Braking Point play and Lesson Evaluation 2019 · The focus groups and questionnaire results indicate that the intervention has resulted in learning amongst the target audience. The

‘Braking Point play and Lesson’ Evaluation 2019

Amanpreet Kaur and Tanya Fosdick

2

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 3

Headline Findings ................................................................................................................................ 3

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Findings ............................................................................................................................................... 4

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 5

Braking Point’ – Describing the Intervention .......................................................................................... 6

What is it and why is it being done? ................................................................................................... 6

Delivery ............................................................................................................................................... 8

Materials ......................................................................................................................................... 8

Procedure ........................................................................................................................................ 8

Who delivers it and how? ............................................................................................................... 8

Where, when and how much (long)?.............................................................................................. 8

Tailoring/modifications/How well was it delivered? ...................................................................... 8

Evaluation ......................................................................................................................................... 10

Methodology and Design .................................................................................................................. 10

Focus Group Findings ........................................................................................................................ 11

Questionnaire Findings ..................................................................................................................... 19

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 23

Appendix A – Other themes .................................................................................................................. 24

Public Transport ................................................................................................................................ 24

Overall Intervention .......................................................................................................................... 24

Rural Roads ....................................................................................................................................... 26

Novice Drivers ................................................................................................................................... 26

Appendix B – Lesson Plan ..................................................................................................................... 28

Appendix C – Focus Group Moderator Guide ....................................................................................... 30

Appendix D - Behaviour Change Theory – Prototype Willingness Model ............................................ 34

Appendix E – Post-and-Pre-Questionnaire ........................................................................................... 36

3

Executive Summary

Headline Findings This evaluation of the ‘Braking Point’ play and lesson by Suffolk RoadSafe found the following:

• 100% increase in students agreeing that they have the confidence to challenge friends if they

behave badly inside a car

• 86% increase in students agreeing that they are aware of the responsibilities passengers have

• 63% increase in students agreeing that they have the confidence to challenge family members

if they behave badly inside a car

• 43% increase in students agreeing that they are able to identify good driving behaviours

• 34% increase in students agreeing that they are able to identify risks associated with ‘new

drivers’

• 100% decreases in students not having an opinion on identifying new drivers risks; being

aware of passenger responsibilities; knowing the important of keeping safe on the road and

in the car

• Over 80% decreases in students not having an opinion on being aware of driver

responsibilities; being able to directly challenge friends and family members; and being able

to identify good driving behaviours

• Focus group discussions revealed how the intervention reinforced positive attitudes towards

seatbelt wearing and provided students with coping strategies to challenging family and

friends

Introduction ‘Braking Point’ is a two-dose road safety intervention, using theatre in education at the first stage,

with a follow up lesson. The schools and colleges chosen for the pilot intervention were those in areas

of Suffolk county where there were higher proportions of young residents involved in reported injury

collisions. The philosophy behind the intervention is to recognise good behaviour, rather than focusing

on using fear appeals by showing death and carnage. The intervention was first designed and delivered

in 2015, with an initial evaluation in 2017 (evaluating the lessons and play that were delivered in

autumn 2016). The intervention was carefully designed, using behaviour change theories and research

evidence, to ensure that the most effective elements were included in the design. The intervention

took a radical approach as many other pre- and young driver interventions are based on using shock

tactics to provide information on the consequences of collisions; instead, this intervention uses

behavioural science to work with students to provide coping strategies.

The intervention is based upon:

• A need to reduce injury collision involvement amongst young people living in certain areas;

• The fact that there is little evidence that fear appeal works and that in fact, it can be counter-

productive;

• An appropriate behaviour change model;

• Other evaluations having found positive behaviour to be the norm;

• And that focusing on negative behaviour can normalise it.

The original evaluation found that respondents had benefitted from the intervention and were more

aware of their responsibilities as drivers and passengers. The respondents stated that road safety

education does not have to be gory to be effective, echoing existing research. Questionnaires and

4

focus groups suggested that road safety activities should be interactive; that they should focus on the

consequences of crashing; and that they should give examples of what to do to avoid risky situations.

Based on the original evaluation, the lesson part of the intervention was refined, to give a clearer focus

on the responsibilities of car occupants; providing coping strategies for those experiencing risky

situations; and to empower students to use those coping strategies.

