervention.

14 Demand characteristics lead study participants to behave in line with (or contrary to) an experimenter’s hypotheses and outcome expectations.


TRL 43 PPR454

5 An evaluation framework for the Learner Driver Discussion Group

The Learner Driver Discussion Group is a two-hour facilitated group discussion aimed at improving learner drivers’ driving-related attitudes, risk awareness and behavioural strategies for future solo driving. These aims are stipulated in the intervention’s five learning goals:





5. Developing learners’ self-efficacy & risk mitigation strategies; encouraging them to take responsibility for their learning process and increasing their awareness of behavioural choice.

The Learner Driver Discussion Group addresses young adults’ lifestyle and driving motives, comprising a series of small group exercises that encourage participants to reflect on and consider:

• What solo driving will enable them to do;

• What experiences they have already made as road users that may help them in their early solo driving career;

• What they may still need to learn to be safe;

• That a good driver is a safe driver;

• That novice drivers are particularly at risk of a crash and why;

• That monitoring of hazards in a dynamic environment requires processing time;

• Strategies that may help them to stay safe during early solo driving.

Chapter 4 of this report has summarised the findings from early stages of evaluative efforts, namely:

• The testing of the popularity and acceptance of the intervention with different participant groups, including potentially high risk groups;

• Preliminary indications of its effectiveness in promoting safe attitudes and future driving behaviour; and

• Further refinements of the intervention based on the insights gathered during piloting.

Findings from qualitative and quantitative preliminary research were encouraging, indicating that the intervention was regarded favourably by its participants and was considered to be a useful preparation for the challenges of later solo driving. Significant improvements of attitudes and behavioural intentions were observed; however, without being able to attribute them causally to the effects of the intervention.

Before it can be concluded that the Learner Driver Discussion Group reliably achieves the learning outcomes it was designed for, and prior to its implementation as a voluntary


TRL 44 PPR454

intervention for learner drivers on a national basis, further steps towards its comprehensive evaluation need to be taken.

5.1 Research questions for the comprehensive evaluation

A review of current discussion based interventions in the area of driver training, carried out earlier in the project indicated that many interventions have not (yet) been evaluated in terms of their (medium and long-term) impact on participants’ driving-related attitudes, their driving behaviour and road safety. Such evidence is, however, required if resources for the discussion groups are to be allocated in a targeted and cost-effective manner with tangible safety benefits.

Further testing of the Learner Driver Discussion Group’s effectiveness therefore is required. This relates specifically to three questions:

1. Does participation in the refined Learner Driver Discussion Group lead to improved performance on its five learning goals with a variety of learner driver group compositions (e.g. age, educational attainment, cultural background, gender)?

2. Are improvements on the five learning goals of the intervention sustained over a period of time and, particularly, do they have a beneficial effect on early solo driving, where the novice driver is most at risk of a crash?

3. Can facilitators be trained so that they reliably deliver the Learner Driver Discussion Group in such a way that anticipated safety benefits are achieved?

Whilst the first two questions which relate to measuring potential benefits of the intervention and the sustainability of such benefits over time are considered as part of the discussion of evaluation principles in section 5.2, the following two sub-sections consider the question who may act as facilitators and how the quality of facilitation could be ensured if the intervention were to be rolled out as a national scheme.

5.1.1 Facilitator training for Learner Driver Discussion Group

Within the scope of the current project the systematic investigation of the influence of facilitator skills on the effectiveness of the intervention was not possible. However, it is evident from the pilots that the facilitator is crucially important in encouraging discussions that will lead to the intended learning outcomes. The findings from the pilots of the intervention suggest that the facilitator needs background knowledge in road

Recommendations:

The effectiveness of the Learner Driver Discussion Group should be evaluated comprehensively to enable DSA to make an evidence-based decision on its implementation as a national scheme.

Three questions are to be answered within this evaluation:

• Does the Learner Driver Discussion Group significantly improve the knowledge, attitudes and skills of a diverse set of participants?

• Are such benefits likely to provide solo drivers with a safety advantage over those who have not participated in the discussion group?

• Can the Learner Driver Discussion Group be delivered by different facilitators in an effective manner?


TRL 45 PPR454

safety, experience as a driver, communication and coaching skills as well as positive regard for young adults as autonomous decision makers. Further support for this comes from research suggesting that in order to encourage learner drivers to develop competence and insight into their learning process a shift from instruction to coaching in the supervising instructor is required (Harrison and Harrison, 2002). Coaching focuses on allowing the learner to develop skills through practice and experience with guidance and feedback rather than trying to teach the participant to do things correctly. To inform the selection of appropriate facilitators for the Learner Driver Discussion Group in future, further details on necessary facilitator skills and qualities are required. A future task should therefore be the review of the literature on facilitation in adult learning and coaching practices. Some work has already been carried out on this topic in previous stages of this project. This will need to be revisited and expanded to derive the most appropriate recommendations for the Learner Driver Discussion Group.

To test whether the Learner Driver Discussion Group can be successfully delivered by different facilitators, and to further specify the ‘job description’ an effective facilitator should fit, the development of a training programme for facilitators will be required comprising the compilation of a detailed trainer manual and a practical training course. Development of manual and training course would utilise the information gathered in depth-interviews with the discussion group’s facilitator during piloting stage to inform prospective facilitators of techniques that were found to be more or less successful during piloting.

The training will ensure that prospective facilitators acquire an awareness of the thinking underpinning the intervention and knowledge of relevant facts in the road safety context, but are also able to practise and apply these principles in a facilitation context where dynamic group processes significantly affect the learning. It is anticipated that the length of the facilitator workshop may vary depending on previous experience of group facilitation, but could in principal be achieved in a two-day training programme. We suggest that the training course and training manual would be compiled and delivered in collaboration with the co-author, Dr. McWhirter, who had facilitated all four discussion group pilots.

5.1.2 Potential future facilitators and dissemination workshop

In considering prospective facilitators of the Learner Driver Discussion Group several possibilities present themselves. This includes in the main Road Safety Officers, teachers and driving instructors.

Approximately 46,000 ADIs are currently registered by the DSA (DSA, 2007). A survey carried out by Red Scientific in 2005 suggests that a large proportion of the ADI population works as self employed sole traders, with many instructors joining the industry as a second or third career choice following a life changes such as redundancy (the study is described in DSA, 2007). In the survey, the majority of respondents indicated that they had no other qualification that they considered relevant to their role as driving instructors and that they only taught practical driving skills (and not theory or

Recommendations:

A review of facilitator competences should be conducted informed by work carried out in earlier stages of the project.

In collaboration with the facilitator of the Learner Driver Discussion Group pilots, Dr McWhirter, a training manual and training course for facilitators should be developed that should equip potential deliverers of the discussion group with the necessary knowledge, skills and techniques to deliver the intervention successfully, creating the anticipated safety benefits for its participants.


TRL 46 PPR454

hazard perception). Consultation with industry representatives further revealed that varying standards of driving instruction are being delivered. Many learners are being prepared to pass the driving test rather than being trained to acquire the skills and knowledge for safe driving for life.

A competency framework for driving instructors has been designed by Red Scientific and has been further developed by CAS in preparation for the step change in delivering the DSA Safe Driving For Life vision. ADIs’ roles and responsibilities as well as learning content and process of learning to drive are likely to fundamentally change. This could include a process of ‘up-skilling’ ADIs to enable them to carry out the potential future requirements of influencing driver attitudes as well as conducting competence based training and assessment. DSA has coined the expression of ‘super ADIs’ in this context to describe instructors with an accredited portfolio of (coaching) skills and capabilities that are likely to positively impact other areas of driver training and development.

The current developments in the professional development of Approved Driving Instructors could mean that this group delivers the Learner Driver Discussion Group in future. Alternatively, delivery by teachers in school classes or by Road Safety Officers in Local Authority facilities may be possible. In considering possibilities for the implementation of the intervention, the idea of opening up the intervention to other target groups could also be explored though appropriate changes would be required to tailor it to the needs and knowledge of these groups.

Even in the absence of a decision on who is to deliver the intervention eventually, we recommend gathering potential users’ views on the Learner Driver Discussion Group at a time when changes to its content may still be possible. Exposing the intervention to an audience of educationalists and road safety community would a) allow further refinements on the basis of experts’ opinion, but would very likely b) also lead to greater awareness and acceptance of it and could thus c) benefit later take up and delivery by a variety of stakeholders.

5.2 Evaluation principles and difficulties inherent in the evaluation of educational programmes

5.2.1 (Quasi) experimental designs

A distinction with regards to evaluation is made between “formative evaluation”, which is a method of judging the worth of a programme while the programme activities are forming or happening and “summative evaluation”, which is a method of judging the worth of a programme at the end of the programme activities. Whilst formative evaluation focuses on the process, summative evaluation focuses on the outcome (Bhola 1990).

Process evaluation is most frequently assessed through qualitative measures (such as in-depth interviews or focus groups with those who deliver or participate in the intervention) and is typically carried out throughout the development of the intervention with a view to optimise it. Summative evaluation on the other hand aims “…to establish,

Recommendations:

With the delivery mechanism for the Learner Driver Discussion Group being undecided at this point in time, a dissemination event should be organised where the discussion group can be presented to stakeholders to a) gather feedback and suggestions for further refinement and b) create acceptance and demand for the intervention by potential deliverers in the road safety and education community.


TRL 47 PPR454

with as much certainty as possible, whether or not an intervention is producing its intended effects” (Rossi, Freeman & Wright 1979).

In assessing the effectiveness of an intervention, the following model is applied.

Gross effect = net effect + effects of extraneous variables + design effects

This equation indicates that the gross observed change over the course of an education programme is the result of a combination of effects from the intervention itself, the effects of external variables that affect the outcome and of the research design applied to measure programme effectiveness.

Underlying all evaluation is the logic of experimentation with its theory of causation: two groups of participants are used; in a fully experimental design participants are randomly allocated to the groups; non-random allocation renders it a quasi-experimental design. Whilst random allocation to control or treatment group is the gold standard of experimentation, this techniques may not always be applicable, e.g. when comparing subjects that are already “naturally” organised in groups.

After participant grouping, one group receives the treatment (e.g. participates in the Learner Driver Discussion Group), the other one does not. Both groups are measured before (pre-treatment) and after the treatment (post-treatment). ‘Pre-treatment’ or ‘baseline’ refers the existing level of safe behaviour, attitudes, knowledge or skills, before the treatment is implemented. Baseline information can include local context data to describe what the conditions are like in the area where the intervention is being implemented, such as the demographics of the area, type of environment and engineering or enforcement measures in place.

For the fully experimental design (i.e. with random allocation of participants to groups) the experimental and control group may not be identical at baseline, since there will be chance variation due to the random allocation. Statistical analysis techniques can cope with such chance effects. For the quasi-experimental design, there may be systematic differences as well as random ones and conclusions about the causality of the treatment and its effect on outcome variables may thus be difficult to draw. Different techniques can be used to try to control for any baseline differences between the control and experimental group on variables that are regarded as potentially affecting the outcome. For example, if the duration of learning to drive is regarded as an important variable that is likely to influence, how much a learner driver may benefit from participation in the Learner Driver Discussion Group, only learner drivers who have been learning to drive for a specified length of time may be selected to participate in the study (either in the control or treatment group). Alternatively, means and standard deviations of control and treatment group on the variables that are believed to influence the effect of the intervention may be compared at the outset of the experiment to ensure that both groups are equal. Furthermore, matching techniques can be employed, where for each participant in the experimental group a participant in the control group is found who is “identical” on a range of variable that are regarded as important, e.g. gender, educational attainment, duration of learning to drive. Matching of participants can be time consuming, and whilst the described techniques may help reducing pre-existing differences between participants of the control and experimental group, they can also limit the external validity of the study, e.g. because the process of controlling for certain variables leads to the selection of participants who are not representative of their population.

Statistical controlling for the influence of confounding variables on control and treatment group participants is also possible and may comprise factorial plans where the confounding variable is included as a separate factor in the analysis or through co-variance analysis where its influence is statistically eliminated. With greater numbers of confounding variables, statistical control mechanisms become increasingly complex and may require sophisticated statistical modelling to ascertain treatment effects.


TRL 48 PPR454

After statistically controlling for any pre-existing differences, changes are compared between the treated and the untreated group. A significant change in the treated group over and above the change in the untreated group is attributed to the impact of the intervention as the only difference between control and treatment group is the application of the intervention (see Figure 9).

Figure 9: Illustration of a before and after design with experimental and control group.

A second post-treatment measure can also be taken some time after the intervention has been delivered (for example three or six months after the treatment). Follow up data can help assessing whether any treatment effects are maintained over time. However, the increased amount and difficulty of data collection are reflected in the cost of the evaluation. In particular, the likelihood that some participants will drop out after the first post-treatment measure has to be taken into account when designing the study.

In practice the gold standard of random group allocation in the evaluation of road safety interventions is often beset with ethical and practical difficulties. Groups and/or individuals usually choose whether or not they want to take part in an intervention; they self-select, and have reasons for choosing either way. This means that individuals who put themselves forward for a safety intervention will tend to be those who are interested in and motivated to change. The difference between motivated and non-motivated participants should be taken into consideration during the planning of evaluations. It implies that comparing control group participants who have not signed up to an intervention with volunteers who have signed up may result in an exaggeration of an intervention’s benefit although in some circumstances the opposite may be true, since volunteers may already score rather well on the outcome measures and thus have less scope for improvement than the general population. To overcome such difficulties in an evaluation using volunteer participants, these should be allocated to the control and treatment group after they have signed up for participation in the evaluation.

However, there are potential ethical difficulties here that should make researchers hesitant to assign samples randomly between the treated (experimental) and untreated (control) groups. For example, if there is reason to expect that the Learner Driver Discussion Group is likely to reduce participants’ later crash risk as novice drivers it may be unethical to exclude members of the control group from the benefits of participation. This type of problem can sometimes be dealt with by allowing the control group to participate in the experimental treatment (e.g. the Learner Driver Discussion Group) at a later date, once the study has ended.

Discussing biases that may affect evaluation findings also requires mentioning of another bias that can arise from administering any form of treatment in social context (e.g.

T 1 T 2

C 1 C 2

Pre-treatment Post-treatment

Treatment group

Control group

Net treatment effect for this design = (T2 – T1) – (C2 – C1)

Treat

_


TRL 49 PPR454

delivering the Learner Driver Discussion Group). So called “demand characteristics” constitute an artefact in experiments whereby participants in the treatment group may systematically modify their behaviour in line with or contrary to their perceived expectations of the experimenter or social norms in general. Demand characteristics are difficult to control for as they are inherent to the intervention. However, the researcher should be mindful of them in planning an intervention and interpreting findings on its effectiveness. A related type of bias (the so called Hawthorne effect) occurs when participants respond to participation itself, rather than to the specific content of the intervention being assessed. This can lead to an intervention being correctly assessed as effective, but for the wrong reasons. It can sometimes be dealt with by measuring whether changes in outcome variables (e.g. participants’ knowledge or attitudes) are confined to those that might be expected to be influenced by the content of the intervention.

5.2.2 Levels of evaluation

In comparing the changes that occur in treatment versus non-treatment group before and after participation in an intervention, a range of dependent variables can be used. Kirkpatrick (1994) differentiates four outcome levels for interventions, including:

1. Reactions (e.g. did the participants in the Learner Driver Discussion Group like it or think it would be useful?);

2. Learning (e.g. have the participants of the Learner Driver Discussion Group acquired new skills or knowledge through participation?);

3. Transfer (Do the participants implement their new knowledge in their driving environment?);

4. Results (Does the Learner Driver Discussion Group lead to tangible improvements on an output level, e.g. reduced crash numbers?).

Some indications of the Learner Driver Discussion Group’s effectiveness have been collected in the piloting of the group, suggesting that the intervention is positively regarded and accepted by its target group (level 1, reactions). This included quantitative data from the feedback form as well as qualitative data from the facilitated feedback round. The same approach asking participants to rate the Learner Driver Discussion Group with respect to its interest, applicability, enjoyableness, interactivity and usefulness should be included in further evaluative efforts, especially given that such evaluation would include the introduction of different group facilitators and thus introduce variation that may have to be controlled for when assessing the effectiveness of the intervention.

Items aimed at the measurement of increases in knowledge and understanding of appropriate behavioural strategies were included in the pilots to test their feasibility for inclusion in a more comprehensive evaluation (see section 4.4.6 and 4.4.7). The findings indicate that such items need to be carefully constructed and piloted to ensure they are of

Recommendations:

The comprehensive evaluation should utilise an experimental design to be able to ascertain whether the Learner Driver Discussion Group leads to significant benefits for its participants.

Ideally, random allocation of participants to the conditions should be used to control for systematic differences between volunteers and non volunteers that may lead to an overestimation of the intervention’s effectiveness.


TRL 50 PPR454

medium difficulty and to avoid ceiling effects that will mask any changes occurring as a result of participation in the intervention.

So far, only indicative measures on the transfer level have been employed in the pilots of the learner driver discussion group. This included questionnaire items capturing learner drivers’ attitudes, social norms, perceived control and behavioural intentions that were administered before and immediately after participation in the Learner Driver Discussion Group. Both transfer and result level require participants in the Learner Driver Discussion Group to make the transition to solo driving before they can implement their awareness, skills and strategies (possibly with the exception of behavioural strategies relating to the young adult’s role as a passenger which could be immediately used). This argument touches on two important points with regards to assessment of change on the transfer level: the selection of appropriate time points for follow-up measurements and the question of whether real behaviour and/ or proxies of behaviour such as attitudes or behavioural intentions should be used in assessing intervention effects.

The problem of measuring actual behaviour that will be shown in some distant future can be (and in evaluations of road safety interventions frequently is) circumvented by measuring attitudes and behavioural intentions instead. Both have been shown to be significantly correlated with actual behaviour (e.g. Elliott, Armitage & Baughan, 2003; 2006) and are thus often used as a proxy of behaviour change, seemingly absolving researchers from the more difficult assessment of actual behaviour change. However, research clearly shows that the correlation between attitudes, intentions and behaviour is by no means perfect and that a significant proportion of people behave in contradiction to their stated intentions. A comprehensive evaluation should thus not dispense with post-test measures of driver behaviour. With regards to the Learner Driver Discussion Group an additional challenge arises from the fact that participants have not yet made the transition to solo driving. Their concept of what solo driving is and what their specific difficulties with it may be is thus somewhat hypothetical at the time they complete the pre and post-intervention questionnaire. Their self-efficacy and insight into what they (as solo drivers) can realistically achieve in terms of self-regulation and risk mitigation may change considerably (and is most likely become more sober) as a result of solo driving experience. This does not necessarily render the Learner Driver Discussion Group ineffective, but suggests that an actual deterioration on some Theory of Planned Behaviour questionnaire components may be expected once the transition to solo driving has taken place. This again suggests that a comprehensive evaluation should include measures of actual behaviours (in addition to the measurements of attitudinal/motivational components).

The temporal gap between participation in the Learner Driver Discussion Group and the opportunity of implementing newly acquired behaviour suggests that a comprehensive evaluation of the intervention’s effects on actual behaviour will require the inclusion of post-test data gathering points that may be several months removed from participation in the discussion group. In choosing the most appropriate times for assessing the effects of the Learner Driver Discussion Group, two points should be considered. Firstly, the longer the interval between participation and follow up measure, the greater the effect of extraneous influences that may compete with or mask any changes induced by participation in the discussion group. As driver training interventions rarely operate in isolation, other road safety programmes, run nationally and locally, such as engineering or enforcement measures, might influence the solo driving behaviour of evaluation participants. Peers, school or parents might teach other road safety lessons to learner or novice drivers in addition to the Learner Driver Discussion Group. The control group of young adults who do not participate in the discussion group is unlikely to receive no road safety education of any sort during the evaluation period. We suggest that any post-test data gathering should be temporally as close to the Learner Driver Discussion Group as possible. Secondly, it could be argued that the benefits of the Learner Driver Discussion Group to the novice driver should be most pronounced within the first few months of solo driving, where the crash liability of novice drivers is particularly high (e.g. as found in the


TRL 51 PPR454

Cohort II study by Wells et al., 2008) and has not yet been ameliorated by the benefits of increased experience of solo driving. Therefore, the assessment of changes in actual driving related behaviours should ideally take place within six months after passing the driving test.