The aims of the revised pre-driver intervention are to:

• Raise awareness amongst students of their responsibility for their safety within vehicles

• Assist students in developing strategies for managing road safety risk

• Encourage students to share good practice amongst their peers

The purpose of this current evaluation is to determine if the intervention achieves these aims. As the

play was the subject of the previous evaluation, the focus of this evaluation is the classroom session.

Methodology A mixture of quantitative and qualitative research methods was employed for this evaluation. Four

focus group discussions were held with 42 students (across three different schools) who had attended

both the theatre in education performance and the classroom lesson. The evaluation was conducted

on two Year 12 groups and two Year 11 groups. Therefore, there was a mixture of 15, 16- and 17-year

olds.

Post-and-pre-questionnaires were completed at the beginning of the focus group discussions to

complement the predominantly qualitative element of the evaluation. The respondents self-measured

their understanding and awareness of a range of relevant factors.

Findings The focus groups and questionnaire results indicate that the intervention has resulted in learning

amongst the target audience.

The questionnaire results show that they measure their understanding and knowledge higher after

the play and follow-up lesson. There were nine statements which they were asked to rate their levels

of agreement with at the time of the focus group (after the intervention); and to think back to how

much they would have agreed with the statements before the intervention. There were positive

improvements in all but one of the statements; however, this statement was negatively framed, which

could have created confusion as to how to respond to it. There were large improvements in agreement

with statements about the responsibilities of passengers and being able to challenge friends and

family members if they behave badly in a car. The respondents were also more likely to agree that

they could identify risks associated with new drivers and identify good driving behaviours. These

results indicate the intervention is meeting its aims.

The focus group findings support the questionnaire results. Whilst there were some respondents who

stated that they felt confident in challenging others’ risky behaviours before the intervention, there

were others who clearly felt that they had benefited from the lesson and play. Overall, the play was

received more positively than the follow-up lesson. One reason for this might be that the play was

first, so the participants believed that the follow-up lesson was a repeat of what they had already

learnt.

The focus groups also provided participants with an opportunity to talk about more general road

safety topics, revealing some interesting insights. These are included as an appendix and could be used

in the delivery of a wider road safety educational programme. Participants also talked about how the

5

lesson and play could be improved in the future; the main finding of this being that the lesson could

be more interactive and that different approaches are required to challenge different types of family

and friends.

Conclusions The findings of this evaluation, from both the questionnaires and the focus groups, suggest that the

intervention is meeting its aims in raising awareness amongst young people of their responsibilities in

cars and empowering them to use strategies to challenge others who engage in risky behaviours. It

suggests that the positive framing of messages; the use of a multi-dose approach through the delivery

of the play and the lesson; and the exploration of coping strategies within this intervention are leading

to positive results.

In the future, refinements could include an interactive element, where students role play challenging

different types of fellow car occupant such as family members, close friends, and acquaintances and

explore how strategies might differ depending on the person being challenged.

6

Braking Point’ – Describing the Intervention In order to share best practice in road safety and to ensure that others learn from evaluation findings,

it is essential to accurately describe the intervention. In the guide Using Behaviour Change Techniques:

Guidance for the road safety community,1 Dr Fiona Fylan set out how an intervention ought to be

described in order to share with others, using a checklist developed internationally. The checklist is

used below to describe ‘Braking Point’.

What is it and why is it being done? ‘Braking Point’ is a two-dose road safety intervention, using theatre in education at the first stage,

with a follow up lesson. The schools and colleges chosen for the pilot intervention were those in areas

of Suffolk county where there were higher proportions of young residents involved in reported injury

collisions.

The philosophy behind the intervention is to recognise good behaviour, rather than focusing on using

fear appeals by showing death and carnage. “Of the health issues that have utilised threat appeals,

road safety is particularly renowned for its use of physical threats in which drivers and passengers are

often shown to be injured and killed as a result of unsafe and/or illegal behaviour.”2 However, despite

the popularity of fear appeal in road safety, there is little evidence of the effectiveness of the approach

and that “the prevailing viewpoint among some behavioural scientists and health promotion

professionals and practitioners is to avoid threat appeals or to use them with great caution.”3The

theory behind using fear appeals is that a threat is included in the road safety intervention; the threat

being the undesirable consequences of certain behaviours (such as death or injury). If fear appeal

works then exposure to the threat is supposed to lead to fear arousal amongst the target audience,

which in turns leads to changing behaviour. However, reviews of this process have found that “threat

appeals can lead to increased fear arousal, but do not appear to have the desired impact on driving

behaviour.”4 Furthermore, emotions other than fear, such as disgust, could emerge in response to the

threat and this can be counterproductive:

Exposure to fear appeals can elicit maladaptive responses, that is, responses that do not try

to control or remove the threat implied by the fear message but attempt to cope with

unpleasant feelings that result from the advertisement. Such maladaptive responses might

include defensively avoiding or ignoring the message, failing to process the threatening part

of the message and denying the personal relevance of the message. It may also promote

reactance against a message such that individuals view the message as a challenge and

increase the undesired behaviour. In other words, the message is rejected or regarded as

1 Fylan, F., Using Behaviour Change Techniques: Guidance for the road safety community, (RAC Foundation, London, 2017) 2 Lewis, I., Watson, B., Tay, R. & White, K., The role of fear appeals in improving driver safety: a review of the effectiveness of fear-arousing (threat) appeals in road safety advertising, (International Journal of Behavioural Consultation and Therapy, Volume 3, pp.203-222) (2007) 3 Ibid., 4 Carey, R., McDermott, D. & Sarma, K., The impact of threat appeals on fear arousal and driver behaviour: a meta-analysis of experimental research 1990-2011, (PLoS One, 8 (5)(e62821) (2013)

7

ineffective. All of these responses are dangerous because they can reduce the threat without

reducing the actual level of risk.5

Evaluations of other road safety interventions aimed at young people have found a propensity to

report positive behaviour at the pre-stage, i.e. before the intervention. For example, one study found

that 10% of the young people surveyed were willing to not wear their seatbelt. This means that 90%

were not willing to not wear their seatbelt.6 If the majority of the target audience are aware of the

responsible behaviour and in fact report doing the right thing, it could be that highlighting the negative

behaviour has a negative effect. In an evaluation of a day-long road safety intervention, an exercise at

the beginning of the day explored how the young people viewed drivers who did or did not engage in

risky behaviours. They reported negative characteristics for the people who engaged in the behaviour.

The participants received a day of education about the dangers of risky driving and how, as young

people, they were at heightened risk. At the end of the day, focus groups were held, where

participants seemed to have shifted from the positive views they had held beforehand: “It’s a bit like

all young drivers drink-drive. Drink-drivers crash. You will all crash.”7 It appeared that the intervention

had normalised negative behaviour.

The intervention and evaluation use the Prototype Willingness Model as an appropriate behaviour

change model. The model, described in detail in the Appendix C, seeks to explain adolescents’

behaviour and is consistent with the findings about social norms and characteristics of people

engaging in risky actions. The use of behaviour change models has not been common in road safety

design in the UK and basing an intervention on this particular model is an innovative approach. The

few other interventions which have used this approach have observed positive results.

The intervention is therefore based upon:

• A need to reduce injury collision involvement amongst young people living in certain areas;

• The fact that there is little evidence that fear appeal works and that in fact, it can be counter-

productive;

• An appropriate behaviour change model;

• Other evaluations having found positive behaviour to be the norm;

• And that focusing on negative behaviour can normalise it.

The intervention itself starts with a theatre in education play, which tracks a group of young friends,

who make some small realistic mistakes in a heat-of-the-moment situation. The play is delivered in a

humorous way and focuses on consequences other than death or serious injury (such as not being

able to go to university at the time planned). The play is followed up by a workshop delivered by the

theatre company, where the issues in the play are explored.

The follow up lesson is classroom based and is about the students, in small groups, discussing key

themes covered in the play; driver and/or passenger responsibilities relating to seatbelts; how to

influence family and friends; and good and bad driving styles.

5 Wundersitz, L., Hutchinson, T. & Woolley, J., Best practice in road safety mass media campaigns: A literature review, (Centre for Automative Safety Research, Adelaide, 2010) 6 Fosdick, T., Safe Drive Stay Alive: An Evaluation of Behaviour Change, (Road Safety Analysis, 2015) 7 Campsall, D. Stigmatised & Scary: looking at behavioural change in adolescents, (2015 National Road Safety Conference, Road Safety GB)

8

Delivery To be replicable, it is necessary to explain what is required to deliver the intervention.

Materials In the delivery of the intervention, there were two main components. The first was a theatre

production called ‘Braking Point’ delivered by the Performance in Education8 theatre company.