The final highest level of evaluation, ‘results’ refers to the question of whether the Learner Drivers Discussion Group leads to significantly reduced numbers of novice driver crashes. Crash rates can either be measured using self-report and can also include damage only and near misses, or can use STATS19 data, which comprises injury crashes recorded by the police forces across Great Britain. Crash rates are, however, unlikely to be usable as an outcome measure in local studies. Most studies on road safety education interventions have found little or no change in crash rates for a number of reasons including variable crash reporting systems, timescales and sample sizes required and the influence of other factors. The number of crashes in a local area is likely to be too small to detect any significant differences when comparing one year with another. A large sample needs to be monitored over a long period to pick up any significant reductions in crash or casualty rates. Thus data analysis on the ‘results’ level may therefore be inappropriate for the evaluation of the Learner Driver Discussion Group.

5.2.3 Potential outcome measures on the ‘learning’ and ‘transfer’ level

In the following, outcome measures are described that can be used to establish the effectiveness of road safety interventions on the ‘learning’ and ‘transfer’ level and potential difficulties/disadvantages of the measures are briefly discussed before recommendations for a suitable approach for the comprehensive evaluation of the Learner Driver Discussion Group and its integration into a wider DSA programme evaluation are outlined.

Data on behaviour change should be collected in the most natural setting for the behaviour, for example observing behaviour at the roadside, but this is not always possible. Actual behaviour is difficult to measure so tasks are often set to measure specific

Recommendations:

• Crash or injury rates are unlikely to be appropriate for the comprehensive evaluation of the Learner Driver Discussion Group as they require large participant samples. Safer driving-related behaviour should be measured as the primary outcome and should be measured within six months of Learner Driver Discussion Group participants passing their test;

• Changes in attitude, knowledge and skills should be measured to demonstrate the intervention’s educational objectives that lead to safer behaviour; based on the findings from the pilot study, self-report measures based on Theory of Planned Behaviour components, knowledge items and items testing participants’ understanding seem to be appropriate for this purpose;

• Multiple measures should be used to increase reliability of the findings;

• Measures should be specific and reflect the Learner Driver Discussion Group’s educational objectives;

• Other factors which may influence behaviour should be taken into account when designing the evaluation;

• Outcome measures should be measured against a baseline.


TRL 52 PPR454

behaviours relevant to the intervention. Data on specific behaviours can be collected by means of observation, practical testing or self-report. Multiple test measures increase the reliability of findings regarding the effectiveness of outcomes and should thus be used. An overview or different methods of assessment is given in the following:

Questionnaires

Information on attitudes and self-reported behaviour can be collected using questionnaires. Questionnaires use closed or open-ended questions to gather information. Major drawbacks include:

• Low response rates can result in a biased sample; • Closed questions can limit the depth of the evaluation; • No cues are available to the honesty of respondents’ answers; • Literacy skills required for responding can exclude some individuals.

Quizzes/knowledge tests

A quiz/knowledge test consists of questions specific to the educational objectives of the intervention under evaluation. It is easiest to analyse if it uses multiple choice, true/false statements or questions that can be answered with “yes” or “no”. The respondent’s knowledge of road safety is measured by summing up the total number of correct answers given.

Major drawbacks of quizzes:

• Low response rates can result in a biased sample; • Forced choice response categories can provide a misleading evaluation if

respondents guess at answers.

Travel diaries

Self-reported behaviour can be collected using travel diaries, e.g. over a series of several weeks. These can also be used to provide a measure of exposure. Travel diaries are comparatively time-consuming as they typically require participants to describe the development and negotiation of critical driving situations. Response rates can therefore be low and may not be representative of the sample. With the general availability of internet access in households, travel diaries may also be hosted and completed online. Especially with young adults, this may be a popular method of data gathering. To improve the quality of the data obtained through travel diary methods, the task of recording exposure information and critical incidents during trips could be passed on to a telephone interviewer who obtains the relevant information from the participant regularly at an agreed and convenient time.

Black box technology

Black box technology is a comparatively recent way to measure and record behaviour. Here, driver actions and vehicle responses are automatically recorded and can be extracted for analysis of driver behaviour patterns and critical incidents. Whilst a detailed analysis of driver inputs is possible, basic black boxes provide no information on the context of the drive, e.g. number of passengers present, distraction in the vehicle by mobile phone use etc. More sophisticated in-vehicle data recorders can collect such information though there are cost implications. In the future as costs decrease and improved equipment is developed, such information will become more easily available.

Observed behaviour in the road environment

Observation methods include video observation in the road environment or road side surveys. Both typically require large numbers of observations, and it can sometimes be difficult to determine the age or sex of participants being observed and the observer’s view


TRL 53 PPR454

may also be restricted. It should also be remembered that the people being observed have not necessarily taken part in the programme.

Practical testing in the road environment

Road user behaviour can be observed in the road environment by setting participants a number of tasks to demonstrate their skills. Their performance is then judged against pre-determined criteria to obtain a score for the task. In addition to performing the task the participants could for example be asked to explain their choice of route. This approach is used to provide a measure of understanding. Roadside assessments are time-consuming and expensive due to the high levels of staffing required.

Computer/ simulator and video based tests

Computer/ simulator and video-based tests simulate the road environment. Computer-based tests normally involve the participant clicking a button, which is linked to the video or computer, in response to a task (an example is the hazard perception test). Computer-based tests are comparatively easy to administer. Test conditions must be held constant so the results are also comparable between participants.

As an alternative to practical tests in real vehicles, simulated models of the road environment can be used. This requires the participant to carry out a set of driving-related tasks in a simulated the road environment, for example in a driving simulator. In comparison to roadside assessments simulator-based approaches where the participant may be required to carry out a set of tasks in a simulated road environment allow standardised treatment of all participants with the presentation of identical traffic scenarios to each participant.

There is a concern that the participant’s ability to use the evaluation tool is measured rather than their skill in these tests. Careful pre-trial familiarisation of the participants with the evaluation tool is therefore a prerequisite. Unless a validated computer or video-based test is available, the cost of using this type of test is high due to development costs.

5.3 Summary of suggestions for next steps and conclusion

The comprehensive evaluation of the Learner Driver Discussion Group would form the next step towards establishing robust evidence for or against the introduction of the Learner Driver Discussion Group as a voluntary intervention on a national level. It will provide a differentiated picture of the kind and magnitude of some of the benefits associated with the discussion group immediately after participation and after the transition to solo driving.

The following section gives outline recommendations for the comprehensive evaluation of the Learner Driver Discussion Group. Detailed recommendations will need to be developed once more is known about DSA’s intentions and requirements.

We suggest that the comprehensive evaluation should be carried out as an experimental study with randomised allocation of volunteer participants to the treatment and to the control group. This would require the recruitment of learner drivers who would be willing to be involved in the study either as participants in the control group or in the treatment group. The control group would not receive any form of training intervention unless it is decided, for ethical reasons, that this intervention should be offered to them once the study has been completed.

Briefly summarised, the aims of the Learner Driver Discussion Group are to increase participants’ awareness of risk in early solo driving and of situations that may be particularly (and potentially overly) demanding for them. In the group, participants should identify and practise risk mitigation strategies and actively take responsibility for their driving. Considering these specific learning goals changes in participants’ knowledge, attitudes, behavioural intentions and behaviour should be expected particularly towards:


TRL 54 PPR454

• Increased awareness of novice driver crash risk and underestimation of risk;

• Greater knowledge of the factors that put novice drivers at risk of a crash;

• Increased awareness of novice drivers’ susceptibility for distraction in terms of deteriorated driving performance;

• Greater awareness of potential sources of distraction and greater willingness to reduce such sources of distraction;

• Greater willingness to use increased safety margins, e.g. by reducing the driving speed or increasing the headway to other cars;

• Greater willingness to prepare/ plan journeys or to avoid certain journeys altogether at a time when driving routines are not fully established as particularly susceptible;

• More, more elaborate and safer strategies to deal with potentially dangerous situations that are typical for young novice drivers.

The bullet points demonstrate that the Learner Driver Discussion group, rather than improving technical aspects of the driving or driving skill, focuses on the context of solo driving and adequate preparation for car journeys. With regards to the outcome measures described in the previous section, this suggests that questionnaires and self-reported behaviour are particularly good candidates for inclusion in the comprehensive evaluation.

We suggest that outcome measure for the assessment of these changes would include self-reported attitudes and behaviours of participants by means of questionnaires prior to their transition to solo driving and the additional inclusion of travel diaries (with data collected from participants via telephone interview) once the transition to solo driving has been made. As described earlier, we do not feel that the inclusion of crash rates in the evaluation of the LDDG would be appropriate.

Specifically, the design would include the following data acquisition points:

1. Questionnaire at baseline, based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour and including additional items to assess learners’ knowledge, understanding and behavioural strategies as outlined above.

2. Questionnaire post-treatment (approximately a week after participation)

3. Questionnaire follow-up (approximately three months after participation), before the majority of learner drivers have passed the driving test to assess if changes are maintained over a prolonged period of time. A comparatively high drop-out would have to be expected, as some participants may by that time have already passed the driving test on top of those who would naturally not intend to persevere with participation in the study.

4. Questionnaire post-test: as participants may require different lengths of time to learn to drive and to pass the test, no definite time interval can be given for the assessment of post-test attitudes, knowledge and behaviour. Differences between learners would mean that close contact would need to be kept with participants or their ADIs to be notified of their transition into solo driving. Questionnaires would thus have to be sent out to evaluation participants once TRL had been notified of their transition into solo driving.

5. Travel diary: We propose that both groups should complete travel diaries during their early solo driving career. To ensure that participants with low literacy levels are not unduly burdened, information on participants’ driving experience could be gathered through regular telephone interviews conducted by trained TRL researchers. In the interviews, participants of both control and experimental group would be asked to describe the driving they had done over the course of a week, any unexpected, new or risky situations they encountered and how they resolved this situation. Participants of the Learner Driver Discussion Group should


TRL 55 PPR454

demonstrate better risk mitigation skills, greater awareness of potentially risky situations and a greater ability to step back from potentially risky situations to evaluate and select the best behavioural strategy for dealing with it.

The outline of data gathering times for the comprehensive evaluation of the discussion group illustrates that difficulties of retaining participants are likely to be encountered. To ensure that sufficient numbers of participants remain in the trial and to allow an assessment of the discussion group’s effects after the transition to solo driving, the selection and offering of effective incentives will be important.

According to findings from the Cohort II study (Wells et al., 2008), the mean ‘active’ learning period prior to the practical test for all respondents was 14.1 months with females on average taking more time than males (15.1 months and 12.3 months, respectively). For females the mean active learning time also increased with age. These figures give an indication of the length of a comprehensive evaluation if it were to include behavioural outcome measures after the transition to solo driving. To involve a representative sample of learner drivers it would be important not only to include those that acquire their licence particularly quickly, but also those that may take longer to complete the learning to drive process.

Sample sizes (and thus the number of Learner Driver Discussion Group sessions that would have to be conducted as part of this comprehensive evaluation) would depend on the number of factors that are to be investigated in the trial and on anticipated drop-out rates. Factors of interest could include facilitator influences and participant characteristics such as age, gender, educational attainment level and language skills. Whilst it is conceivable that the intervention may be delivered as part of a school curriculum, it has been developed for young adults who do not know each other and for learner drivers rather than novice drivers. The outlined evaluation does focus on assessing the (prolonged) effectiveness of the discussion group in its current form, with participant and facilitator characteristics forming a main source of variance. Further evaluations would have to be undertaken if the effects of changing the target group or the setting should be assessed. In considering required sample sizes for the proposed design of the stand-alone evaluation, the Cohort II study (Wells et al. 2008) provides indications of drop-out rates. In the Cohort II study, a questionnaire was sent to participants approximately two weeks after their practical driving test with an overall response rate of 33%. Follow-up questionnaires sent out six months later had a response rate of 49%, follow-up questionnaires sent out 12 months later has a response rate of 27%. This indicates a considerable tendency for participants to drop out and would need to be taken into account when considering required sample sizes for sufficiently robust statistical testing.

This chapter has outlined general principles of good evaluative practice as well as specific suggestions what steps should be taken next to ensure that the Learner Driver Discussion Group can be delivered as a successful and effective intervention for young adults learning to drive by a range of facilitators.


TRL 56 PPR454

Acknowledgements The work described in this report was carried out in the Attitudes and Behaviour Group of the Transport Research Laboratory. The authors are grateful to Chris Baughan, the TRL Technical Referee for the project, who provided comments on an earlier draft of this report.


TRL 57 PPR454

References

Adams, C. (2003). Passenger injuries in crashes in Western Australia, 1996-2000. Injury Research Centre Report RR133. Injury Research Centre, Crawley, WA.

Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behaviour. In: J. Kuhl & J. Beckman (Eds.), Action-control: From cognition to behaviour. Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 11-39.

Arnett, J.J. (1990). Drunk Driving, Sensation Seeking and Egocentrism Among Adolescents. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, pp. 267-278.

Arthur, W.A., Barrett, G.V., Alexander, R.A. (1991). Prediction of vehicular Accident Involvement: A Meta Analysis. Human Performance, 4, pp. 89-105.

Bandura, A., (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Bartl, G., Baughan, C., Fougére, J.P., Gregersen, N.P., Nyberg, A., Groot, H., Sanders, N., Keskinen, E., Hatakka, M., Pannacci, M. & Willmes-Lenz, G. (2002). The EU ADVANCED Project: Description and Analysis of Post-licence Driver and Rider Training.Project Report. Netherlands: CIECA.

Bernotat, R. (1970). Anthropotechnik in der Fahrzeugfuehrung. Ergonomics, 13(3), pp. 353-377.

Bhola, H. S. (1990). Evaluating "Literacy for development" projects, programs and campaigns: Evaluation planning, design and implementation, and utilization of evaluation results. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO Institute for Education; DSE [German Foundation for International Development].

Bogaert, A.F., and Fisher, W.A. (1995). Predictors of university men’s number of sexual partners. Journal of Sex Research, 32, pp. 119–130.

Campbell, M., & Stradling, S. G. (2003). Factors influencing driver speed choices. InBehavioural Research in Road Safety: Thirteenth Seminar. London, England: Department for Transport.

Carcary, W.B., Power, K.G., & Murray, F.A. (2001). The new driver project: changing driving beliefs, attitudes and self-reported driving behaviour amongst young drivers through classroom based pre- and pot driving test interventions. Scottish Executive: Central Research Unit.

Catania, J.A., Kegeles, S.M., and Coates T.J. (1990).Towards an understanding of risk behavior: An AIDS risk reduction model (ARRM). Health Education Quarterly, v17(n1) pp53-72, Sage.

Chapman, P.R., Underwood, G. and Roberts, K. (2002). Visual Search Patterns in Trained and Untrained Novice Drivers. Transportation Research Part F, 5, pp. 157-167.

Clarke, D. D., Ward, P.J. and Jones, J. (1998). Overtaking accidents. TRL Report 301. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

Clarke, D. D., Ward, P.J. and Truman, W. (2002). In-depth Accident Causation Study of Young Drivers. TRL Report 542. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

Clarke, D. and Robertson, I.T. (2005). A Meta-analytic Review of the Big Five Personality Factors and Accident Involvement in Occupational and Non-occupational Settings. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 78 (3), pp. 355-376.

Christie, R. (2001). The Effectiveness of driver training as a road safety measure: a review of the literature. Royal Automobile Club of Victoria, Report No 01/03.

Christie, R., Harrison, W., and Johnston D. (2004). Development of novice driver education/development curriculum: Novice Driver Coaching Program. Prepared for the


TRL 58 PPR454

ATSB

Chen, L.H., Baker, S.P., Braver, E.R and Li, G. (2000). Carrying Passengers as a Risk Factor for Crashes Fatal to 16 and 17 Year Old Drivers. Journal of American Medical Association, 283 (12), pp. 1578-1582.

Deery, H.A. (1999). Hazard and Risk perception Among Young Novice Drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 30 (4), pp. 225-236.

Delhomme, P., Vaa, T., Meye,r T., Goldenbeld, C., Jarmark, S., Christie, N., Harland, G., & Vlasta, R. (1999). Evaluated road safety campaigns: an overview of 265 campaigns and some meta-analysis on accidents. In: Guiding Automobilists Through Technology and Education. EC-DGVII. Deliverable 4. Contract R0-97-SC.2235, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

Department for Transport (2005). Driving out Drugs. [online] [Accessed on 24Th September 2007] available on World Wide Web: <http://www.dft.gov.uk/transportforyou/roads/roadsafety/drivingoutdrugs>

Department for Transport (2007). The Good, the Bad and the Talented: Young Drivers’ Perspectives on Good driving and Learning to Drive. Road Safety Research Report No. 74, London.

De Vries, H., Mudde, A., Leijs, I., Charlton, A., Vartiainen, E., Buijs, G., Clemente, M.P., Storm, H., Navarro, A. G., Nebot, M., Prins, T. & Kremers, S. (2003). The European Smoking Prevention Framework Approach (EFSA): an example of integral prevention. Health Education Research, v18(n5) pp. 611-626, Oxford University Press.

Driving Standards Agency & Kirklees Metropolitan Council (2007). In the Driving Seat. DSA Learning Materials, Cardington, Bedford: DSA Training Centre.

DSA (2007). ADI Industry Strategy Development – Draft report for Driving Standards Agency. [online] [Accessed on March 23rd 2009]. Available on World Wide Web: http://www.dsa.gov.uk/Documents/Consultation/ltd/DR0422-00%20-%20DSA%20-%20Report%20-%20ADI%20Industry%20Strategy%20Development.pdf>

Edwards, I. (2005). An evaluation of the Enhanced Pass Plus scheme operated by Kirklees Metropolitan Council. In: Behavioural Research in Road Safety: Fifteenth Seminar. London: Department for Transport.

Elliott, A., Armitage, J. & Baughan, J. (2003). Drivers’ Compliance With Speed Limits: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5), pp. 964-972.

Elliott, M. A. and Armitage, C. J. (2006). Effects of Implementation Intentions on the Self-Reported Frequency of Drivers’ Compliance With Speed Limits. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12(2), 108-117.

Engström, I., Gregersen, N.P., Hernetkoski, K., Keskinen, E. & Nyberg, A. (2003). Young Novice Drivers Education and Training: Literature Review. VTI Report 491A, Linköping, Sweden.

Evans, L., & Wasielewski, P. (1983). Risky driving related to driver and vehicle characteristics. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 15 (2), pp. 121-136.

Forsyth, E. (1992a). Cohort study of learner and novice drivers Part 1: Learning to drive and performance in the driving test. TRL report RR338. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

Forsyth, E. (1992b). Cohort study of learner and novice drivers Part 2: Attitudes, opinions and the development of driving skills in the first 2 years. TRL report RR372. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.


TRL 59 PPR454

Forsyth, E. Maycock, G., & Sexton, B. (1995). Cohort study of learner and novice drivers Part 3: Accidents, offences and driving experience in the first three years of driving. TRL report PR111. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

Fuller, R. (2005). Towards a general theory of driver behaviour. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 37, 461-472. Gibbons, FX & Gerrard, M (1995). Predicting young adults' health risk behavior. Journal of personality and social psychology, 65 (3), pp. 505-517

Giedd, J.N. (2004). Structural Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Adolescent Brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1021, pp. 77-85.

Grayson, G. B. and Sexton, B. F. (2002). The development of hazard perception testing.TRL Report 558. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

Gregersen, N.P. (1993). Integrated driver education. An experiment with systematic co-operation between traffic schools and private teachers. VTI Report No. 376, Swedish National Road and Transport Institute, Linköping.

Gregersen, N.P. (1994). Systematic cooperation between driving schools and parents in driver education, and experiment. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 26, (4), pp. 453-461.

Gregersen, N.P. (1997). Evaluation of 16-years Age Limit for Driver Training. First Report, VTI Report No. 418A, Swedish National Road and Transport Institute, Linköping.

Gregersen, N.P. and Berg, H.Y. (1994). Lifestyle and Accidents Among Young Drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32, (1), pp. 297-303.

Harrison, W and Harrison S. (2002). A guide to coaching novice drivers. New Zealand Land Transport Safety Authority.

Hatakka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregersen, N.P., Glad, A. & Hernetkosi, K. (2001). Goals and contents of driver education. In Behavioural Research in Road Safety, London: DETR.

Hoeschen, A., Verwey, W., Bekiaris, E., Knoll, C., Widlroither, H., deWard, D., Uneken, E., Gregersen, N.P., Falkmer, T., & Schelin, H. (2001). Inventory of driver training needs and major gaps in the relevant training procedures. (GRDI-1999-10024): TRAINER Deliverable No 2.1, Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.

Ivett, L. (2001). The role of parents/carers in the road safety education of children and youth. Insurance Commission of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia.

Keall, M., Frith, W. and Patterson, T. (2004) The influence of alcohol, age and number of passengers on the night-time risk of driver fatal injury in New Zealand. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 36(1), 49–61.

Kirkpatrick, D. (1994). Evaluating Training Programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berett-Koehler.

Lang, A. and Stritzke, W. (1993). Children and alcohol: Young children's knowledge, attitudes, and expectations about alcohol. In M. Galanter (Ed.) Recent developments in alcoholism (Vol. 11): Ten years of progress New York: Plenum Press. pp. 73-85.

Litchfield, R. & White, K.M. (2006). Young adults’ willingness to use amphetamines: An application of the theory of reasoned action (v2(n1), pp45-51), E-Journal of Applied Psychology: Clinical and social issues.

Maycock G and Forsyth E (1997). Cohort study of learner and novice drivers Part 4: Novice driver accidents in relation to methods of learning to drive, performance in the driving test and self assessed driving ability and behaviour. TRL Report 275. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

Maycock, G. (2002). Novice driver accidents and the driving test. TRL Report 257. Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.


TRL 60 PPR454

Mayhew, D.R., Simpson, H.M., Williams, A.F. and Ferguson, S.A. (1998). Effectiveness and Role of Driver Education and Training in a Graduated Licensing System. Journal of Public Health Policy 19(1), pp. 51–67.

Mayhew, D.R., Simpson, H.M., & Pak, A. (2003). Changes in collision rates among novice drivers during the first months of driving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35, pp. 683-691.

McCartt, A.T., Shabanova, V.I., & Leaf, W.A. (2003). Diving experience crashes and traffic citations of teenage beginning drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 35, pp. 311-320.

McKenna, F.P., Stannier, R.A. and Lewis, C. (1991). Factors Underlying Illusory Self-Assessment of Driving Skill in Males and Females. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 23 (1), pp. 45-52

McKenna (1993). It Won’t Happen to Me: Unrealistic Optimism or Illusion of Control? British Journal of Psychology, 23, pp. 45-52.

McKenna, F. P., & Crick, J. L. (1994). Hazard perception in drivers: a methodology for testing and training. TRL Contractor Report 313. Crowthorne, UK: Transport Research Laboratory.

Michon, J.A. (1985). A critical review of driver behaviour models: what do we know, what should we do? In L. Evans & R.C. Schwing (Eds.), Human behaviour and traffic safety pp. 485-520.

Milewski, S. & Pierce, B. (2006). ‘Driving ambitions’: Secondary school road safety education in Warwickshire. [Accessed on 24th June 2008]. Available on Wolrd Wide Web: http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/conferences/congress2006/proceedings/day1/milewski_pierce.pdf.>

Moe, D and Jensen, G.D. (1990). Unge fØrere, risikotaking og pedagogiske konsekvenser, SINTEF Report STF63 A90007, SINTEF Samferdselsteknikk, Trondheim.

Myers, D.G. and Bishop, G.D. (1970). Discussion effects on radical attitudes. Science,169, pp. 778-779.

Näätänen, R. and Summala, H. (1976). Road User Behaviour and Traffic Accidents. North Holland/American Elsevier, Amsterdam and New York.

OECD (2006). Young drivers: The road to safety. Paris, France: Joint OECD/ECMT Transport Research Centre.

Parker D and Stradling S (2001). Influencing Driver Attitudes and Behaviour, DETR Road Safety Research Report No.17, London: DETR.

Preusser, D. F., Ferguson, S. A. & Williams, A. F. (1998). The effect of teenage passengers on the fatal crash risk of teenage drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention,30, pp. 217-222.

Quimby, A.R. and Watts, D.R. (1981). Human factors and driving performance. TRRL Laboratory Report LR1004. Transport Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

Roe, L., Hunt, P., Bradshaw, H. & Rayner, M. (1997). Health promotion interventions to promote healthy eating in the general population: A review. London: Health Education Authority.

Rosenstock, I. (1974). Historical Origins of the Health Belief Model (v2 (n4), Health Education Monographs, American Public Health Association.

Rossi, P. H., Freeman, H. E., & Wright, S. R. (1979). Evaluation: a Systematic Approach.Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Shope, J. (2001). Teens, substance abuse, and driving. Umtri Research Review, 32 (3), pp. 6-9.


TRL 61 PPR454

Siegrist, S. (1999). Driver Training, Testing and Licensing – towards theory-based management of young drivers’ injury risk in road traffic: Results of EU-Project GADGET, Work Package 3 Report. Berne: BFU.

Sowell, E.R., Thompson, C.J., Holmes, T., Jernigan, T. and Toga, A. (1999). In Vivo Evidence for Post-adolescent Brain Maturation in Frontal and Striatal Regions. Nature Neuroscience, 2 (10), pp. 859-861.

Vassallo, S., Smart, D., Sanson, A., Harrison, W., Harris, A., Cockfield, S. and McIntyre A. (2007). Risky driving among young Australian drivers: Trends, precursors and correlates. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, pp. 444-458.

Wahlquist, M.B. (1996). Young Drivers’ Motives in Choosing a Driving Style (in Swedish). Institution of Pedagogics and Psychology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Wallach, M.A., Kogan, N. and Bem, D. J. (1964). Diffusion of responsibility and level of risk taking in groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 68, pp. 263-274.

Waylen, A. and McKenna, F. (2002). Cradle attitudes – grave consequences: The Development of Gender Differences in Risky Attitudes and Behaviour in Road use: Summary Report., AA Foundation for Road Safety Research, Reading. [online][. [Accessed on 24th September 2007]. Available on World Wide Web: http://www.iam.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/3CB04728-6245-4925-AEBE-DFA7E58B665E/0/AA_foundation_FDN33.pdf.>

Wells, P., Tong, S., Sexton, B., Grayson, G. B., Jones, E. (2008). Cohort II: A Study of Learner and New Drivers. Road Safety Research Report No 81. London: Department for Transport

Wilson, R.J. and Jonah, B. (1988). The Application of Problem-behaviour Theory to the Understanding of Risky Driving. Alcohol, Drugs and Driving, 7, pp. 1-12.

Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation Seeking: Beyond the Optimal Level of Arousal. John Wiley and Sons. New York.

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

62

PPR454

Ap

pen

dix

AO

verv

iew

on

existin

gd

iscussio

nb

ase

din

terv

en

tion

sfo

rd

rivers/

riders.

Pro

gra

mm

eD

rivin

gam

bitio

nU

KIn

the

Driv

ing

Seat

UK

Sco

ote

rZU

KC

ate

go

ryB

driv

ing

curricu

lum

Norw

ay

Road

Read

yP

lus

Au

stralia

Au

thors/

org

an

isatio

nW

arwicksh

ireCounty

Council

inpartn

ership

with

Warw

ickshire

Police

DSA

&Kirklees

Council

Devo

nCounty

Council

/U

niversity

ofExeter

NPR

AAustralian

Cap

italTerrito

ry

Cou

ntry

UK

UK

UK

Norw

ayAustralia

Sta

rted

in…

2004

2007

(bein

gpilo

ted)

2006

2004

Feb2001

Driv

er/

licen

cety

pe

Non-d

riversPre-d

rivers,early

learner

drivers

Pre-drivers

orsco

oter/m

oped

/moto

rbike

riders

Learner

drivers

(not

yettaken

theo

ryor

practical

test)

Probatio

nary

licence

hold

erfo

rat

least6

month

s

Solo

or

non

-so

lo-

-M

aybe

solo

riders

Non-so

loSolo

Ag

e12-1

716-1

816-1

8Any

26

or

under

Com

pu

lsory

/volu

nta

rySch

ools

canch

oose

wheth

erto

takepart

inth

esch

eme,

studen

tsin

particip

ating

schools

must

takepart.

Over

90%

ofW

arwicksh

iresch

ools

takepart.

Volu

ntary

Volu

ntary;

must

takeco

urse

ifw

ant

torid

em

oto

rbike

tosch

ool

and

park

itth

eir

Com

pulso

ryVolu

ntary;

allow

ed8

dem

eritpoin

ts(in

steadof

usu

al4)

and

canrem

ove

‘P’plates

sooner

ifatten

d

Cost

top

articip

an

tFree

?Free

?$70

(~£33)

Gro

up

sizeD

epen

ds

on

sizeof

class(p

robab

ly20-3

0?)

?20

?<

12

Discu

ssion

typ

eG

roup

discu

ssions

inth

eclassro

om

with

the

teacher

befo

reth

eco

urse

aredelivered

by

atrain

er.

DVD

used

tostim

ulate

discu

ssion

around

eachof

the

4m

odules.

Detailed

teacher

plan

covers

discu

ssion

poin

ts

Som

eof

the

course

isth

rough

lecture,

studen

tsare

always

enco

urag

edto

askquestio

ns

or

raisediscu

ssion

poin

tsetc.

So,

although

we

have

alist

of

areasto

cover,

the

studen

tsoften

guid

ehow

and

when

this

isput

in

Interactive

and

discu

ssion-b

asedgro

up

sessions

Gro

up

discu

ssions.

Facilitator

canch

oose

from

aran

ge

of

exercises/activities.Particip

ants

receivea

workb

ook

Oth

er

sectio

ns

Teach

ersare

given

ideas

for

activitiesto

com

plete

Pre-course

exerciseof

loggin

gbeh

aviour

of

oth

er

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

63

PPR454

with

the

studen

tsaf

ter

the

cours

ehas

take

npla

cedri

vers

ove

ra

3-d

ayper

iod.

Post

-dis

cuss

ion

exer

cise

of

wri

ting

anac

tion

pla

nN

um

ber

of

sess

ion

s2

11

Tota

lle

ng

thU

nkn

ow

n(a

tte

acher

’sdis

cret

ion)

1.5

hours

1day

~6

day

s5

hours

alto

get

her

,in

cludin

gpre

-an

dpost

-dis

cuss

ion

sect

ions

Faci

lita

tors

Profe

ssio

nal

trai

ner

from

War

wic

kshir

eCounci

lCours

edel

iver

edby

trai

ned

faci

litat

or

who

has

ate

acher

pla

n

Road

safe

tyoffic

ers

from

Dev

on

County

Counci

l,th

eD

SA,

Dev

on

Polic

em

oto

rcyc

lese

ctio

nan

da

loca

lm

otorb

ike

dea

ler

(when

poss

ible

)

?Aged

22-3

5,

fam

iliar

with

gro

up

faci

litat

ion

and

issu

esfa

cing

young

peo

ple

Aim

s/ob

ject

ives

Aim

of

the

ove

rall

pro

gra

mis

tore

duce

road

casu

alties

among

young

peo

ple

via

module

sth

aten

coura

ge

dev

elop

men

tof

posi

tive

attitu

des

toro

aduse

To

dev

elop

abet

ter

under

stan

din

gof

what

mak

esa

good

dri

ver,

and

enco

ura

ge

young

peo

ple

toco

nsi

der

the

soci

alan

dem

otional

aspec

tsofdri

ving

Prep

are

par

tici

pan

tsfo

rth

eir

new

role

assc

oot

erri

der

san

dto

addre

ssth

esp

ecific

risk

sas

soci

ated

with

ridin

g

To

set

the

gen

eral

beh

avio

ura

lco

nte

xtfo

rth

etr

ainin

gas

aw

hole

,an

dad

dre

sssp

ecific

risk

ysc

enar

ios

for

novi

cedri

vers

To

pro

vide

support

for

pro

visi

onal

licen

sees

during

thei

rper

iod

of

hig

hes

trisk

asnew

solo

drive

rsby

enab

ling

them

toid

entify

,re

late

toan

dth

ereb

yav

oid

,hig

hri

skbeh

avio

urs

and

pote

ntial

lyhig

hrisk

situ

atio

ns

Con

ten

tAtt

itude,

dis

trac

ters

,sp

eedin

g,

colli

sions,

seat

bel

ts,

young

drive

rs/r

ider

sat

risk

,ro

addea

th,

moto

rway

safe

ty,

finan

cial

real

ity,

stre

ss,

dri

nk

and

dru

gs,

car

care

,ac

ciden

tre

cord

ing,

haz

ard

awar

enes

s,st

oppin

gdis

tance

s

Em

otional

and

soci

alsk

ills

requir

edto

be

agood

drive

r.D

iscu

ssio

nsh

ould

rais

eis

sues

of

mat

uri

tyan

dre

sponsi

bili

tyw

hile

dri

ving.

How

toget

alic

ence

,w

eari

ng

appro

pri

ate

cloth

ing,

com

plia

nce

with

the

law

,co

nsi

der

atio

nof

oth

erro

aduse

rs,

vuln

erab

ility

on

the

road

,haz

ard

awar

enes

s,an

dbik

em

ainte

nan

ce

Firs

tai

d,

risk

awar

enes

s,nig

ht

dri

ving,

soci

albeh

avio

ur,

hig

h-

risk

fact

ors

for

young,

inex

per

ience

ddri

vers

Dri

ving

skill

,per

ception,

self

anal

ysis

,anal

ysis

of

conditio

ns,

issu

esof

dri

ver

per

ception,

vehic

lean

alys

is

Evalu

ati

on

Ongoin

gO

ngoin

gN

one

Ongoin

g;

tobe

expec

ted

in2009

Unkn

ow

n

Oth

er

info

All

lear

ner

dri

vers

inth

eACT

must

com

ple

teth

e‘R

oad

Rea

dy’

cours

eto

qual

ify

for

thei

rle

arner

licen

ce.

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

64

PPR454

Pro

gra

mm

eM

ultip

hase

train

ing

Sw

itzerla

nd

Tw

o-p

hase

Tra

inin

gFin

lan

dN

ovEV

Du

tchTh

eN

eth

erla

nd

sM

ultip

hase

driv

er

train

ing

Au

striaA

uth

ors/

org

an

isatio

nASA/

Sw

issRoad

Safety

Council

AKE

SW

OV

(2005)

Bartl

&G

atscha

(2003)

Cou

ntry

Sw

itzerland

Finlan

dN

etherlan

ds

Austria

Sta

rted

in…

2005

1990

Not

ongoin

g(p

ilot?)

January

2003

Driv

er/

licen

cety

pe

Probatio

nary

licence

hold

erfo

ra

maxim

um

of

6m

onth

sPro

batio

nary

licence

hold

erfo

r6

month

sto

2years

Probatio

nary

licence

hold

erfo

rat

least6

month

sPro

batio

nary

licence

hold

er

Solo

or

non

-solo

Solo

Solo

Solo

Solo

Ag

eAny

Any

Any

Any

Com

pu

lsory

/volu

nta

ryCom

pulso

ryCom

pulso

ryVolu

ntary

Com

pulso

ryC

ost

top

articip

an

t340

Sw

issFran

cs(~

£160)

?-

?G

rou

psize

<6

6-1

2?

6-1

2D

iscussio

nty

pe

The

course

isplan

ned

insu

cha

way

that

particip

ants

arech

allenged

and

motivated

,but

not

overb

urd

ened

;particip

ants

feelaccep

tedan

dw

illing

toreflect

on

their

own

beh

aviour

Vid

eosketch

esused

asa

mean

sto

initiate

discu

ssion.

Vid

eosketch

esused

asa

basis

for

furth

erdiscu

ssion

among

the

particip

ants,

leadby

the

trainer.

Moderato

ren

courag

esparticip

ants

toreflect

on

the

events

dep

ictedin

the

video

Tw

o-p

artdiscu

ssion.

Part1:

presen

tation

on

riskson

the

road

san

daccid

ents

inth

e18-2

5year

age

gro

up.

Part2:

motivate

novice

drivers

toco

nsid

erth

eirstren

gth

s,w

eakness

and

their

responsib

ilitieson

the

road

Oth

er

sectio

ns

Gro

up

drivin

gsessio

ns

on

atest

trackPart

of

larger

trainin

gpro

gram

which

inclu

des

discu

ssion

gro

up,

on-ro

adfeed

back

drive

and

trainin

gon

close

track

2nd

phase

driver

trainin

gw

hich

inclu

des

feedback

driver

and

tracktrain

ing

Nu

mb

er

of

sessio

ns

23

?1

Tota

lle

ng

th2

days

??

2hours

Facilita

tors

Often

drivin

gin

structors,

trained

asfacilitato

rs?

Inexp

erienced

facilitators(test-track

staff)used

Qualified

psych

olo

gist

Aim

s/ob

jectiv

es

To

modify

driver

beh

aviour

insu

cha

way

asto

reduce

the

risksasso

ciatedw

ith

To

exploit

the

experien

cesgain

eddurin

gin

dep

enden

tdrivin

g,

and

tofo

cus

more

Stim

ulate

discu

ssion

on

poten

tiallyhazard

ous

situatio

ns

inrath

er‘n

orm

al’

Give

novice

drivers

the

necessary

tools

tohelp

them

recognise

and

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

65

PPR454

thei

rdrivi

ng

beh

avio

ur,

focu

sing

on

motiva

tional

and

emotional

aspec

tsofdri

ving

on

soci

alin

tera

ctio

nan

dec

onom

ical

drivi

ng

soci

alsi

tuat

ions

and

stim

ula

tean

dto

enhan

cehig

her

ord

ersk

ills

imple

men

tth

eright

action

san

dbeh

avio

ur

for

diffe

rent

traf

fic

situ

atio

ns

Con

ten

tAcc

iden

tan

alys

is,

stoppin

g/b

raki

ng

dis

tance

s,dis

tance

tove

hic

lein

fron

t,ben

ds,

psy

choac

tive

subst

ance

s,dri

ver

pro

file

,fe

edbac

kdri

ve,

envi

ronm

ent

/ec

o-d

rivi

ng

Ris

ksin

traf

fic,

soci

alin

tera

ctio

nsk

ills,

antici

pat

ory

and

econom

ical

dri

ving

styl

e

Dis

trac

tions

(musi

c,m

obile

phones

,pee

rpre

ssure

,pas

sers

-by)

,m

ulti-

task

ing,

pre

ssure

from

oth

erdri

vers

,ta

ilgat

ing,

vehic

lelo

adin

g

Dis

cuss

ion

on

acci

den

tsan

dri

sks,

typic

alac

ciden

tsfo

rnovi

cedri

vers

and

rela

ted

risk

s,su

chas

ove

rconfiden

ce,

lack

of

soci

alre

sponsi

bili

tyan

dfa

nta

syte

nden

cy.

Indiv

idual

sar

een

coura

ged

toco

nsi

der

risk

san

dper

sonal

wea

knes

ses.

Evalu

ati

on

Ongoin

gRed

uct

ions

of

acci

den

tson

slip

per

yan

ddar

kro

ads,

posi

tive

effe

cton

attitu

des

;how

ever

,no

contr

olgro

up

and

aco

ncu

rren

tgen

eral

reduct

ion

inac

ciden

tsin

Finla

nd

Pre-

post

com

par

ison

with

random

ised

allo

cation

of

par

tici

pan

tsto

exper

imen

tal

and

contr

ol

gro

up.