There were few materials required for the follow-up lesson. There was a clear lesson plan, (shown in

8 www.pie.uk.com

http://www.pie.uk.com/

9

Appendix A – Other themes

Public Transport All of the discussions led to public transport being raised as a mode of transport which leads to habit

formation, and that these habits begin at a young age.

“Well I feel like on public transport, you don’t really have to put a seatbelt on, and as a young person

you like use that quite often. So, you forget sometimes when you get into a car” (Male, 16, Non-

Driver)

“on trains and buses, you don’t wear a seatbelt, so if you use public transport more often, then you

might… forget” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“like I get onto a school bus and it’s a coach and no one wears their seatbelt. It’s like, there’s a couple

of people who do, but most people don’t. I’d say peer pressure in that kind of area” (Female, 17,

Learning to Drive)

“I feel like the stuff about seatbelts should be aimed at younger years as well, because as we said

about the bus, there’s a lot of like Year 7s and stuff don’t understand the driver is responsible for that

and if there was an accident then he’d get the blame for it. And he says at every stop ‘make sure

you’ve put your seatbelts on’, but they don’t seem to listen. Like you notice in the morning and they

all sit at the front, but they don’t realise that it’s not your responsibility but his” (Female, 17, Learning

to Drive).

“yeah and like a lot of the times the bus drivers don’t stop long enough so you have to get up, just

before, while they’re still moving, to the front of the bus” (Female, 15, Non-Driver)

“I feel like public transport should have seatbelts or better standing facilities. Because I take the

public bus everyday and if there’s no seats left, you have to stand, and I don’t think that’s safe,

because the floor gets wet, so you can’t stand properly, and the hand rails get all sweaty, so you

can’t grip it either. So, you’re kind of holding on, so yeah. And even when you’re sitting down, you

feel like you’re not safe. I don’t feel like it’s a problem with trains but with buses and stuff” (Male, 16,

Non-Driver)

Overall Intervention Key themes emerged from the focus group regarding the overall intervention. Several participants

stated that the intervention should reinforce the message:

“I think you should do more than one age group, so people see it more than once, so they kinda

remember it better” (Female, 15, Non-Driver).

The respondents stated that they should start younger, some stated Year 9 as being the right age

group (to start with), while others said as young as Year 7s as they recognised that they do not always

wear their seatbelts on school buses.






to Drive).

10

There was an interesting difference between the Year 11s and the Year 12s, as the Year 12s believed

that they should have had the intervention later on as they found it unrelatable with only a small

number of them learning to drive at the time of the play and follow-up lesson.

“I think the timing was wrong at the beginning of the year. It was quite a good play, but it was too

soon.” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“Yeah, at the beginning of Year 12, you don’t know about driving. It doesn’t feel relatable.” (Male,

16, Non-Driver).

Whereas the Year 11s thought they were the right age group to receive the intervention and did not

think it was too soon or unrelatable, and were suggesting starting younger:

“yeah, we’ll be driving in the next year or two, so like it’s good to get like a heads up or something”

(Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“probably could have it again” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“yeah probably but like after GCSEs, because obviously its near our GCSE, and obviously we’re gonna

care about it but we’re not going to worry too much, because we have other things to worry about”


“remind us of the safety we need to take” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

Questions were also asked around whether the right topics were covered within the intervention

(play and follow-up lesson), and what the main topics road safety interventions should include for

young people:

“Risk taking. Driving too quickly and showing off” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“How many people you should fit in a car, like 9 in a Vauxhall Corsa with a couple in the boot” (Male,

16, Non-Driver)

“I think so, like people our age, so they drive and listen to music in their car, I feel like that’s the

biggest distraction for new drivers is music or loud music” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“I think instead of focussing on drink driving it should be more on drug driving… these days” (Male,

16, Non-Driver)

“It kind of showed how peer pressure can affect it more, like I didn’t know beforehand and like how

driving with a load of people is probably not the best idea” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“I think younger people can be more like impatient compared to like more experienced drivers”


“I think they cover the right sections – like drink driving and all that stuff” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“and like tiredness, in case you got tired, you shouldn’t drive” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“like messing around/showing off” (Female, 16, Non-Driver)

“like, angry driving so like when your road raged. No, like when you’re driving really fast, so not like

road rage, so like when they go in a mood and they get in a car, like frustration” (Female, 16, Non-

Driver)

11

By discussing the overall intervention with the respondents, the study found that the intervention

generally covers the main topics that young people consider relevant such as risk taking, speeding,

showing off, peer pressure, listening to music and drink driving. However, some of the focus group

discussions mentioned focusing on drug driving. One of the teachers present at the focus group stated

that drugs is prevalent among sixth form students and gave an example of one of the students being

searched at a petrol station.