Sig

nific

ant

posi

tive

and

non

-si

gnific

ant

neg

ativ

eef

fect

son

dri

ving

skill

san

drisk

calib

ration;

dis

cuss

ion

elem

ent

leas

tfa

vourite

elem

ent

inse

cond

phas

etr

ainin

g

So

far

only

pro

cess

eval

uat

ion

avai

lable

.Sugges

tsundes

ired

incr

ease

of

confiden

cein

trai

nee

san

dgen

eral

acce

pta

nce

of

the

dis

cuss

ion

module

by

par

tici

pan

ts.

More

robust

findin

gs

are

nee

ded

.

Oth

er

info

EU

AD

VAN

CED

Proje

ct

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

66

PPR454

Pro

gra

mm

eS

ou

thA

ustra

liaD

river

Inte

rven

tion

Pro

gra

mm

eA

TS

Bn

ovice

driv

er

coach

ing

pro

gra

mm

eTra

fficsa

fety

work

taken

serio

usly

Kirk

lees

en

han

ced

Pass

Plu

sS

chem

eA

uth

ors/

org

an

isatio

nU

niversity

of

Adelaid

e;W

undersitz

&H

utch

inso

n(2

006)

Australian

Tran

sport

Safety

Board

;Christie,

Harriso

n&

Johnsto

n(2

004)

Rep

orted

inRO

SE,

2005

Kirklees

Council

Cou

ntry

Australia

Australia

Germ

any

UK

Sta

rted

in…

1996

Not

ongoin

g,

startsin

2009

2002

2004

Driv

er/

licen

cety

pe

Disq

ualified

for

any

trafficoffen

cew

hilst

hold

ing

apro

visional

license

(may

hold

pro

visional

or

full

licence

attim

eofatten

dan

ce)

Licence

hold

erfo

rat

least6

month

s16-1

8years

old

spre-d

riversor

learner

drivers

Licence

hold

erfo

ra

maxim

um

of10

month

s

Solo

or

non

-solo

Solo

Solo

-Solo

Ag

eU

nder

25

Any

16-1

8Any

Com

pu

lsory

/volu

nta

ry$125

(~£60)

fine

for

non-

attendan

ceVolu

ntary

Sch

ools

canch

oose

wheth

erto

takepart

inth

esch

eme,

studen

tsin

particip

ating

schools

must

takepart.

Volu

ntary

Cost

top

articip

an

t$32

(~£15)

--

£60

Gro

up

size<

16,

split

into

two

gro

ups

for

most

ofth

esessio

n6

Sch

oolclass

10

Discu

ssion

typ

eSm

allgro

up

discu

ssions

ledby

facilitators,

strategy

isto

letyo

ung

drivers

find

their

ow

nneed

for

attitudin

al/

beh

avioural

chan

ges

by

letting

them

draw

their

ow

nco

nclu

sions

asto

how

they

mig

ht

chan

ge,

and

avoid

lecturin

gon

road

safety

Firstpart

invo

lvesobservatio

nof

trafficsitu

ations

and

discu

ssion

facilitatedby

coach

;secon

dpart

invo

lvesparticip

ants

bein

gguid

edth

rough

various

situatio

ns

that

they

have

enco

untered

/arelikely

toen

counter

Discu

ssion

facilitatedby

teacher

intrain

ing;

covers

types

of

drivin

gyo

ung

adults

typically

do

(clubs,

goin

gout

etc.)an

dth

erisks

associated

with

them

;particip

ants

discu

ssdilem

mas

(e.g.

boyfrien

dof

girl

isdrivin

gan

dhas

got

dru

nk;

girl

has

told

paren

tssh

ew

ould

stayw

itha

female

friend;

what

shall

she

do?)

and

strategies

for

dealin

gw

ithth

em;

Pow

erPoin

tpresen

tation

inclu

din

gvid

eom

aterial

Oth

er

sectio

ns

None

Baselin

eassessm

ent,

daytim

edrive

with

feedback,

nig

ht

time

drive

with

feedback,

follo

w-u

p

Feedback

drive

with

peers

inth

eback

who

com

men

ton

drivin

gperfo

rman

ce

PassPlu

ssch

eme

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

67

PPR454

dri

vew

ith

feed

bac

k,tw

ote

lephone

follo

w-u

ps

Nu

mb

er

of

sess

ion

s1

1(f

or

dis

cuss

ion

gro

up)

11

Tota

lle

ng

th1.5

hours

Dis

cuss

ion

gro

ups

appro

x3

hours

,w

hole

pro

gra

mm

eap

pro

x7

hours

3hours

2hours

Faci

lita

tors

Diffe

rent

bac

kgro

unds,

som

edis

able

daf

ter

acr

ash

Giv

ena

coac

hin

gpro

gra

m,

trai

ned

toas

sist

novi

cedri

vers

tom

ainta

inan

dim

pro

vesk

ills.

Tea

cher

sin

trai

nin

g,

dri

ving

inst

ruct

ors

and

polic

eoffic

ers

Counci

l’sow

ndri

ver

trai

ners

Aim

s/ob

ject

ives

To

reduce

the

inci

den

ceofcr

ash

amongst

novi

cedri

vers

by

confr

onting

them

with

the

pote

ntial

conse

quen

ces

ofth

ecr

ash

and

tobre

akdow

nth

eir

sense

ofin

vinci

bili

ty

Part

1:

Todet

erm

ine

the

gro

up

conse

nsu

sof

beh

avio

ur

and

skill

sto

be

dem

onst

rate

dby

the

coac

hbas

edon

feed

bac

kfr

omdri

vers

;to

accu

rate

lyex

pla

in,

dem

onst

rate

and

dis

cuss

mea

sure

sto

impro

vebeh

avio

ur

/sk

ills

innom

inat

edac

tivi

ties

Part

2:

To

gen

erat

edis

cuss

ion

on

know

nhig

hri

skis

sues

for

novi

ces,

and

work

thro

ugh

appro

pri

ate

stra

tegie

sto

reduce

risk

Em

pow

erpre

-drive

rs,

impro

veco

mm

unic

atio

nsk

ills,

awar

enes

sof

risk

san

dst

rate

gie

sfo

rdea

ling

with

them

Incr

easi

ng

dri

vers

’aw

aren

ess

of

hum

an

fact

ors

whic

haf

fect

dri

ving

per

form

ance

and

thei

rpar

ticu

lar

impac

ton

novi

cedri

vers

;im

pro

ving

the

abili

tyof

the

novi

cedri

ver

toan

alys

enea

rm

isse

san

dto

self-e

valu

ate

drivi

ng

per

form

ance

;an

dim

pro

ving

novi

cedri

vers

’at

titu

de

tow

ards

the

dri

ving

task

Con

ten

tRis

k-ta

king

beh

avio

ur,

soci

alnorm

s&

beh

avio

ur

rational

isat

ions,

lifes

tyle

issu

es,

conse

quen

ces

of

cras

hin

g,

rein

forc

emen

tofvu

lner

abili

ty

Part

1:

Kee

pin

ga

safe

dis

tance

from

oth

erdri

vers

/sp

eed

contr

ol;

Sel

ecting

safe

gap

sw

hen

mak

ing

turn

s,cr

oss

ing

traf

fic

or

chan

gin

gla

nes

;Sca

nnin

gfo

rhaza

rds

Part

2:

Dri

nk

dri

ving,

nig

ht

dri

ving,

fatigue,

pee

rs,

dis

trac

tions,

man

agin

gri

sks,

cras

hpat

tern

s

Dri

ving

pat

tern

san

dm

otive

sof

young

dri

vers

;ri

sks

asso

ciat

edw

ith

thes

epat

tern

s;st

rate

gie

sfo

rdea

ling

with

thes

eri

sks.

Incl

udes

anic

ebre

aker

,dis

cuss

ion

on

goo

ddri

ver

pro

file

,‘b

lock

ers’

(dis

trac

tion,

pee

rpre

ssure

,nig

ht

dri

ving,

alco

hol,

fatigue)

,sp

eed

awar

enes

s,cr

ash

anal

ysis

Evalu

ati

on

None

Ongoin

g;

tobe

expec

ted

in2009

Ongoin

g;

tobe

expec

ted

in2009

Pre-

post

com

par

ison

by

Edw

ards

2005

and

qual

itat

ive

eval

uat

ion

by

TRL

in2006

with

posi

tive

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

68

PPR454

results

indicatin

gaccep

tance

for

the

schem

eby

learners

and

AD

Isan

din

creasesin

know

ledge.

How

ever,no

contro

lgro

up

findin

gs

available

and

no

robust

eviden

ceavailab

leon

itseffects

on

crashred

uctio

ns.

Oth

er

info

Based

on

Ajzen

’sTheo

ryof

Planned

Beh

avio

ur

(1988),

Fuller’s

Task-C

apab

ility-In

terfaceM

odel

(2000)

and

JimH

orn

e’sw

ork

on

driver

fatigue

atLo

ughboro

ugh

University.

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

69

PPR454

Ap

pen

dix

BLearn

ing

go

als

of

the

Learn

er

Dri

ver

Dis

cuss

ion

Gro

up

Learn

ing

go

al

Aim

Ou

tco

me

Th

eo

reti

cal

back

gro

un

d/

just

ific

ati

on

Exis

tin

gexam

ple

so

fg

oo

dp

ract

ice/

imp

lem

en

tati

on

1.U

nd

ers

tan

dth

at

ag

oo

dd

river

isa

safe

dri

ver

Exp

lore

part

icip

ants

’per

ception

of“g

ood”

dri

ving

and

thei

rposs

ible

per

ception

that

confiden

ceis

apro

xyfo

rco

mpet

ence

;co

llect

elem

ents

and

att

ribute

sofa

good/w

ise/

safe

dri

ver;

iden

tify

fact

ors

that

impair

good

dri

ving;

concl

ude

that

“good”

dri

ving

isals

o“s

afe

and

wis

e”dri

ving

Part

icip

ants

under

stand

that

agood

dri

ver

isals

oa

safe

dri

ver.

They

know

and

are

able

tost

ate

the

stra

tegie

sa

safe

dri

ver

emplo

ys:

�Pla

nnin

gth

ero

ute

toth

edes

tination

�Lo

oki

ng

and

pla

nnin

gahea

d�

Adju

stin

gsp

eed

toco

nditio

ns

�Avo

idin

gdis

tract

ion

from

dri

ving

�U

sesa

fety

marg

ins

that

allo

woth

erro

ad

use

rsto

make

mis

take

s�

Bei

ng

pre

dic

table

for

oth

erro

ad

use

rs

Acc

ord

ing

toth

ePro

toty

pe/

Will

ingnes

sm

odel

part

icip

ants

are

likel

yto

copy

thei

rro

lem

odel

sdri

ving

beh

avi

our;

part

icip

ants

’bel

iefs

about

good

dri

ving

and

thei

rro

lem

odel

sneed

tobe

iden

tified

and

challe

nged

.

Res

earc

hw

ith

young

dri

vers

by

Sim

on

Chri

stm

as

(DfT

,2007)

sugges

tsth

at

young

adults

tend

touse

confiden

ceas

an

indic

ato

rof

skill

.

InAust

ria

(Bart

l&

Gats

cha,

2003),

dri

ver

dis

cuss

ion

gro

ups

under

lead

of

psy

cholo

gis

tpoin

tout

that

dri

ving

isnot

only

am

att

erof

vehic

leco

ntr

ol,

but

requir

esa

bala

nce

bet

wee

nth

edem

ands

of

the

situ

ation

and

the

dri

ver’s

abili

ties

.

The

Sw

edis

hand

Norw

egia

ndri

ver

train

ing

(Sagber

g&

Gre

gers

en,

2005)

aim

todev

elop

“wis

e”ra

ther

than

sim

ply

“ski

lled”

dri

vers

by

impro

ving

learn

ers’

abili

tyto

make

good

judgem

ents

.

Dem

onst

rate

the

earl

yin

fluen

ceof

signific

ant

oth

ers

(pare

nts

&pee

rs)

on

the

form

ation

of

learn

ers’

att

itudes

and

bel

iefs

.Consi

der

how

past

beh

avi

our

as

pass

enger

sand

obse

rvers

may

have

influen

ced

learn

erdri

vers

’cu

rren

tatt

itudes

and

belie

fs.

Exp

lore

learn

er

dri

vers

’

Part

icip

ants

under

stand

the

influen

ceof

role

model

s’dri

ving

styl

esth

eyhave

obse

rved

as

pass

enger

sin

the

past

and

are

able

toch

alle

nge

thei

rappro

pri

ate

nes

sfo

rsa

fedri

ving.

Wayl

en&

McK

enna’s

(2002)

rese

arc

hin

toth

eea

rly

form

ation

of

att

itudes

.

Inth

eKir

klee

sEnhance

dPass

Plu

sdis

cuss

ion

gro

up

part

icip

ants

dis

cuss

how

dri

ving

changes

as

are

sult

ofw

ho

they

are

dri

ving

with.

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

70

PPR454

percep

tion

of

norm

srela

ting

todrivin

gand

their

possib

lebelief

that

“realdrivin

g”

isdifferen

tfro

mw

hat

they

learn

with

their

instru

ctor.

Discu

ssexa

mples

of

discrep

ancies

betw

een

perceived

and

actu

al

evalu

atio

ns

of

“cool”

and

riskydrivin

gstyles

(e.g.

the

driver

thin

kshe/sh

eis

“cool”,

the

passen

ger

thin

kshe/sh

eis

stupid

).U

sem

ale

and

female

persp

ective.

Particip

ants

understa

nd

passen

gers’

expecta

tions

on

their

drivin

g.

They

are

able

tosa

yhow

their

curren

tand

later

solo

drivin

gstyle

will

change

dep

endin

gif

their

passen

gers

are

�Their

paren

ts�

Their

drivin

gin

structo

r�

Their

friends.

Particip

ants

know

how

tota

keactio

nto

ensu

resa

fedrivin

greg

ard

lessof

passen

gers.

Particip

ants

understa

nd

that

drivers

who

take

risksare

not

nece

ssarily

perceived

tobe

“cool”

by

their

pee

rsbut

actu

ally

“stupid

”.

Resea

rch(e

.g.

Christm

as,

2007)

suggests

that

learn

ersth

ink

that

what

they

learn

inlesso

ns

isnot

what

they

need

when

drivin

gso

lo.

Discu

ssion

ofin

fluen

ceson

drivin

gw

ould

help

toid

entify

the

socia

lnorm

sth

at

may

be

guid

ing

particip

ants’

futu

redrivin

g(su

bjective

norm

com

ponen

tofth

eTheory

ofPla

nned

Beh

avio

ur).

Acts

on

Christm

as’

reco

mm

endatio

nto

challen

ge

the

“cooln

ess”of

riskta

king

role

models.

Kirklees

DVD

“Inth

edrivin

gsea

t”:The

final

module

show

sth

eboy

racer

losin

gsta

tus

and

credib

ilityw

ithhis

friends.

2.

Ad

dre

sslife

ph

ase

an

dtra

nsitio

nto

solo

driv

ing

Reco

gnise

drivin

gas

apurp

osefu

lso

cialactivity

and

as

am

eans

tobuild

aparticu

lar

image

and

iden

tity.

Understa

nd

the

transition

toso

lodrivin

gas

enterin

gth

eexp

ressive

phase,

when

drivin

gexp

resses

perso

nality,

attitu

din

aland

motiva

tional

chara

cteristicsand

islikely

to

Particip

ants

are

aw

are

of

the

ben

efits

asso

ciated

with

bein

gable

todrive

.They

are

able

tosa

yw

hich

additio

nal

motives

may

influ

ence

their

drivin

gstyle

(e.g.

expre

ssing

oneself).

Particip

ants

understa

nd

that

solo

drivin

gbrin

gs

with

itth

erem

ova

lof

contin

uous

support

ofth

e

Rela

testo

the

hig

hest

levelofth

eG

DE

matrix

(goals

for

life,skills

for

living)

Stra

dlin

gsta

testh

at

the

transitio

nfro

mlea

rner

driver

toso

lodrive

rsin

cludes

the

transitio

nin

toth

e“e

xpressive”

phase

of

drivin

g

As

part

of

the

instru

ctor

train

ing

day

ofth

eKirklee

sEnhanced

Pass

Plu

ssch

eme

particip

ants

discu

ssch

ara

cteristicsof

the

expre

ssivephase

of

drivin

g.

Most

exam

ples

of

discu

ssion

gro

ups

that

are

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

71

PPR454

affect

dri

ving

safe

ty.

Iden

tify

influen

ces

on

dri

ving

styl

e(i

.e.

thri

llse

ekin

g,

peer

pre

ssure

,fa

tigue)

and

dis

cuss

how

thes

efa

ctors

are

likel

yto

impact

learn

ers

’beh

avi

our

ina

spec

ific

situ

ation.

Sum

mari

seall

motive

sand

influen

cing

fact

ors

that

may

affect

curr

ent

learn

ers

’la

ter

solo

dri

ving.

inst

ruct

or

and

incr

ease

ddifficu

lty

ofdri

ving

resu

ltin

gfr

om

:�

Dri

ving

on

the

moto

rway

�D

rivi

ng

with

pass

enger

sand

oth

erdis

tract

ions

�Choosi

ng

and

pla

nnin

gro

ute

s�

Navi

gating

inunfa

mili

ar

envi

ronm

ents

�Exp

osu

reto

situ

ations

that

requir

ere

sponsi

ble

dec

isio

nm

aki

ng/

pla

nnin

g(e

.g.

dri

nks

/dru

gs)

�D

rivi

ng

ina

vari

ety

of

envi

ronm

ents

and

conditio

ns

loca

ted

within

the

seco

nd

stage

ofm

ulti-

phasi

cdrive

rtr

ain

ing

regim

es(e

.g.

Finla

nd,

Sw

itze

rland

or

Aust

ria)

explo

repart

icip

ants

’ea

rly

exper

ience

sof

solo

dri

ving

3.

No

vic

ed

river

acc

iden

ts

Exp

lore

the

part

icula

rsu

scep

tibili

tyofyo

ung

dri

vers

tobe

invo

lved

intr

affic

acc

iden

ts,

incl

udin

g:

�H

ighly

soci

ally

act

ive

lifes

tyle

�Com

para

tive

lyhig

hw

ork

load

�H

igh

susc

eptibili

tyto

per

form

ance

decr

emen

ts�

Inexp

eri

ence

of

range

of

dri

ving

situ

ations

�La

ckof

exp

eri

ence

with

iden

tify

ing

and

dea

ling

with

haza

rds

Part

icip

ants

under

stand

that

inco

mpari

son

tooth

erage

gro

ups,

novi

cedri

vers

’la

ckof

exper

ience

puts

them

at

hig

her

risk

ofan

acc

iden

t.

Part

icip

ants

are

able

tonam

eth

efa

ctors

that

affect

the

acc

iden

tri

skof

novi

cedri

vers

incl

udin

g:

�U

nder

estim

ation

of

risk

�O

ver

estim

ation

of

skill

Rel

ate

sto

the

Hea

lth

Bel

iefM

odel

:yo

ung

adults’

per

ceiv

edsu

scep

tibili

tyof

bei

ng

invo

lved

ina

crash

isty

pic

ally

low

.Le

arn

er

dri

vers

may

als

ounder

est

imate

the

severi

tyofa

crash

.Both

per

ceiv

edsu

scep

tibili

tyand

per

ceiv

edse

veri

tysh

ould

be

addre

ssed

.

Aust

rian

gro

up

dis

cuss

ion

(Bart

l&

Gats

cha,

2003):

revi

ewof

younger

dri

ver

acc

iden

tspatt

erns,

then

spec

ific

ques

tions:

�W

hat

would

be

my

most

likel

yacc

iden

t?�

What

acc

iden

tw

ould

Ibe

unlik

ely

tohave

?�

Am

Ire

ady

tota

ke

resp

onsi

bili

tyfo

rm

yact

ions

intr

affic

?