Rural Roads “I was in a car accident, it wasn’t anything serious, it was with a school friends and uhm we crashed

into a tractor. We were going like 10mph and he just forgot to turn the wheel. *group laughter* that

is actually what happened, we were meant to be going round a corner and he was checking to see

what the road we normally go on is closed, and he wasn’t looking and the tractor was like still but he

kept looking… and then he just completely wrote his car off… because the front like yeah… but

everyone was fine.” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“if they’re on their own land, they go driving and stuff don’t they, and if they don’t wear it, so they

don’t… maybe forget about it.” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“when my brother takes his hands off the steering wheel when he’s driving and gets me to steer for

him… He does it on like private fields and like private land and stuff. He does occasionally do it on a

road” (Female, 15, Non-Driver)

What was prominent about the focus group discussions was the issue of rural roads and bad habits

on private land. It is interesting because Suffolk is very rural, and collision risk is higher on rural

roads. The respondents have demonstrated that they pick up bad habits from driving carelessly on

private land, which then get replicated on the road, out of habit. These students, therefore, face an

extra challenge that students from other parts of the country don’t necessarily have. Suggesting a

one size fits all approach is not appropriate and rural roads must be considered for road safety

interventions in Suffolk and other rural counterparts.

Novice Drivers “all of my mates have said that they go absolutely mental until they get their Black boxes, because there’s gap between when you get your insurance and your Blackbox installed. They go absolutely

mental and drive everywhere around 100 or whatever, some of them will lose their licenses or whatever, and then they say they sort of, still go a bit mental even if they’ve got a black box, and

then they crash, and then they calm down afterwards. So, after their first car, they write it off, and they sort of get a rubbish car afterward that because they can’t afford to get a good one, that’s when

they calm down and get more sensible” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“one of my mates has a Black box in his car, cus like it registers how good your driving is, but he messed around and wrote his car off” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

He went through 5 cars in his first year” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“what happens is they buy a car for £100, and then write it off, buy cheap cars so you don’t care so much” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“he went along like because insurance is expensive, he bought like cars no one wanted, because the insurance was cheap, so he could have big engine. So, he could have like a 3 litre Vauxhall Sofira or something… if you look at motorbikes and stuff, there’s only so much power you can have until you

get older. But with cars you can get anything that you can afford.” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

12

“I think the only way you learn is from a crash or whatever. Like all my mates have crashed when they first got on the road. I can’t name one of them who hasn’t written off a car yet.” (Male, 16, Non-

Driver)

General discussions took place around novice drivers, which reiterated that interventions may need

to include real life examples of young novice drivers and the subsequent consequences of driving and

behaving badly in a car. This does not necessarily mean using a fear approach but could incorporate

the use of black boxes; the risks and dangers of modifying cheap cars; the financial aspect (such as

insurance costs rocketing); and how this could have a negative impact in the future (for example,

needing a car to drive to work, losing their independence and freedom as well as social stigma).

13

Appendix B – Lesson Plan) which was disseminated to all presenters. All of the presenters were trained

in the session and were on-board with the positive messaging philosophy. The lessons themselves

involved limited paperwork. The focus on the lesson was that the students worked in discussion and

debate.

Procedure The procedure was that the whole year group (Years 11, 12 and 13, depending on the school or

college) received the theatre show together. Four to six weeks later, individual classroom sessions

took place.

The lesson involved:

• A discussion about the play, to prompt recall

• Discussions on responsibilities regarding seatbelt wearing and encouraging others to wear

their seatbelts, with a focus on normalising seatbelt wearing, using the premise: “You all wear

seatbelts – how can we help those few who choose not to?”. The aim was to get the students

to recognise the risks to their friends and to themselves, and to get them to challenge and

educate peers and family

• Discussions about influencing people in the way of direct challenging; setting an example;

sharing information; emotional blackmail; and environmental influence

• Using a new driver scenario and having a discussion about defining a good driver as well as

risks associated with ‘new drivers’

Who delivers it and how? The play was delivered by a professional theatre company, using young actors. It is delivered to the

whole year group.

The presenters for the follow up classroom lesson were from Suffolk County Council and where

possible, there was a young apprentice involved in the delivery. This was a deliberate decision to

encourage open discussion amongst the students.

Where, when and how much (long)? The plays were performed in school halls and lasted for about one hour. The follow up lessons were

held in classrooms and also lasted for an hour. There were 31 classes which received the follow up

lesson. There were also posters provided to the schools to put up to reinforce passenger responsibility

messages.

Tailoring/modifications/How well was it delivered? There was little tailoring of the intervention at the point of delivery. Each follow-up lesson followed a

similar structure and lesson plan. This ensured that all of the key topics were discussed, making it

consistent for evaluation.

14

Evaluation

Methodology and Design A mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods were employed for this evaluation. Post-then-Pre-

surveys were completed by those who participated in the focus group, before the discussions took

place. There were 42 students who participated in a total of four focus groups at three different

schools. This evaluation was conducted four months after the intervention. Due to time constraints

and accessibility, a comparison group was not used. However, future evaluations could incorporate

the use of comparison groups (of non-attending students and/or students receiving alternative

interventions) to account for potentially extraneous variables.

A qualitative approach provides an insight into the views of the students in terms of what they recall

from the intervention; what they felt that they had learnt; and how it could be improved. A focus

group is more than a group of individuals responding to the same questions. Responses emerge from

the group interactions, with people discussing views with each other and reflecting. This provides an

invaluable insight with this particular target audience, given the focus on social norms in both the

intervention itself and the behaviour change model on which it is based. Focus groups enable

participants to have an in-depth conversation on a wide range of subjects relating to the topics

covered in the play and follow-up lesson. It allows for the exploration of personal experiences, views,

values, attitude, beliefs, meanings, feelings and emotions – allowing researchers to understand their

social world through their eyes. Therefore, a focus group was the most suitable method for data

collection for this particular evaluation and its aims.

The purpose of the questionnaire was to quantitatively determine if the intervention affected their

thoughts, behaviours, and awareness. They were presented with 9 statements which related to driver

and passenger responsibilities; direct challenging and seatbelt wearing. The behaviours are related to

concepts included in the theatre production, ‘Braking Point’, and the follow-up lesson. The remainder

of the questions for the survey focused on demographic information (age; gender; and if they can

drive). Using a post-then-pre-design to identify self-reported behavioural changes can provide

substantial evidence for intervention impact.

If the intervention has been successful, then we would hope to observe the following between the

pre-and-post stages:

• Increase in awareness of the responsibility’s drivers have

• Increase in identifying risks which are associated with ‘new drivers’

• Increase in awareness of the responsibility’s passengers have

• Stronger belief that they could directly challenge friends if they behave badly inside a car

• Stronger belief that they could directly challenge family members if they behave badly inside

a car

• Increase in being able to identify good driving behaviours

• Increase in knowledge of the importance of keeping safe on the road and in the car

• Decrease in not noticing bad driving habits

• Increase in always thinking about wearing a seatbelt at the beginning of the journey

15

Focus Group Findings Focus groups were held with students who had attended both the theatre in education performance

and the classroom lesson. The purpose of the focus groups was to determine what they remembered

from both elements of the intervention; what they felt they learnt from the sessions; and how they

felt that it, and road safety for young people in general, could be improved (Appendix B – Focus Group

Moderator Guide).

Four lively and informative discussions took place, providing useful insights into the intervention. Two

focus groups consisted of Year 12 students, aged 16 and 17 years old; although none of them could

drive, a handful were learning to drive. The other two focus groups consisted of Year 11 students,

aged 15 and 16, therefore were not currently learning to drive, but a number of participants stated

that they would start learning in the next year. Whilst it would have been beneficial to include novice

drivers (groups of students were selected by the schools due to availability), this study still provides

an opportunity to explore any differences between pre-drivers and learner drivers.

Before starting the discussion, the aims, objectives and purpose of the research were discussed, as

well as gaining verbal consent from the participants. Participants were made aware that their names

or other personal identifiers would not be included anywhere, and that only their gender and age

would be used. It was made clear that anything they said would be kept strictly confidential and would

only be used for the purpose of the evaluation. All the focus group discussions were audio recorded

and transcribed.