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

72

PPR454

�In

tentio

nally

brea

king

rules/

need

toreb

el�

Cognitive

dev

elopm

ent

(fronta

llo

be

matu

ratio

n)

&lim

itsof

self-regula

tionExp

lore

causa

tion

of

crash

esand

discu

ssth

eco

ncep

tof

driver

fault

Enco

ura

ge

particip

ants

toco

nsid

eranticip

ated

regret

asso

ciated

with

bein

gin

volved

ina

crash

with

out

alien

atin

g/sca

ring

them

.Im

pre

sson

particip

ants

that

wea

ring

asa

fetybelt

will

help

tom

inim

isecra

shoutco

mes

�G

ender

�La

ckof

exp

erien

ce

Particip

ants

are

aw

are

of

the

conseq

uen

ceofro

ad

crash

esfo

rth

emselves

and

oth

ers.

Particip

ants

understa

nd

the

safety

ben

efit

ofsea

tbelts

incra

shes

Acco

rdin

gto

the

Theo

ryof

Pla

nned

Beh

avio

ur,

anticip

ated

regret

can

modify

beh

avio

ura

lin

tentio

ns

At

the

sam

etim

eparticip

ants

should

be

given

clear

advice

on

how

they

can

keep

them

selvessa

fe(in

crease

the

perceived

beh

avio

ura

lco

ntro

l/self

efficacy)

The

Kirklees

Enhanced

Pass

Plu

s“D

on’t

lose

itall”

video

which

show

sgrievin

gfrien

ds

and

paren

tsofa

road

crash

victimco

nclu

des

the

discu

ssion

gro

up

4.

Risk

incre

asin

gfa

ctors

&in

sigh

ttra

inin

g

Exp

lore

and

iden

tifydrivin

gbeh

avio

urs

that

increa

seaccid

ent

risk,possib

lyusin

ga

scenario

appro

ach

where

particip

ants

iden

tifym

ain

riskasso

ciated

with

ajo

urn

ey.

Understa

nd

the

impact

of

expecta

tion

on

drivin

g(e.g

.“p

edestria

ns

should

only

cross

the

road

at

ped

estria

ncro

ssing

and

thus

Idon’t

have

topay

atten

tion

toped

estria

ns

on

the

footp

ath

”).

Cla

rifyth

eim

pact

ofdrivin

gbased

on

assu

mptio

ns

about

the

beh

avio

ur

of

oth

ers

(e.g.

Particip

ants

understa

nd:

�That

drivin

gsp

eeds

should

be

chosen

tosu

itco

nditio

ns

and

that

speed

isan

importa

nt

facto

rfo

rcra

shsev

erity�

The

importa

nce

of

leavin

gsu

fficient

gaps

toth

edrive

rin

front;

they

know

strateg

iesto

dea

lw

ithpeo

ple

tailg

ating

�That

they

should

only

ove

rtake

where

they

have

clear

use

ofth

eoth

erla

ne

to

Rela

testo

Hea

lthBelief

Model/

Theory

ofPla

nned

Beh

avio

ur:

InTPB

“attitu

des”

are

the

pro

duct

ofbeliefs

and

outco

me

expecta

tions.

To

change

riskydrivin

g-rela

tedattitu

des,

underlyin

gbeliefs

or

outco

me

expecta

tions

need

tobe

changed

/adju

sted.

The

HBM

postu

lates

that

costs

and

ben

efitsofth

eta

rget

beh

avio

ur

are

assessed

befo

rean

individ

ual

adopts

the

beh

avio

ur

that

pro

mises

grea

ter

ben

efits.

Materia

lava

ilable

from

:Bra

ke’s

“Too

young

todie”

pre

senta

tion,

Warw

ickshire’s

“Drivin

gam

bitio

n”

pro

gra

mm

e,th

eAustria

ndriver

discu

ssion

gro

up

or

Kirklee

sEnhanced

Pass

Plu

s:pro

sand

cons

of

drivin

gfa

ster)stress,

fun,

skill),fo

llow

ing

dista

nces,

observ

atio

nskills,

seat

belt

use

are

discu

ssed

Novice

Drive

rC

oach

ing

Pro

gra

mm

e(A

TSB

Austra

lia):

Drin

kdrivin

g,

nig

ht

drivin

g,

fatig

ue,

drivin

gw

ithpeers,

oth

er

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

73

PPR454

“the

car

will

not

pull

out

infr

ont

ofm

eor

the

road

will

be

clea

raro

und

the

ben

dw

hen

over

taki

ng”)

Cre

ate

insi

ght

into

and

under

standin

gofpart

icip

ants

’per

ceptu

allim

itations

that

may

lead

toth

eundere

stim

ation

of

risk

or

ove

rest

imation

ofco

ntr

ol

when

solo

dri

ving

late

r.

Ass

ess

nea

rm

isse

sand

iden

tify

ways

whic

hw

ould

reduce

com

ple

teth

em

anoeu

vre

safe

ly�

That

seat

bel

tuse

reduce

sfa

talit

yand

seri

ous

inju

ryra

tes

incr

ash

es�

That

det

ect

ing

and

dea

ling

safe

lyw

ith

haza

rds

isan

import

ant

and

difficu

ltta

skth

at

requir

esexp

eri

ence

�Young

dri

vers

’hig

her

susc

eptibili

tyto

impai

rmen

ts(e

.g.

induce

dby

subst

ance

sand

fatigue)

�H

ow

dis

tract

ion

impact

sdri

ving

and

what

sourc

esof

dis

tract

ions

adri

ver

may

have

todea

lw

ith

Part

icip

ants

reco

gnis

eand

under

stand

thei

rla

ter

limitat

ions

as

novi

ceso

lodri

vers

.Part

icip

ants

know

that

they

will

be

likel

ynot

tonotice

or

tounder

est

imate

risk

,ev

en

though

they

may

not

inte

nd

todri

vein

ari

sky

way.

Part

icip

ants

know

about

dri

vers

’per

ceptu

al

Hea

lth

Bel

iefM

odel

:per

ceiv

edsu

scep

tibili

tyof

young

adults

isty

pic

ally

low

,part

icula

rly

aft

ersu

cces

sfully

pass

ing

the

dri

ving

test

.

dis

tract

ions

are

dis

cuss

ed

Aust

ralia

nD

IPPro

gra

mm

e:Spee

din

g,

its

pro

sand

cons,

how

todea

lw

ita

speed

ing

dri

ver

as

apass

enger

;dri

nk/

dru

gdri

ving:

exch

ange

ow

nex

per

ience

and

dis

cuss

ion

of

stra

tegie

sto

dea

lw

ith

pro

ble

ms

Kir

klee

sEnhance

dPass

Plu

s:acc

iden

tfa

ult

anal

ysis

exer

cise

Sim

ons

and

Chabri

s(1

999):

sele

ctiv

ein

att

entionalblin

dnes

s:Part

icip

ants

are

ask

edto

watc

ha

short

bask

etball

video

and

count

the

num

ber

ofpass

esbet

wee

nth

ebla

ckte

am

mem

ber

s.Appro

xim

ate

ly90%

do

not

notice

apers

on

dre

ssed

as

agori

llaen

teri

ng

and

leavi

ng

the

scen

e.

Rid

erRis

kRed

uct

ion

Cours

e(D

r.Burg

ess,

Exet

er

Univ

ersi

ty):

Use

ssi

mple

com

pute

r-base

dta

skto

mea

sure

part

icip

ants

’si

mple

and

com

ple

xre

act

ion

tim

es,

the

use

sa

com

pute

r-base

d

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

74

PPR454

drivers’

risk;rela

teth

isto

particip

ants’

ow

ndrivin

gstra

tegies

when

invo

lvedin

anea

rm

isssitu

atio

n(d

urin

gtra

inin

gw

ithin

structo

ror

durin

gacco

mpanied

drivin

g)

limitatio

ns

and

understa

nd

that

multip

ledem

ands

on

their

atten

tion

islikely

tolea

dto

overlo

okin

gin

form

atio

nth

at

iscru

cial

todrivin

gsa

felyand

ism

ade

worse

by

low

experien

ceand

poor

levels

ofauto

matio

n.

Particip

ants

understa

nd

their

ow

nlim

itatio

nin

perceivin

gsa

lient

info

rmatio

nco

mputer-

based

exam

ples

and

can

transfer

this

know

ledge

todrivin

g-rela

tedsitu

atio

n

Stro

op

Test

(e.g.

readin

gout

the

word

“gre

en”

when

written

inred

colo

ur

takes

longer

than

readin

gout

when

written

ingreen

colo

ur.

5.

Em

po

wer

particip

an

tsM

ake

learn

ers

aw

are

that

they

have

choices

as

drivers

Dev

elop

learn

ers

self-evalu

atio

nskills

Enco

ura

ge

particip

ants

tota

ke

resp

onsib

ilityfo

rth

eirow

nlea

rnin

gpro

cess

Particip

ants

understa

nd

that

they

will

have

choices

as

solo

drivers

inm

ost

situatio

ns

and

that

consid

ering

their

optio

ns

may

help

them

tored

uce

risk;

Particip

ants

are

able

torea

listicallyassess

their

ow

ndrivin

gstyle,

riskta

king

tenden

cyand

pro

blem

solvin

gskills.

Particip

ants

understa

nd

the

importa

nce

of

learn

ing

pro

actively,

know

where

they

are

inth

elea

rnin

g

Incre

asin

gself-effica

cyis

an

importa

nt

aim

of

alm

ost

all

beh

avio

ura

lch

ange

theories

such

as

the

Theory

ofPla

nned

Beh

avio

ur

or

Socia

lCognitive

Theory

.

‘Tra

fficSafety

Work

Taken

Serio

usly’,

aG

erman

interv

entio

nfo

rpre-

learn

ersuses

adilem

ma

appro

ach

todev

elop

pro

blem

solvin

gskills

indifficu

ltsitu

atio

ns.

E.g

.:A

girl

tellsher

paren

tssh

eis

stayin

gove

rat

afrien

d’s,

but

goes

toa

club

with

her

boyfrien

din

stead;

he

drin

ksev

enth

ough

he

was

the

desig

nated

driver.

What

can

she

do?

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

75

PPR454

pro

cess

and

know

what

they

still

nee

dto

learn

.

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

76

PPR454

Ap

pen

dix

CLearn

er

Driv

er

Discu

ssion

Gro

up

Teach

er

Pla

n

Tim

e:

2hours

20

min

utes

inclu

din

garriva

land

dep

artu

re.

Particip

an

ts:10,

mixe

dm

ale

and

female

Aim

:To

ach

ieveth

efive

hig

h-level

learn

ing

goals:

1.

Understa

nd

that

agood

driver

isa

safe

drive

r

2.

Reflect

on

learn

ers’

curren

tlife

phase

and

the

transitio

nto

solo

drivin

g

3.

Understa

nd

particu

lar

vuln

erability

for

accid

ent

involvem

ent

ofyoung,

novice

drivers

4.

Understa

nd

the

facto

rsin

solo

drivin

gth

at

may

increa

seyoung,

novice

drivers’

riskof

an

accid

ent

&develo

pin

sight

into

one’s

ow

nlim

itations

5.

Stren

gth

enlea

rner

drivers’

self-efficacy

Ob

jectiv

es:

By

particip

atin

gin

this

discu

ssion

learn

erdrivers

will:

1.

Reco

gnise

the

valu

ebein

gable

todrive

will

add

toth

eirlives

2.

Reflect

on

what

they

have

alrea

dy

learn

edabout

bein

ga

safe

road

user/a

waren

essof

oth

ervu

lnera

ble

road

use

rs

3.

Consid

erso

me

ofth

esk

illsth

eyw

illneed

,w

hich

they

may

not

dev

elop

fully

while

learn

ing

topass

their

drivin

gtest

4.

Iden

tifyso

me

ofth

efa

ctors

which

can

influ

ence

how

they

drive

,now

and

inth

efu

ture

5.

Know

som

eof

the

com

mon

causes

ofaccid

ents

for

young

drivers

6.

Iden

tifyso

me

steps

tow

ard

sbeco

min

ga

safe

rdriver

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

77

PPR454

1.

Dev

elop

appro

pri

ate

self-e

ffic

acy

with

resp

ect

tole

arn

ing

todri

ve(i

.e.

that

itis

aco

mple

xsk

illbut

they

can

dev

elop

the

skill

and

be

safe

)

Ad

dit

ion

al

ob

ject

ives:

For

part

icip

ants

tofe

elco

mfo

rtable

and

confiden

tin

the

gro

up;

toen

joy

them

selv

es;

tofe

elth

edis

cuss

ion

has

bee

nuse

ful.

Reso

urc

es

tob

eu

sed

:

1.

Hum

an

bin

go

shee

t

2.

Sam

&D

anish

ow

card

s

3.

Pow

erPoin

tsl

ide:

safe

dri

ving

chara

cteri

stic

s

4.

Pow

erpoin

tsl

ide:

Road

safe

tyquiz

5.

Dri

ving

scen

ari

osh

ow

card

s(3

)and

haza

rdsh

ow

card

s(3

)

6.

Sim

ple

and

com

ple

xre

act

ion

tim

eta

sk

7.

Pow

erpoin

tsl

ide:

stra

tegie

sto

keep

safe

8.

Paper

slip

tow

rite

dow

nso

met

hin

gth

eyw

ant

topra

ctis

ew

ith

inst

ruct

or

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

78

PPR454

Task

Activ

ityO

bje

ctive/

learn

ing

ou

tcom

e/

gro

up

pro

cess/

theo

ry

Intro

ductio

nand

welco

me

5m

inu

tes

10

min

ute

s

Intro

duce

facilita

tor

and

any

oth

ernon-p

articip

ants

inth

ero

om

.Exp

lain

the

reaso

nfo

rth

eta

pe

record

er.

Gain

consen

tfo

rreco

rdin

g.

Exp

lain

that

TRL

are

explo

ring

ways

tohelp

young

drivers

thin

kabout

bein

ga

safe

road

use

r.

Hum

an

bin

go.

(Reso

urce

1)

Find

som

eone

who

fitsth

edescrip

tion

inea

chsq

uare

.First

tofill

all9

square

sis

the

win

ner.

Follo

wup

discu

ssion:

•H

ow

many

pro

visional

licence

hold

ersare

there

?•

How

many

have

passed

their

haza

rdpercep

tion

test?•

Who

rides

abicycle

at

least

once

aw

eek

?

Help

particip

ants

feel

at

ease.

Know

why

they

are

atte

ndin

gth

ediscu

ssion

gro

up

and

itsm

ain

purp

ose.

[Form

ing

the

gro

up]

Help

particip

ants

toget

tokn

ow

one

anoth

er

and

tofin

dout

som

ethin

gabout

each

oth

ers’drivin

gexp

erience

todate

Objective

2

Bein

ga

learn

er

driv

er

20

min

ute

s

Need

s,difficu

lties,w

ishes

Individ

ually,

on

aslip

ofpaper

write

(do

not

put

nam

eson

paper):

–one

skillw

hich

peo

ple

need

when

they

are

learn

ing

todrive

e.g.

contro

lling

the

vehicle,

pred

icting

what

oth

erro

ad

use

rsm

ight

do

next

Collect

slips

ina

box

or

bow

land

then

go

on

toth

enext:

–one

thin

gw

hich

learn

erdrivers

find

difficu

lt–

Share

as

aw

hole

gro

up,

by

dra

win

gan

anonym

ous

slipfro

mth

efirst

bow

l.D

iscuss

each

one

befo

rem

ovin

gon

toth

enext.

Then

as

aw

hole

gro

up

ask

particip

ants

togive

their

nam

eand

say

what

learn

ing

todrive

will

enable

them

todo

that

they

cannot

do

now

.

Esta

blish

ing

aw

aren

essofth

egro

up

ofth

ech

allen

ge

of

beco

min

ga

driver;

establish

ing

perso

nalm

otives

for

bein

gable

todrive

[Form

ing

the

gro

up]

Ob

jectiv

e1

,3

[Motiva

tion

for

drivin

g]

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

79

PPR454

Task

Act

ivit

yO

bje

ctiv

e/

learn

ing

ou

tco

me/

gro

up

pro

cess

/th

eo

ry

Pri

or

learn

ing

10

min

ute

s

How

did

you

get

her

eto

day?

Did

any

ofyou

not

use

aro

ad?

Concl

ude

that

eve

ryone

isa

road

use

r.

What

have

you

learn

edabout

bei

ng

asa

fero

ad

use

rw

hic

his

hel

pin

gyo

uto

learn

todri

ve?

E.g

.cr

oss

ing

the

road

(what

has

that

taught

you?

–tr

affic

com

es

from

your

right

-how

oth

er

road

use

rsbeh

ave

tow

ard

sped

estr

ians)

Cyc

ling

(hig

hw

ay

code,

import

ance

oflo

oki

ng

allro

und,

bei

ng

ale

rtet

c)

Dri

ving

e.g.

speed

contr

ol,

This

may

nee

dpro

mpting

Rec

ord

on

flip

chart

or

white

board

:

•D

oes

any

of

this

experi

ence

hel

pyo

uto

reco

gnis

eth

eki

nds

of

mis

take

soth

erro

ad

use

rsm

ake

/th

at

you

have

made

yours

elfas

aro

ad

use

r?E.g

.st

eppin

gin

toth

ero

ad,

dri

vers

not

aw

are

ofcy

clis

ts,

dri

vers

not

indic

ating

at

roundabouts

……

•H

ow

long

has

itta

ken

for

you

togain

this

experi

ence

?•

How

does

this

experi

ence

hel

pyo

uas

adri

ver?

•Any

reallif

eex

am

ple

s?

Apro

ble

mfo

rnew

dri

vers

isth

at

they

have

n’t

enough

exper

ience

ofth

eki

nds

of

mis

take

sth

at

oth

erdri

vers

make.

Did

you

know

that

dri

vers

with

above

avera

ge

confiden

cew

hen

they

pass

thei

rte

stare

more

likel

yto

have

acr

ash

inth

enex

t12

month

s?W

hy

isth

is?

Concl

ude

that

one

import

ant

skill

ofan

exper

ience

ddri

ver

isexp

ect

ing

and

allo

win

gfo

roth

ers

tom

ake

mis

takes

.

Obje

ctiv

e2,3

[Rec

ognis

ing

we

are

all

road

use

rs.

That

som

ero

ad

use

rsare

more

vuln

era

ble

than

oth

ers

Get

ting

off

toa

posi

tive

start

!]

Obje

ctiv

e2,

3

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

80

PPR454

Task

Activ

ityO

bje

ctive/

learn

ing

ou

tcom

e/

gro

up

pro

cess/

theo

ry

What

isa

safe

driver?

20

min

ute

s

Particip

ants

are

asked

toget

into

two

gro

ups

with

am

ixofdrivin

gexp

erien

cein

each

gro

up

(based

on

response

sto

the

questio

ns

above).

Each

gro

up

receiveslin

edra

win

gofa

young

perso

nto

discu

ss(R

eso

urce

2).

Em

phasise

that

they

have

each

been

given

adifferen

tta

sk.Id

eally

gro

ups

should

not

be

able

tooverh

ear

each

oth

er.

Gro

up

1:

You

are

apassen

ger

ina

car

with

Sam

(who

could

be

male

or

female).

Sam

isa

good

drive

r.H

ow

can

you

tellth

at

Sam

isa

good

drive

r?H

ow

do

you

feel

when

you

are

drivin

gw

ithSam

?

Gro

up

2:

You

are

apassen

ger

ina

car

with

Dani(w

ho

could

be

male

or

female).

Daniis

asa

fedrive

r.H

ow

can

you

tellth

at

Daniis

asa

fedrive

r?H

ow

do

you

feelw

hen

you

are

drivin

gw

ithD

ani?

As

aw

hole

gro

up.

Collect

up

the

idea

son

aflip

chart

or

white

board

.

Isa

good

driver

the

sam

eas

asa

fedrive

r?

Individ

ually:

Who

are

you

most

likeas

adrive

r?Sam

or

Dani?

Discu

ssin

two’s:

What

messa

ge

would

you

give

toso

meo

ne

who

islea

rnin

gto

drive

about

beco

min

ga

safe

driver?

(Facilita

tor

togive

perso

nalexa

mple

e.g.

anyone

can

make

itgo

–it’s

makin

git

stop

that

counts!).

Ingro

up:

Write

them

on

post

itnotes,

stickon

the

flipch

art.

All

review.

Objective

2,

3,

4,

6.

[Gro

up

task,

focu

son

positive].

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

81

PPR454

Task

Act

ivit

yO

bje

ctiv

e/

learn

ing

ou

tco

me/

gro

up

pro

cess

/th

eo

ryBre

ak

15

min

ute

s

Who

ism

ost

at

risk

?

30

min

ute

s

Rev

iew

safe

dri

ver

chara

cteri

stic

s.Rei

nfo

rce

with

Pow

erPoin

tsl

ide

(Reso

urc

e3

):

•Is

not

easi

lydis

tract

ed•

Adju

sts

speed

toro

ad

conditio

ns

•Lo

oks

and

pla

ns

ahea

d•

Rea

ds

the

road

•Pla

ns

the

route

toth

edes

tination

•Allo

ws

oth

er

road

use

rsto

make

mis

take

s•

Make

shim

self/h

erse

lfpre

dic

table

for

oth

erro

ad

use

rs

Who

ism

ost

at

risk

of

bei

ng

invo

lved

ina

car

crash

?e.

g.

old

erdri

vers

,w

om

endri

vers

,w

om

enw

ith

child

ren,

young

dri

vers

,yo

ung

male

dri

vers

.

Tea

mquiz

(Reso

urc

e4

)–

could

be

boys

vers

us

gir

lsor

mix

up

from

pre

vious

gro

ups

by

num

beri

ng

1,

2alter

nate

ly.

Co

ncl

ud

eth

at

yo

un

gd

rivers

are

vu

lnera

ble

dri

vers

i.e.

they

are

more

likel

yto

be

kille

dor

seri

ousl

yin

jure

dth

an

oth

er

dri

vers

.U

sefigure

sfr

om

thei

rre

gio

n,

publis

hed

by

DfT

Exp

ress

risk

ofdea

thper

100,0

00

popula

tion

AN

Dre

late

toa

tow

nth

ey

know

of

sim

ilar

size

.

Obje

ctiv

e5

[Rea

lity

check

]

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

82

PPR454

Task

Activ

ityO

bje

ctive/

learn

ing

ou

tcom

e/

gro

up

pro

cess/

theo

ry

Solo

drivin

gskills

10

min

ute

s

Drivers

are

most

at

riskin

the

12-1

8m

onth

safter

they

have

passed

their

test.

Why?

Age

or

experien

ce?

Undere

stimatin

grisk,

overestim

atin

gability?

Bein

gm

ale?

Rem

ind

particip

ants

that

most

young

drive

rsdon’t

have

serio

us

accid

ents

but

too

many

do.

What

can

they

do

tobe

asa

ferdrive

r?W

hat

skillsw

illth

eystill

need

todev

elop

after

they

have

passed

the

drivin

gtest

ifth

eyare

goin

gto

be

able

tokeep

them

selves

and

oth

erro

ad

users

as

safe

as

possib

le?

E.g

.navig

atin

gin

unfam

iliar

area

s,ch

oosin

gand

pla

nnin

ga

route,

readin

gth

ero

ad,

drivin

gat

nig

ht,

drivin

gon

moto

rways,

copin

gw

ithpassen

gers,

copin

gw

ithexp

osu

reto

situatio

ns

that

require

sayin

g“n

o”

(drin

k/dru

gs)

or

doin

gso

meth

ing

the

passen

gers

may

not

want

(e.g.

stoppin

gfo

ra

nap

when

feelin

gtire

d).

Perso

nalreflectio

n:

Which

ofth

esew

illyo

ufin

dm

ost

challen

gin

g?

Objective

3,4

[Iden

tifying

skillsnot

develo

ped

as

alea

rner

drive

r].

Objective

7

Objective

6,

7

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

83

PPR454

Task

Act

ivit

yO

bje

ctiv

e/

learn

ing

ou

tco

me/

gro

up

pro

cess

/th

eo

ry

Sce

nari

os

15

min

ute

s

Part

icip

ants

dis

cuss

3sc

enari

os

(Reso

urc

e5

)in

small

gro

ups

of3

or

4.

Sce

nari

o1

:You

have

arr

anged

tom

eet

your

frie

nd

at

the

railw

ay

station

,10

mile

sfr

om

wher

eyou

live.

You

have

not

dri

ven

ther

ebef

ore

.D

esc

ribe

what

pro

ble

ms

you

mig

ht

face

and

how

you

pla

nto

cope

with

them

.

Sce

nari

o2

:You

are

dri

ving

yours

elfand

your

younger

bro

ther

tom

eet

your

Mum

into

wn

15

mile

saw

ay.

You

know

the

way

but

you

are

late

leavi

ng.

Des

crib

ew

hat

pro

ble

ms

you

mig

ht

face

and

how

you

pla

nto

cope

with

them

.

Sce

nari

o3

:You

are

dri

ving

back

late

from

agood

nig

ht

out

with

3fr

iends.

The

oth

ers

have

bee

ndri

nki

ng

but

you

have

not

beca

use

you

are

the

desi

gnate

ddri

ver.

Desc

ribe

what

pro

ble

ms

you

mig

ht

face

and

how

you

pla

nto

cope

with

them

.

Once

they

have

beg

un

dis

cuss

ing,in

vite

each

gro

up

topic

ka

card

with

anew

haza

rdor

dis

tract

ion:

you

rece

ive

am

ess

age

on

your

mobile

phone;

you

hea

ron

the

radio

that

the

moto

rway

iscl

ose

dbeca

use

ofan

acc

iden

t;yo

unotice

that

ther

eis

are

dw

arn

ing

light

on

the

dis

pla

ypanel

.

What

do

you

do?

Bri

effe

edback

about

each

scen

ari

oto

the

whole

gro

up.

How

realis

tic

are

the

exam

ple

s?H

ow

will

ing

would

you

be

inre

alit

yto

‘do

the

right

thin

g’?

Obje

ctiv

e4,

6,

7

[Pro

toty

pes

and

will

ingnes

s].

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

84

PPR454

Task

Activ

ityO

bje

ctive/

learn

ing

ou

tcom

e/

gro

up

pro

cess/

theo

ryIn

sight

train

ing

15

min

ute

s

Activ

ity1

:S

imp

lere

actio

ntim

eta

sk(R

eso

urce

6)

Ask

for

volu

nteer

from

gro

up

toco

me

tofro

nt

and

sitin

front

ofla

pto

p

Sta

rtrea

ction

time

task

and

choose

“Sim

ple”

on

men

u

Instru

ction

sto

particip

an

t:

•O

nclickin

g‘O

K’,

targ

etim

age

(stop-sig

n)

will

be

show

nfo

rth

reeseco

nds

•This

isth

enrep

laced

with

blu

ebackg

round

•As

soon

as

targ

etobje

ctappea

rsfo

rth

eseco

nd

time,

hit

the

spaceb

ar

The

com

pute

rw

illreco

rdth

erea

ction

time

betw

eenth

eappea

rance

of

the

stop

sign

on

the

com

puter

screen

and

transla

teth

isrea

ction

time

into

dista

nce

travelled

at

acerta

insp

eed.

Discu

ss:

•H

um

an

info

rmatio

npro

cessing

take

stim

e

•This

task

show

syo

u,

what

your

shorte

strea

ction

time

can

be

under

the

best

possib

leco

nditio

ns

(sole

focu

sofatten

tion

on

task,

no

distra

ction,

simple

reactio

nreq

uired

)

•But

isrea

ction

time

all

there

isto

drivin

gsa

felyin

the

enviro

nm

ent?

No,

drivin

gsa

felyreq

uired

haza

rdpercep

tion

and

this

invo

lvedfo

ur

stages:

•Seein

gth

ehaza

rd

•Reco

gnisin

gth

ehaza

rdas

ahaza

rd

•D

ecidin

gw

hat

course

of

actio

nto

take

•Takin

gactio

n

Inth

esim

ple

reactio

ntim

eexa

mple,

only

the

firstand

last

pro

cessoccu

rred;

you

knew

what

was

com

ing

and

what

you

had

todo

when

itappea

red.

Lets’se

eusin

ga

slightly

more

difficu

ltta

sk.

Objectives

4,

5,

6.

[Apprecia

teone’s

ow

nlim

itatio

ns

insp

ottin

gand

reactin

gto

haza

rds,

effectof

distra

ctions

on

atten

tion].

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

85

PPR454

Task

Act

ivit

yO

bje

ctiv

e/

learn

ing

ou

tco

me/

gro

up

pro

cess

/th

eo

ryIn

sight

train

ing

continued

Act

ivit

y2

:C

om

ple

xre

act

ion

tim

eta

sk

Ask

volu

nte

erto

rem

ain

seate

din

front

of

lapto

p

Inst

ruct

ion

sto

part

icip

an

t:

Aft

erth

issc

reen

,a

blu

esc

reen

will

be

show

nfo

ra

few

mom

ents

.You

will

then

see

aro

ad

scen

e.H

ave

alo

ok

at

the

road

scen

e.

•I

want

you

topre

ssth

eri

ght

arr

ow

key

as

quic

kly

as

poss

ible

,if

ther

eis

aped

est

rian

inth

epic

ture

•I

want

you

topre

ssth

ele

ftarr

ow

key

as

quic

kly

as

poss

ible

,if

ther

eis

no

ped

estr

ian

inth

epic

ture

Rea

dy?

Sta

rtth

eex

erci

se.

Co

mp

are

:

Task

One:

Sim

ple

react

ion

tim

e-

reflex

Task

Tw

o:

Com

ple

xre

act

ion

tim

e–

‘cognitiv

e’pro

cess

–need

tim

eto

thin

k,not

just

auto

matica

llyre

act

Bo

thta

sks

are

clearl

yn

ot

part

icu

larl

ysi

mil

ar

tod

rivin

g:

They

lack

realis

mbec

ause

they

are

hig

hly

sim

plif

ied

vers

ions

ofw

hat

happen

sin

the

‘RealW

orl

d’.

Bu

t:

They

show

that

we

as

hum

ans

have

limitations

inhow

fast

we

can

per

ceiv

eand

pro

cess

info

rmation.

Als

oth

ink

about

that

realw

orl

dhaza

rds

are

dynam

ic,

not

static,

ther

em

ore

goin

gon

that

you

as

adri

ver

nee

dto

pay

att

ention

to.

Obje

ctiv

es4,

5,

6.

[Appre

ciate

one’

sow

nlim

itations

insp

ott

ing

and

react

ing

tohaza

rds,

effe

ctof

dis

tract

ions

on

att

ention].

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

86

PPR454

Task

Activ

ityO

bje

ctive/

learn

ing

ou

tcom

e/

gro

up

pro

cess/

theo

ry

Sum

mary

5m

inu

tes

Review

the

discu

ssion.

Togeth

erw

ehave:

Iden

tifiedw

hat

isim

porta

nt

toyo

uabout

bein

gable

todrive

–w

hat

you

will

be

able

todo

inth

efu

ture

which

you

can’t

do

now

.

How

past

experien

cehas

help

edyou

tobe

safe

road

use

rs.

The

simila

ritiesand

differen

cesbetw

eenbein

ga

good

drive

rand

asa

fedrive

r.

Why

young

drivers

are

particu

larly

vuln

erable

tocra

shes

and

what

you

can

do

tobeco

me

asa

fedrive

r.U

sePow

er

Poin

tslid

essh

ow

ing

strateg

iesto

kee

psa

fe(R

eso

urce

7).

Thin

king

thro

ugh

som

eofth

edifferen

cesbetw

een

learn

ing

topass

the

testand

drivin

gon

your

ow

n–

and

how

tom

ake

those

firstfew

month

ssa

ferand

more

enjo

yable.

Objective

6,

7.

[Review

and

reflect]

Actio

npla

nnin

g:

5m

inu

tes

Write

dow

none

thin

gyo

uw

ould

liketo

pra

ctisenext

time

you

go

out

drivin

gw

itha

drivin

gin

structo

ror

oth

erexp

erien

ceddriver,

which

will

help

you

tobe

safe

ronce

you

have

passed

your

test.

E.g

.fin

din

gyo

ur

way

with

out

instru

ctions,

drivin

gin

differen

tro

ad

conditio

ns,

drivin

gw

ithpassen

gers.

Write

your

nam

eand

addre

sson

the

envelo

pe

(Reso

urce

8)

and

write

what

you

pla

nto

pra

cticeon

the

paper

slip.

Do

not

sealth

een

velope

yet,

beca

use

we

will

enclo

seadditio

nal

info

rmatio

nbefo

rew

esen

dit

toyou.

Som

etim

eafte

rto

day’s

worksh

op

we

will

send

the

letteras

arem

inder!

Objective

6,7

[makin

ga

com

mitm

ent

todevelo

pa

skillor

com

peten

cenece

ssary

for

safe

drivin

g;

pla

nned

beh

avio

ur;

actio

nco

mpeten

ce]

Clo

se

5m

inu

tes

Thank

the

particip

ants

for

their

contrib

utio

nto

the

discu

ssion.

[Clo

sing

the

gro

up]


TRL 87 PPR454

Appendix D Materials used in the Learner Driver Discussion Group

D.1 Introduction and welcome: Human Bingo

D.2 What is a safe driver- Sam and Dani show cards


TRL 88 PPR454

D.3 Who is a safe driver- reminder slide after the break

D.4 Who is most at risk – road safety quiz


TRL 89 PPR454


TRL 90 PPR454


TRL 91 PPR454

D.5 Scenario planning


TRL 92 PPR454

D.6 Summary slide


TRL 93 PPR454


TRL 94 PPR454

Appendix E The LDDG Questionnaire

As before, please complete this questionnaire by ticking the most appropriate boxes or filling in the appropriate number. All the information you provide in this questionnaire will be treated as confidential and will be used for research purposes only.

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Str

ongly

dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

agre

enor

dis

agre

e

Agre

e

Str

ongly

agre

e

Q1 A good driver expects other road users to make mistakes.

Q2 Confident drivers are better drivers.

Q3 Changing lanes frequently to make progress makes it difficult for other driver to understand where you want to go

Q4 A good driver can exceed the speed limit and still be safe.

Q5 Selecting a higher gear decreases CO2 emissions.

Q6 Young, novice drivers are less at risk of a crash because they have better reflexes than middle-aged drivers.

Q7 Being able to drive brings with it responsibility for other road users.

Q8 A good driver avoids distraction from driving.

Q9 There are things that novice drivers can do to reduce their accident risk.

Q10 A good driver can have a few drinks and still be safe.

Q11 A skilled driver can overtake safely, even before blind bends in the road.

Q12 Drugs don’t reduce the ability to drive safely.

Continued

Str

ongly

dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

agre

enor

dis

agre

e

Agre

e

Str

ongly

agre

e


TRL 95 PPR454

Q13 Compared to experienced drivers, driving on unfamiliar roads is more difficult for newly qualified drivers

Q14 Lack of experience is an important reason why young, novice drivers have crashes.

Q15 Even good reflexes may not prevent me from reacting to a hazard in time.

Q16 My risk of being involved in a crash after passing my test is very low.

For each of the following statements, please rate the behaviour on three scales: unsafe/safe, boring/exciting, unacceptable/acceptable….

Q17 Driving after having had a few drinks is…

Very unsafe Unsafe Slightly unsafe Slightly safe Safe Very safe

Very boring Boring Slightly boring Slightly exciting Exciting Very exciting

Very unacceptable Unacceptable Slightly unacceptable Slightly acceptable Acceptable Very acceptable


TRL 96 PPR454

Q18 Friends in the car who encourage you to take risks…




Q19 Continuing your car journey when you feel sleepy is…




Q20 Driving close to the car in the front is…




Q21 Driving and using a mobile phone is…





TRL 97 PPR454

Q22 Driving without a seatbelt is…




Q23 Ignoring the speed limit is…




Q24 Driving right at your limit of capability is…





TRL 98 PPR454

How much would people who are important to you approve or disapprove if you…

Str

ongly

dis

appro

ve

Dis

appro

ve

Nei

ther

nor

Appro

ve

Str

ongly

appro

ve

Q25 Drove after having a few drinks

Q26 Exceeded the speed limit

Q27 Didn’t wear a seatbelt when driving

Q28 Used a mobile phone when driving

Q29 Continued driving when feeling sleepy.

Q30 Drove when you could be distracted from the driving task (e.g. by passengers, the radio etc.).

Q31 Read or wrote text messages when driving.

Q32 Took risks when driving (e.g. overtaking where you can’t fully see ahead).

Q33 Drover under the influence of drugs

Q34 Took time to plan the journey to a place you hadn’t been to before

After passing your test, how often do think you will do each of the following?

Nev

er

Rare

ly

Som

etim

es

Oft

en

Alw

ays

Q35 Drink any alcohol and drive.

Q36 Take time to plan journeys to places you haven’t been to before.


TRL 99 PPR454

Continued

Nev

er

Rare

ly

Som

etim

es

Oft

en

Alw

ays

Q37 Answer your mobile when driving.

Q38 Keep to the speed limits.

Q39 Ring ahead before you start your journey if you are likely to be late.

Q40 As a passenger, tell other drivers if you are feeling uncomfortable with their driving style.

Q41 Read or write text messages when you are driving.

Q42 Wear a seat belt when driving, even for short trips.

Q43 Adjust the radio or music player when driving.

Q44 Drive when distracted from the driving task (e.g. by passengers, the radio etc.).

Q45 Drive under time pressure to reach your destination.

Q46 Leave big gaps to the vehicle driving in front.

Q47 Wear a seatbelt when being a passenger.

Q48 Be particularly cautious when confronted with new driving situations.

Q49 Seek further information on how to stay safe as a driver.

Q50 Pull over for a nap when you feel tired.

Q51 Take a taxi/ring your parents if your designated driver has drunk alcohol.

Q52 Take any drugs and drive

Q53 Avoid driving when feeling sleepy.


TRL 100 PPR454

Please tick the correct answer for each of the following questions.

Q54 If you are a recently qualified driver your chances of having at least one collision in the first year after your test are:

1 in 5 1 in 10 1 in 20

Q55 In 2006, more young car drivers aged 17 to 25 were killed than in 1996.

True False

Q56 You have agreed to pick up your friend Alex in town after a doctor’s appointment. Inner city traffic is heavy and you are going to be late. What do you do?

Alex will have to wait a little. I’ve already warned Alex that traffic might delay me.

It’s too late to warn Alex. Alex will just have to wait.

I’ll make a quick call on my mobile when waiting at a red traffic light to let Alex know I’ll be late.

I’ll quickly text Alex that I’ll be late whilst driving along. Q57 You are going out clubbing on a Saturday night and your friend Chris has

offered to be the designated driver. Later at night, however, you discover that Chris has been drinking. What do you do?

It’s Chris’s responsibility and licence. I’ll still let Chris drive me home.

I persuade Chris to take a taxi and fetch the car in the morning.

I ring my parents or friends to come and pick us up.

How confident are you that you will feel able to do the following things after passing your driving test?

Not

at

all

confiden

t

Not

confiden

t

Nei

ther

nor

Confiden

t

Ver

yco

nfiden

t

Q58 Not answer the mobile when it’s ringing whilst you are driving.

Q59 Wear a seat belt even if other people in the car are not wearing one.

Q60 Not take drugs and drive.


TRL 101 PPR454

Continued

Not

at

all

confiden

t

Not

confiden

t

Nei

ther

nor

Confiden

t

Ver

yco

nfiden

t

Q61 Tell your designated driver that you won’t be getting into the car if he/ she take drugs.

Q62 Ask a driver to slow down if you are feeling uncomfortable with his/her driving speed.

Q63 Stay within the speed limit even when your friends want you to go faster.

Q64 Ask the driver to slow down if he/she is breaking the speed limit.

Q65 Tell your designated driver that you won’t be getting into the car if he/ she drinks alcohol.

Q66 Avoid driving when feeling sleepy.

Q67 Take time to plan journeys to unfamiliar destinations

Q68 Avoid driving when being distracted from the driving task (e.g. by passengers, the radio etc.).

Q69 Think about all options open to you and consider the risks when making driving-related decisions.

In your opinion, how has the participation in the Learner Driver Discussion Group affected you?

Not

at

all

true

Not

true

Nei

ther

true

nor

fl

Tru

e

Ver

ytr

ue

Q70 I am more aware of the risk of young novice drivers being involved in a crash.

Q71 I better understand that a good driver is also a safe driver.

Q72 I am more aware of other peoples’ influence on my driving style.


TRL 102 PPR454

Continued

Not

at

all

true

Not

true

Nei

ther

true

nor

fl

Tru

e

Ver

ytr

ue

Q73 I better understand the risks I will face once I have passed my test.

Q74 I feel I am better able to deal with hazards when driving.

Q75 I feel I am better prepared for the risks associated with of solo driving.

Q76 I feel more responsible for the sort of driver I am going to be.

Q77 I am more aware of the things I still need to learn to become a safe solo driver.

Q78 I feel it helped me to develop a more courteous and considerate attitude towards other road users

Feedback on the Learner Driver Discussion Group

Str

ongly

dis

agre

e

Dis

agre

e

Nei

ther

agre

e

Agre

e

Str

ongly

agre

e

Q79 I enjoyed participating in the learner discussion group.

Q80 Participating in the learner discussion group was a waste of time.

Q81 The discussion group was too long.

Q82 The content of the discussion group was easy to understand.

Q83 The facilitator was likeable.

Q84 The facilitator respected me and my opinions.

Q85 The facilitator seemed knowledgeable of road safety-related matters

Q86 The facilitator encouraged me to contribute to the discussion

Q87 I would recommend the discussion group to other learner drivers.

Q88 The time spent at the discussion group was time well spent


TRL 103 PPR454

In your opinion, how could the discussion group be improved? ________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your time!


TRL 104 PPR454

Appendix F The LDDG Feedback Round Guide

Introduction

Thank you again for participation in today’s pilot. To further improve the discussion group we are interested in your views and particularly your opinions about what worked and what did not work.

This discussion should last about 30 minutes.

Rapport Building

1. I would like each of you to tell us briefly:

a) What the benefit of attending this discussion group has been for you?

b) One aspect you would like to change in the discussion group?

2. What are your general impressions of the learner discussion group you participated in?

Learning Goals

3. What do you think participating in this discussion group has taught you?

4. Do you think that participating in the learner discussion group will have an impact on your driving in the future? In what way?

Content of the discussion group

5. What part of the discussion group did you like the most?

a. Why?

b. What was particularly useful about it?

c. What could have made it better?

6. What part did you like the least?

a. Why?

b. What could have made it better?

7. Was there anything that you found particularly challenging in the discussion group?

a. Content

b. Pace – time for different tasks

8. Were there any topics that are relevant to you being a driver in the future, which were not covered in the discussion group?

a. What else should have been covered in the learner discussion groups?

Group dynamics


TRL 105 PPR454

9. Did you feel that there were any group dynamics going on in the discussion group?

a. For example, girls versus boys

10. To what extend did you feel you were comfortable expressing any views you may have had?

a. Did you feel that people tended to agree with the consensus (groups) views?

b. How did you resolve any opposing views or difference in opinion?

c. What do you think helps resolve different points of views?

Facilitator

11. Compared to a lesson at school, how did the discussion group differ?

12. How well do you think the facilitator facilitated the group? Why?

13. Do you think her style of facilitating helped your learning? Why

Implementation and recommendations

14. What has been your biggest take home message today?

15. If this discussion group became a voluntary part of the learning to drive process, how much would like to attend it? Would you pay to participate? How much?

16. Would you recommend this learner discussion group to others learner drivers?

17. Do you have any other comments to make about the discussion group?

Thank you for your time.


TRL 106 PPR454

Appendix G Interview guide for interview with the facilitator

Introduction

This interview aims so explore your thoughts and impressions on the running of this particular pilot of the learner driver discussion group. It should take approximately one hour to complete.

General Questions

1. What are your general impressions of this pilot of the learner discussion group?

• How did the time planned compare to the actual time taken up by each discussion group task? Is more/less time required?

• How successful was the discussion with this particular group of learner drivers? Why?

• WHERE APPLICABLE: How does it compare with the other learner discussion groups you have facilitated?

2. Did you make any major changes to the teacher plan, e.g. by leaving out or by adding any exercises/components to it?

Teacher plan and discussion group tasks

We will briefly go through the components of the teacher plan, how well each of the elements worked and if they worked as you had expected them to.

1. In your opinion, how well did the introduction and the human bingo work?

• Did participants complete the grid?

• Did they talk to each other?

• Did they get to know each other?

• Did the exercise help you to identify subgroups of learners (e.g. those who have already taken the HP test etc.)?

• What changes would you make to the exercise to further improve it?

2. In your opinion, how well did the “being a learner driver” task work?

• Were all participants able to write down a skill that learners need to acquire, one thing that learners find difficult and one thing being able to drive allows them to do? Why/why not?

• How successful was the collection of paper slips and discussion in the group?

• What changes would you make to the task to further improve it?


TRL 107 PPR454

3. In your opinion, how well did the “prior learning” task work?

• Did participants recognise that everyone uses the road?

• Could participants identify previous learning experiences they had acquired?

• Which previous roles as road users did they mention (e.g. pedestrian, bicyclist, passenger)?

• Did participants recognise the need to tolerate other road users’ errors?

• Did any participants disagree? Why?


3. In your opinion, how well did the “what is a safe driver” task work?

• Did participants understand the task they were given in the “Dani” and “Sam” exercise?

• Were participants able to work in two separate groups?

• Were participants able to identify characteristics of a “safe” and a “good” driver? Were these compatible with the Power Point slide? Why/ why not?

• Did participants reflect on their own driving characteristics?

• What messages were put forward about becoming a safe driver?


4. In your opinion, how well did the “Who is most at risk” task work?

• Who did participants initially (at the beginning of the exercise) perceive to be at risk? Who did they think was most vulnerable at the end?

• Did any participants disagree with the facts presented? How was this resolved?

• On what basis were participants allocated to the two quiz groups? How well did this allocation strategy work?

• How did participants react to the risk of death per 100,000 population related to a town they know?


5. In your opinion, how well did the “solo driving skills” task work?


TRL 108 PPR454

• How did the participants explain the higher vulnerability of young drivers for road crashes?

• What skills did participants name that still need to be acquired to be safe after passing the test?

• What skills did participants find most challenging in their own driving?


6. In your opinion, how well did the “insight training” task work?

• How difficult was it to identify a volunteer to carry out the simple & complex reaction time task? Did they like the task

• Did participants feel that the exercises were relevant to driving?

• Did the participants understand the additional complexity of driving and its effects on reaction times?

What changes would you make to the task to further improve it?

7. In your opinion, how well did the “scenario” task work?

• On what basis were participants split into groups?

• What challenges did participants identify in the three scenarios?

• How well did the update of scenarios work?

• How realistic did participants find the scenarios?

• Did participants feel they could do “the right thing”? Did some feel they could not?

8. In your opinion, how well did the “summary session” task work?


9. In your opinion, how well did the “action planning” task work?

• Were all participants able to identify something they wanted to practise with their driving instructors/ accompanying drivers


Setting and composition of the discussion groups

Composition of the group

1. How do you think the composition of the group influenced the effectiveness of the intervention?


TRL 109 PPR454

• In what way has the composition of the group had an impact on the effectiveness?

• What factors do you think influenced the group?

2. What recommendations do you have for the composition of the group for future discussion groups?

Group Dynamics

1. How many members of the group participated in the discussion?

• How did you ensure that all group members participated in the discussion?

• Were there any participants that did not engage in the discussion at all? Why?

2. How did group dynamics impact the running of the discussion group and the achievement of the learning goals?

• Who was particularly influential in the group?

• Were there any problem situations?

• How were problems/ disagreement resolved?

3. As you are aware the discussion group aimed to increase participants’ self-efficacy, their awareness of their autonomy and responsibility as future solo driver. To what extend you do think this was achieved?

• What can be done to encourage students to take a more proactive approach to their learning?

Advice for other facilitators

1. What advice would you give to other facilitators for the management of group dynamics in this intervention?

2. What skills do you think a facilitator needs to resolve these situations?

• Prior knowledge

• Experience

Do you have any other comments to make about this discussion group? Thank you for your time.


TRL 110 PPR454

THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS SHOULD BE ASKED AT THE END OF ALL PILOTS

Learning Goals and content

1. Based on your experience, what changes would you suggest should be made?

2. Based on the four pilots, would you drop any components of the learner driver discussion group currently included in the teacher plan?

� Following these 4 pilots, do any additional changes need to be made to the teacher plan?

3. To achieve the five learning goals of the learner driver discussion group, do you think any additional components need to be included in the teacher plan? Please explain.

Setting and composition of the discussion groups

1. What factors do you think had an impact on the effectiveness of the intervention? What recommendations would you made on group composition based on this experience to maximise the benefit of the group?

2. On the basis of the experience, would you require learners to be at a particular stage (e.g. almost test ready) of the learning to drive process? If so, at which one?

3. Is there a particular type of “age group/gender or type of learner driver” that this intervention particularly works for?

• What changes do you think would need to made increase the likelihood that this intervention works for other groups, such as older students, learners from a non-British background, too.

Duration and timings of the discussion groups

1. What are your thoughts of the duration of the discussion groups?

2. What can be done to ensure that the discussion group is suffienciently engaging?

3. Do you think there was sufficient time allowed for the various components?

� More time needed?

� Too long to be engaging?


TRL 111 PPR454

4. What would you like to see changed with regard to the duration of the discussion group?

Transferability and recommendations for future discussion groups

Facilitator

1. Who do you think will make a good facilitator for these learner discussion groups?

2. What skills are required for a good facilitator?

3. What should the facilitator be particularly mindful of when facilitating these discussion groups?

Do you have any other comments to make about the discussion groups? Thank you for your time.

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

112

PPR454

Ap

pen

dix

HR

evise

dT

each

er

Pla

nfo

rth

eLearn

er

Driv

er

Discu

ssion

Gro

up

Tim

e:

2hours

35

min

utes

inclu

din

garriva

l,dep

artu

reand

brea

k.

Particip

an

ts:10,

mixe

dm

ale

and

female

Aim

:To

ach

ieveth

efive

hig

h-level

learn

ing

goals:

1.

Understa

nd

that

agood

driver

isa

safe

drive

r

2.

Reflect

on

learn

ers’

curren

tlife

phase

and

the

transitio

nto

solo

drivin

g

3.

Understa

nd

particu

lar

vuln

erability

for

accid

ent

involvem

ent

ofyoung,

novice

drivers

4.

Understa

nd

the

facto

rsin

solo

drivin

gth

at

may

increa

seyoung,

novice

drivers’

riskof

an

accid

ent

&develo

pin

sight

into

one’s

ow

nlim

itations

5.

Stren

gth

enlea

rner

drivers’

self-efficacy

Ob

jectiv

es:

By

particip

atin

gin

this

discu

ssion

learn

erdrivers

will:

1.

Reco

gnise

the

valu

ebein

gable

todrive

will

add

toth

eirlives

2.

Reflect

on

what

they

have

alrea

dy

learn

edabout

bein

ga

safe

road

user/a

waren

essof

oth

ervu

lnera

ble

road

use

rs

3.

Consid

erso

me

ofth

esk

illsth

eyw

illneed

,w

hich

they

may

not

dev

elop

fully

while

learn

ing

topass

their

drivin

gtest

4.

Iden

tifyso

me

ofth

efa

ctors

which

can

influ

ence

how

they

drive

,now

and

inth

efu

ture

5.

Know

som

eof

the

com

mon

causes

ofaccid

ents

for

young

drivers

6.

Iden

tifyso

me

steps

tow

ard

sbeco

min

ga

safe

rdriver

7.

Dev

elop

appro

pria

teself

effica

cyw

ithre

spect

tolea

rnin

gto

drive

(i.e.

that

itis

aco

mplex

skillbut

they

can

dev

elop

the

skilland

be

safe)

Ad

ditio

nal

ob

jectiv

es:

For

particip

ants

tofeel

com

forta

ble

and

confid

ent

inth

egro

up;

toen

joy

them

selves;

tofe

elth

ediscu

ssion

has

been

use

ful.

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

113

PPR454

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

req

uir

em

en

ts:

•Room

larg

een

ough

toacc

om

modate

circ

leof

chair

sfo

rpart

icip

ants

•Tw

o‘w

ork

stations’

(table

sand

five

chair

sw

idel

yse

para

ted

from

each

oth

er)

•Are

afo

rre

fres

hm

ents

,not

too

far

from

toile

tand

oth

erfa

cilit

ies

•Acc

ess

tola

pto

p,

Pow

erpoin

tpro

ject

or,

flip

char

tsand

pen

s.

Reso

urc

es

tob

eu

sed

:

9.

Hum

an

bin

go

shee

t

10.P

ow

erpoin

tsl

ide:

Dri

ver

confiden

ceand

crash

invo

lvem

ent

11.S

am

&D

anish

ow

card

s

12.S

imple

and

com

ple

xre

act

ion

tim

eta

skpro

gra

mm

e

13.P

ow

erPoin

tsl

ide:

safe

dri

ving

chara

cteri

stic

s

14.P

ow

erpoin

tsl

ide:

Road

safe

tyquiz

15.D

rivi

ng

scen

ari

ost

ory

board

s(3

)and

haza

rdsh

ow

card

s(3

)

16.P

ow

erpoin

tsl

ide:

stra

tegie

sto

keep

safe

17.

Paper

slip

tow

rite

dow

nso

met

hin

gth

eyw

ant

topra

ctis

ew

ith

inst

ruct

or

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

114

PPR454

Task

Activ

ityO

bje

ctive/

learn

ing

ou

tcom

e/

gro

up

pro

cess/

theo

ryRea

ction

time

task

Form

al

Intro

ductio

nand

welco

me

5m

inu

tes

Gettin

gto

kn

ow

each

oth

er

10

min

ute

s

On

arriva

lw

elcom

eea

chin

divid

ual

perso

nally.

Invite

particip

ants

totry

out

reactio

ntim

eta

sk.Support

particip

ants,

enco

ura

ge

and

attem

pt

distra

ction

usin

gtim

esta

bles/

last

nig

ht’s

TV

pro

gra

mm

eetc

To

ensu

reth

at

all

particip

ants

have

triedth

eta

sk,th

isis

tobe

repea

ted

durin

gre

freshm

ent

brea

k

Intro

duce

facilita

tor

and

any

oth

ernon-p

articip

ants

inth

ero

om

.Exp

lain

the

purp

ose

ofth

ediscu

ssion

gro

up.

Cla

rifydom

esticarra

ngem

ents.

Enco

ura

ge

particip

ants

tosw

itchoff

mobile

phones

and

take

refresh

ment.

Exp

lain

that

the

interve

ntio

naim

sto

help

young

drivers

thin

kabout

bein

ga

safe

road

use

r.The

firsthalf

ofth

ediscu

ssion

ism

anly

about

bein

ga

learn

erdriver.

The

seco

nd

half

ism

ain

lyabout

bein

ga

qualified

driver

Hum

an

bin

go

(Reso

urce

1):

“Find

som

eone

who

fitsth

edescrip

tion

inea

chsq

uare

.First

tofill

allnin

esq

uare

sis

the

win

ner.”

Subseq

uen

tin

troductio

nin

gro

up:

Facilita

tor

asks

perso

non

leftfo

rth

eirnam

e.

Facilita

tor

says.

HiX

My

nam

eis

Y.

Then

asks

perso

non

right

torep

eat

pro

cesse.g

.H

iY

my

nam

eZ.

Facilita

tor

should

tryto

remem

ber

all

the

nam

esand

repeat

at

end!

Gro

up

should

help

out

facilita

tor

who

istryin

gto

learn

nam

es

Whole

gro

up

discu

ssion:

E.g

.bein

gable

todrive

increa

ses

indep

enden

ceor

Intro

duce

attrib

utes

of

YO

UN

Gdrivers

(havin

ggood

reactio

ntim

es)but

also

dem

onstra

ting

how

easily

they

can

be

distra

cted.

Objectiv

e3

Warm

ing

up,

pre

ventin

girrita

tion

due

totim

ew

astin

gas

gro

up

arrives.

[Form

ing

the

gro

up]

Help

particip

ants

feel

at

ease.

Know

why

they

are

atte

ndin

gth

ediscu

ssion

gro

up

and

itsm

ain

purp

ose.

[Form

ing

the

gro

up]

Help

particip

ants

toget

tokn

ow

one

anoth

er

and

tofin

dout

som

ethin

gabout

each

oth

er’sdrivin

gexp

erience

todate.

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

115

PPR454

Need

s/w

ish

es/

exp

ect

ati

on

so

fb

eco

min

ga

dri

ver

auto

nom

y.

This

may

nee

dpro

mpting,

ifpart

icip

ants

fail

tore

cognis

eim

port

ance

of

bei

ng

able

todri

vefo

rem

plo

yabili

tyand

work

;is

sue

oflo

osi

ng

work

iflo

sing

licen

ce

Obje

ctiv

e1

Dri

ving

isuse

ful/

valu

able

life

skill

Est

ablis

hin

gaw

are

nes

softh

egro

up

ofth

ech

alle

nge

of

bec

om

ing

adri

ver;

esta

blis

hin

gper

sonalm

otive

sfo

rbei

ng

able

todri

ve

Pri

or

dri

vin

gexp

eri

en

ce

30

min

ute

s

Follo

wup

dis

cuss

ion:

•H

ow

many

just

pro

visi

onallic

ence

hold

ers

are

ther

e?(L

)•

How

many

have

als

opass

edth

eir

haza

rdper

ception

test

?(L

+H

)•

Who

has

rece

ntly

pass

ed

thei

rte

st?

(P)

•W

ho

has

additio

nal

exper

ience

(long

serv

ice

as

dri

ver

or

moto

rcycl

ist,

or

off

road

or

oth

er

exper

ience

egove

rsea

slic

ence

hold

er)

E

Insm

all

gro

ups

dis

cuss

what

skill

s,att

ribute

sw

eneed

tole

arn

todri

ve

Feed

back

inord

er1-4

.Colle

cton

flip

chart

as

gri

dL

L+H

PE

Ask

whole

gro

up:

Whic

hsk

ills/

att

ribute

ddo

they

thin

kle

arn

ers

find

the

most

difficu

ltto

learn

;under

line

thes

eon

the

flip

chart

.Are

ther

eany

they

have

exper

ience

ddifficu

lty

with?

How

did

they

overc

om

eth

is?

Did

they

incl

ude

oth

ers

make

mis

takes

?(O

ften

this

isin

troduce

dby

the

more

experi

ence

ddri

vers

inth

egro

up)

Obje

ctiv

e2,

3

Iden

tify

ing

skill

sofle

arn

erdri

ver

Als

ohel

ps

part

icip

ants

toget

tokn

ow

one

anoth

erand

tofind

out

som

ethin

gabout

each

oth

er’s

dri

ving

exper

ience

todate

Per

sonalre

flec

tion

Obje

ctiv

es4,

7

Sig

nal

sw

illin

gnes

sof

part

icip

ants

todis

close

per

sonalin

form

ation,

and

giv

esin

dic

ation

ofth

eir

self-

effica

cy

Obje

ctiv

e2,

3,

6,

7

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

116

PPR454

Wh

ois

mo

stat

risk?

Opportu

nity

tore

cognise

that

young

drivers

have

accid

ents

not

beca

use

they

are

young,

but

beca

use

they

lack

exp

erien

ce.Exp

erien

cedem

onstra

tes

behavio

ur

of

oth

erro

ad

users

isnot

alw

ays

pred

ictable.

Unpred

ictable

mea

ns

vuln

erable.

SO

Who

are

vuln

erable

road

use

rs?

May

need

topro

mpt

horse

rider/eld

erlym

oto

risedw

heelch

air

drivers.

Collect

on

flipch

art

(Pre

-prep

ared

ifpossib

lew

ithyo

ung

(male)

drivers

at

botto

mof

sheet

and

concea

ledby

turn

ing

under.)

Gro

ups

tend

not

inclu

de

this

categ

ory

unpro

mpted

!

What

make

sth

ese

gro

ups

vuln

erable?

What

can

we

do

tored

uce

their

vuln

erability

(make

them

lessvu

lnera

ble)

Any

reallife

exam

ples?

Rem

inder

how

itfeels

use

exam

ple

ofbein

ga

learn

erdriver

and

bein

ghassled

by

oth

erm

ore

exp

erien

ceddrivers.

How

does

itfe

elto

be

elderly

and

trying

tocro

ssa

busy

road/h

orse

rider?

Reitera

te:A

pro

blem

for

new

drivers

isth

at

they

haven

’ten

ough

experien

ceof

the

kinds

ofm

istake

sth

at

oth

er

drive

rsm

ake.

Did

you

know

that

drivers

with

above

avera

ge

confid

ence

when

they

pass

their

testare

more

likelyto

have

acra

shin

the

next

12

month

s?W

hy

isth

is?Show

Pow

er

poin

tslid

e(R

eso

urce

2)

Conclu

de

that

one

importa

nt

skillofan

experie

nced

driver

isexp

ectin

gand

allo

win

gfo

roth

ers

tom

ake

mista

kes.

Perso

nalrefle

ction

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

117

PPR454

Task

Act

ivit

yO

bje

ctiv

e/

learn

ing

ou

tco

me/

gro

up

pro

cess

/th

eo

ryW

hat

isa

safe

dri

ver?

20

min

ute

s

Part

icip

ants

are

ask

edto

get

into

two

gro

ups

with

am

ixofdri

ving

experi

ence

by

giv

ing

each

part

icip

ant

anum

ber

(1or

2).

All

1s

inone

gro

up

and

all

2s

inanoth

er.

Each

gro

up

rece

ives

an

image

ofca

rse

enth

rough

the

win

dow

on

the

pass

enger

side,

image

of

dri

ver

blu

rred

sow

eca

nnot

see

the

gen

der

(Reso

urc

e3

).Em

phasi

seth

at

they

have

each

been

giv

ena

diffe

rent

task

.Id

eally

gro

ups

should

not

be

able

toove

rhea

rea

choth

er.

Ina

small

room

could

pla

yback

gro

und

musi

cto

cover

dis

cuss

ion.

Gro

up

1:

You

are

apass

enger

ina

car

with

Sam

(who

could

be

male

or

fem

ale

).Sam

is19

years

old

and

has

been

dri

ving

for

6m

onth

s.Sam

isa

good

dri

ver.

How

can

you

tell

that

Sam

isa

good

dri

ver?

How

do

you

feel

when

you

are

dri

ving

with

Sam

?

Gro

up

2:

You

are

apass

enger

ina

car

with

Dani(w

ho

could

be

male

or

fem

ale

).D

aniis

19

years

old

and

has

been

dri

ving

for

6m

onth

s.D

aniis

asa

fedri

ver.

How

can

you

tell

that

Daniis

asa

fedri

ver?

How

do

you

feel

when

you

are

dri

ving

with

Dani?

Each

gro

up

nee

ds

tobe

faci

litate

dto

det

ect

inappro

pri

ate

resp

onse

se.

g.

sugges

tions

and

pre

ven

t‘rec

ruitm

ent’

ofpart

icip

ants

toagre

ew

ith

unsa

febeh

avi

our

e.g

.sp

eed

ing.

Feed

back

from

each

gro

up

onto

flip

chart

pre

-pre

pare

din

2co

lum

ns:

Wri

tein

Good

–th

enco

llect

and

then

Safe

and

colle

ct.

As

aw

hole

gro

up,

dis

cuss

:Is

agood

dri

ver

the

sam

eas

asa

fedri

ver?

Indiv

idual

ly:

Thin

k:W

ho

are

you

most

like

as

adri

ver?

Sam

or

Dani?

Intw

o’s

:W

hat

mes

sage

would

you

giv

eto

som

eone

who

isle

arn

ing

todri

veabout

bec

om

ing

asa

fedri

ver?

Faci

litato

rto

giv

epers

onalex

am

ple

Wri

teth

emon

post

itnote

s,st

ick

on

the

flip

chart

.

Obje

ctiv

e2,

3,

4,

6

[Gro

up

task

,fo

cus

on

posi

tive

].

Per

sonalre

flect

ion

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

118

PPR454

Task

Activ

ityO

bje

ctive/

learn

ing

ou

tcom

e/

gro

up

pro

cess/

theo

ryBrea

k

20

min

ute

s

Intro

tosim

ple

reactio

ntim

eta

skas

at

beg

innin

g(R

eso

urce

4).

Opportu

nity

topla

yrea

ction

time

gam

eor

simila

r.

Rea

ction

time

task

15

min

ute

s

Run

com

plex

reactio

ntim

eta

skas

whole

gro

up

(Reso

urce

4).

Instru

ction

for

volu

nteer:

“Afte

rth

isscre

en,

ablu

escre

enw

illbe

show

nfo

ra

fewm

om

ents.

You

will

then

see

aro

ad

scene.

Have

alo

ok

at

the

road

scene.

•I

want

you

topre

ssth

erig

ht

arro

wke

yas

quickly

as

possib

le,if

there

isa

ped

estria

nin

the

pictu

re

•I

want

you

topre

ssth

eleft

arro

wke

yas

quickly

as

possib

le,if

there

isno

ped

estrian

inth

epictu

re

Rea

dy?”

Sta

rtth

eex

ercise.

What

did

they

learn

from

the

gam

eopportu

nity?

Co

mp

are

:

Task

One:

Sim

ple

reactio

ntim

e-

reflex

Task

Tw

o:

Com

plex

reactio

ntim

e–

‘cognitive’

pro

cess

–need

time

toth

ink,

not

just

auto

matically

react

Bo

thta

sks

are

clearly

no

tp

articu

larly

simila

rto

driv

ing

:

They

lack

realism

beca

use

they

are

hig

hly

simplified

versions

ofw

hat

happen

sin

the

‘RealW

orld

’.

Bu

t:

They

show

that

we

as

hum

ans

have

limita

tions

inhow

fast

we

can

perceive

and

pro

cess

info

rmatio

n.

Also

thin

kabout

that

realw

orld

haza

rds

are

dynam

ic,not

static,

there

more

goin

gon

that

you

as

adriver

need

topay

atten

tion

to.

Objective

4,

5

[Rea

litych

eck]

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

119

PPR454

Rev

iew

safe

dri

ver

chara

cteri

stic

s.Rei

nfo

rce

with

Pow

erpoin

tsl

ide

(Reso

urc

e5

):•

Isnot

easi

lydis

tract

ed•

Adju

sts

speed

toro

ad

conditio

ns

•Lo

oks

and

pla

ns

ahea

d•

Rea

ds

the

road

•Pla

ns

the

route

toth

edes

tination

•Allo

ws

oth

er

road

use

rsto

make

mis

take

s•

Make

shim

self/h

erse

lfpre

dic

table

for

oth

erro

ad

use

rs

Novi

cedri

ver

vuln

erabili

ty

15

min

ute

s

Intr

oduce

team

quiz

as

pub

quiz

(Reso

urc

e6

).Em

phasi

seth

at

they

will

pro

bably

not

know

all

the

answ

ers

–in

thre

ete

am

sdiffe

rent

from

last

act

ivity.

Fro

mq

uiz

:C

on

clu

de

that

yo

un

gd

rivers

are

vu

lnera

ble

dri

vers

i.e.

they

are

more

likel

yto

be

kille

dor

seri

ousl

yin

jure

dth

an

oth

erdri

vers

Em

phasi

seth

at

young

dri

vers

kill

alm

ost

twic

eas

many

oth

er

road

use

rsas

young

dri

vers

.

Intr

oduce

Life

tim

eri

skofbei

ng

kille

d/s

erio

usl

yin

jure

din

road

acc

iden

tor

WH

Ofigure

Faci

litato

rnee

ds

tom

ove

on

quic

kly

tohow

toavo

idbec

om

ing

aca

sualty

or

we

may

set

up

den

ial

Obje

ctiv

es5

[Iden

tify

ing

skill

snot

dev

eloped

as

ale

arn

er

drive

r].

Solo

dri

ving

skill

s–

follo

won

from

quiz

10

min

ute

s

Dri

vers

are

most

at

risk

inth

e12-1

8m

onth

saft

erth

eyhave

pass

edth

eir

test

.

Dis

cuss

ingro

up:

Why?

Age

or

experi

ence

?U

ndere

stim

ating

risk

,over

estim

ating

abili

ty?

Bei

ng

male

?

Rem

ind

part

icip

ants

that

most

young

dri

vers

don’t

have

seri

ous

acc

iden

tsbut

too

many

do.

What

can

they

do

tobe

asa

fer

dri

ver?

What

skill

sw

illth

eyst

illnee

dto

dev

elop

aft

erth

eyhave

pass

edth

edri

ving

test

ifth

eyare

goin

gto

be

able

tokee

p

Obje

ctiv

es3,

4,

5

Obje

ctiv

e6,

7

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

120

PPR454

them

selves

and

oth

erro

ad

users

as

safe

as

possib

le?

E.g

.navig

atin

gin

unfam

iliar

area

s,ch

oosin

gand

pla

nnin

ga

route,

readin

gth

ero

ad,

drivin

gat

nig

ht,

drivin

gon

moto

rways,

copin

gw

ithpassen

gers,

copin

gw

ithexp

osu

reto

situatio

ns

that

require

sayin

g“n

o”

(drin

k/dru

gs)

or

doin

gso

meth

ing

the

passen

gers

may

not

want

(e.g.

stoppin

gfo

ra

nap

when

feelin

gtire

d).

Perso

nalreflectio

n:

Which

ofth

esew

illyo

ufin

dm

ost

challen

gin

g?

Task

Activ

ityO

bje

ctive/

learn

ing

ou

tcom

e/

gro

up

pro

cess

Scen

ario

s

15

min

ute

s

Particip

ants

discu

ss3

scenario

sin

small

gro

ups

of3

or

4.

Scen

ario

sare

pre

sented

as

gra

phic

novel/co

mic

strip(R

eso

urce

7).

Scen

ario

1:

You

are

return

ing

from

am

usic

festival50

miles

from

your

hom

e.

You

have

stayed

until

the

end

and

had

toqueu

eto

get

out

ofth

eca

rpark.

Itis

2.0

0a.m

.You

and

your

friends

have

tobe

at

work

at

8.0

0a.m

.(i.e.

the

sam

em

orn

ing).

Your

passen

gers

all

fallasleep

as

soon

as

you

get

on

the

road

hom

e.

What

pro

blem

syou

mig

ht

face

and

how

you

pla

nto

cope

with

them

.

After

3-4

min

utes

intro

duce

additio

nalhaza

rd:

“You

feelsleep

y.

What

do

you

do?”

Scen

ario

2:

You

are

apassen

ger

ina

car

bein

gdriven

by

afrien

d.

You

are

goin

gto

collect

anoth

er

friend

from

the

railw

ay

station

.N

either

of

you

have

been

there

befo

re.W

hat

pro

blem

sm

ight

you

face

and

how

do

you

pla

nto

cope

with

them

?

Intro

duce

additio

nalhaza

rd:

“You

are

late.

Your

friend

beg

ins

tofrien

ddrive

faste

rand

ente

rsa

30m

ph

limit

at

45

mph.

What

do

you

do?”

Scen

ario

3:

You

are

drivin

gback

late

from

agood

nig

ht

out

with

three

friends.

The

oth

ershave

been

drin

king

but

you

have

not

beca

use

you

are

the

desig

nated

driver.

Describ

ew

hat

pro

blem

syou

mig

ht

face

and

how

you

pla

nto

cope

with

them

.

Objective

4,

6,

7

[Pro

totyp

es

and

willin

gness].

Publis

hed

Proje

ctRep

ort

TRL

121

PPR454

Intr

oduce

additio

nalhaza

rd:

“You

realis

eth

at

two

of

your

rear

seat

pass

enger

shave

not

put

on

thei

rse

at

bel

ts.

What

do

you

do?”

Invi

tefe

edback

about

each

scen

ari

oto

the

whole

gro

up.

Ask

oth

er

gro

ups

toco

ntr

ibute

thei

rid

eas.

Dev

elop

clea

rst

rate

gie

sfo

rea

chsc

enari

o,

e.g.:

1.

Pull

off

the

road

at

the

nex

tla

y-by

or

moto

rway

serv

ice

station

and

slee

pfo

ra

fixe

dtim

e;se

tala

rmon

mobile

for

exa

mple

.D

onot

wake

your

pass

enger

sto

dis

cuss

!

2.

Share

resp

onsi

bili

tyfo

rnavi

gation/p

lannin

gahea

d.

Ale

rtdri

ver

tosp

eed

limit

inca

seth

eyhave

not

notice

d.

Ifth

eyig

nore

you,

be

more

ass

ert

ive,

but

polit

e.Rem

ind

about

conse

quen

ces

e.g

.ri

skofin

curr

ing

pen

alty

poin

tsor

make

excu

see.

g.

“Ife

elsi

ck”.

Nex

ttim

eth

ey

off

eryo

ua

lift

dec

line.

3.

Wait

untilca

rpark

isem

pty

ing

toallo

wtim

eto

sober

up.

Tel

lpass

enger

syo

uw

illnot

dri

veon.

Consi

der

not

bei

ng

des

ignate

ddri

ver

inth

ese

circ

um

stance

suntilyo

uhave

more

exper

ience

.

Dis

cuss

ingro

up:

•H

ow

realis

tic

are

the

exam

ple

s?H

ow

will

ing

would

you

be

inre

alit

yto

‘do

the

right

thin

g’?

•H

ow

will

your

pass

engers

react

the

next

day?

How

will

you

resp

ond,

i.e.

you

have

pote

ntial

lysa

vea

life!

Faci

litato

rto

intr

oduce

how

would

pare

nt/

emplo

yer

resp

ond,

e.g

.bet

ter

late

inth

isw

orl

dth

an

earl

yin

the

nex

t.ie

emphasi

seposi

tive

soci

alnorm

.

Publish

edPro

jectRep

ort

TRL

122

PPR454

Task

Activ

ityO

bje

ctive/

learn

ing

ou

tcom

e/

gro

up

pro

cess

Sum

mary

5m

inu

tes

Take

ho

me

messa

ge:

Review

the

discu

ssion

“Togeth

er

we

have:

•Id

entified

what

isim

porta

nt

toyo

uabout

bein

gable

todrive

–w

hat

you

will

be

able

todo

inth

efu

ture

which

you

can’t

do

now

.•

How

past

experien

cehas

help

edyou

tobe

safe

road

use

rs.•

The

simila

ritiesand

differen

cesbetw

eenbein

ga

good

drive

rand

asa

fedriver.

•W

hy

young

drivers

are

particu

larly

vuln

erable

tocra

shes

and

what

you

can

do

tobeco

me

asa

fedrive

r.•

Thin

king

thro

ugh

som

eofth

edifferen

cesbetw

een

learn

ing

topass

the

testand

drivin

gon

your

ow

n–

and

how

tom

ake

those

firstfew

month

ssa

fer

and

more

enjo

yable.”

Invite

each

particip

ant

tosa

yone

thin

gth

eyhave

learn

edw

hich

has

been

use

ful.

Show

Pow

er

poin

tslid

ew

ithsa

fedrivin

gtip

s(R

eso

urce

8)

Objective

6,

7

[Review

and

reflect]

Actio

npla

nnin

g:

5m

inu

tes

Facilita

tor

togro

up:

“Write

dow

none

thin

gyo

uw

ould

liketo

pra

ctisenext

time

you

go

out

drivin

gw

itha

drivin

gin

structo

ror

oth

erexp

erien

ceddriver,

which

will

help

you

tobe

safe

ronce

you

have

passed

your

test

(Reso

urce

9).

E.g

.fin

din

gyo

ur

way

with

out

instru

ctions,

drivin

gin

differen

tro

ad

conditio

ns,

drivin

gw

ithpassen

gers.

Write

your

nam

eand

addre

sson

the

postca

rdand

write

what

you

pla

nto

pra

cticeunder

the

line

on

the

right

hand

section.

We

will

send

the

postca

rdas

arem

inder.”

Objective

6,

7[m

akin

ga

com

mitm

ent

todevelo

pa

skillor

com

peten

cenece

ssary

for

safe

drivin

g;

pla

nned

beh

avio

ur;

actio

nco

mpeten

ce]

Feedback

and

close

5m

inu

tes

Thank

the

particip

ants

for

their

contrib

utio

nto

the

discu

ssion.

They

will

receive

asm

all

gift

(alo

calro

ad

map)

[Clo

sing

the

gro

up]

TRL Crowthorne House, Nine Mile Ride Wokingham, Berkshire RG40 3GAUnited Kingdom

T: +44 (0) 1344 773131 F: +44 (0) 1344 770356E: [email protected] W: www.trl.co.uk

ISSN 0968-4093

Price code: 4X

Published by IHS Willoughby Road, Bracknell Berkshire RG12 8FB United Kingdom

T: +44 (0) 1344 328038 F: +44 (0) 1344 328005E: [email protected] W: http://emeastore.ihs.com PP

R4

54

Development of a discussion-based intervention for learner drivers

This report describes the development of a two-hour facilitated discussion group aimed to help learner drivers develop safe driving-related attitudes, increase their awareness of the risks novice drivers face and equip them with risk mitigation strategies. The review of the literature on attitude formation and change, good practice examples of existing discussion groups and input from an expert panel informed the development of content and materials, which took place in collaboration with one of the authors who is an educationalist at RoSPA with expertise in safety and risk education for young adults. Pilots of the intervention were run with four mixed (education level, age, gender and likely risk propensity) groups of learner drivers. A questionnaire predominantly comprising Theory of Planned Behaviour items was administered before and immediately after participation in the discussion group to test for short-term changes in participant attitudes. Additional qualitative measures included process observation by an independent TRL researcher and a feedback round with participants after each pilot as well as an in-depth interview with the group facilitator after each pilot. The majority of participants found the intervention useful and enjoyable. Significant short-term changes towards safer attitudes were observed for some driving-related attitudes, subjective norms and behavioural intentions. Participants’ self-efficacy ratings did, however, not change significantly. Findings from the piloting are merely indicative and some suggestions for steps towards a more comprehensive evaluation of the intervention are discussed in the report.

Other titles from this subject area

PPR096 The Heavy Vehicle Crash Injury Study (HVCIS) project report. I Knight, R Minton, P Massie, T Smith and R Gard. 2008

PPR247 Review of road safety good practice in English Local Authorities. J A Castle and G E Kamya-Lukoda. 2007

PPR242 Reporting of road traffic accidents in London: matching police STATS19 with hospital accident and emergency data. Supplementary report for St. Thomas’ Hospital Central London. H Ward, S Robertson, K Townley and A Pedler. 2007

PPR223 New and improved accident reconstruction techniques for modern vehicles equipped with ESC systems. R F Lambourn, P W Jennings, I Knight and T Brightman. 2007

PPR214 SCOTSIM: an evaluation of the effectiveness of two truck simulators for professional driver training. N Reed, A M Parkes, C Peacock, B Lang and L Rehm. 2007

Development of a discussion-based intervention for learner ... · 3 Development of the Learner...

Documents

Transcript of Development of a discussion-based intervention for learner ... · 3 Development of the Learner...