Seven distinct themes emerged from the analysis of the four focus group discussions, most of which

correlate to the topics of the intervention. The main themes that will be discussed here are Seatbelt

Wearing; Challenging Family Members and Friends; The Play; and The Follow-Up Lesson. The other

themes of Road Safety Education in General; Rural Roads and Novice Drivers are not directly relevant

to the delivery of this intervention and are explored in Appendix A – Other themes.

Seatbelt Wearing

Seatbelt wearing was one of the behaviours that the theatre in education performance covered and

was the main topic of focus in the follow-up lesson. Therefore, a number of questions were designed

to delve and explore this topic in greater detail, to see if their thoughts and behaviours had changed

and if the intervention had influenced or altered their way of thinking and behaving.

A scenario was presented to the respondents and they were asked questions around responsibilities

regarding seatbelts. These included whether they, as passengers, have a responsibility for others

wearing their seatbelts and what they would do in that particular scenario, as well as whether, they,

when drivers have a responsibility for the passengers in their car.

As a passenger:

“I think I’d make them wear a seatbelt, but I don’t, wouldn’t think it’s the

responsibility of the driver…” (Male, 16, Non-Driver).

“It depends on how well I knew them. If they were close friends, yes. But if I didn’t know them, then

it’s the driver.” (Male, 17, Learning to Drive).

“I’d just put mine on… it’s not my responsibility” (Male, 15, Non-Driver).

“It’s everyone’s responsibility.” (Male, 17, Non-Driver)

16

“…obviously I would want everyone to wear a seatbelt but there are some friends that I don’t care… I

just leave them to it… yeah but… it depends” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“I’m just, as soon as I get in a car it goes straight on, first thing that I do.” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

As the driver:

“I’d tell them like, ‘put it on’, if they say no, then I’d literally tell them to get out, because if

something did happen then, like let’s say it was something really dramatic and something bad

happens to them, I’d feel like it’s my fault so…” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive).

“I’d give them a good talking to *group laughter* and if they don’t listen then I’d give them a

warning and then… if they really needed to come with me… then I’d let them.” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“I think it’s the responsibility of the person that’s not wearing it. I know legally it’s the driver’s

responsibility, but I think really it’s the person that isn’t wearing a seatbelt.” (Male, 16, Non-Driver).

“I feel like it’s the driver’s responsibility because it’s their car so they should make sure that everyone

has their seatbelt on” (Female, 16, Non-Driver)

“if the driver notices it, then he can like speak up or whatever, but if they don’t notice it, then it’s not

really their fault.” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“Unless their seatbelt is broken, then I think it’s the driver’s fault. But apart from that, I think it’s on

them really” (Male, 16, Non-Driver).

“If I was a driver and the passenger weren’t putting their seatbelt on and if I told them to, and they

still didn’t do it, I’d kick them out” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“I’d encourage them to have their seatbelt on but if they didn’t then in the end its their choice, I

guess, but I’d be a lot more cautious, if they did not have their seatbelt on”. (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“I wouldn’t care. If they were under 12 then yeah. But otherwise, if I crash and they’re not wearing it,

that’s not my problem.” (Male, 16, Non-Driver).

“No, you should put them on yourself, and if not then they should get out” (Female, 15, Non-Driver)

“If I was driving, I’d probably make them put them on” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

As the above findings demonstrate, there are some strong views about the responsibilities of car

occupants about seatbelt wearing. As a passenger, some stated that they would make the others wear

their seatbelts but don’t necessarily believe it should be the driver’s responsibility. Others believe that

everyone should be responsible for themselves. Some stated that if they like or know that person then

they would encourage them to put their seatbelt on but if they did not, they would leave it for the

driver to say something and be held responsible. As drivers, there was again a mixture of responses,

as some stated that as drivers they have a responsibility and that they would refuse to drive if their

passengers did not have their seatbelts on and tell them to get out of the vehicle. Others felt that it is

the responsibility of the person not wearing their seatbelt, therefore having the attitude that everyone

is responsible for themselves. In concluding the scenario-based question around seatbelts and

responsibilities, the respondents were asked whether their answers would have been the same before

the intervention, and all the respondents stated that it would have most likely have been the same.

“I think I would have still thought it but now that you know properly, and they’ve told you everything,

now you’re actually a 100 percent sure” (Female, 15, Non-Driver)

17

However, there was an agreement that the lesson had reinforced how they felt about seatbelt wearing

responsibilities.

At the follow-up lesson, the presenter asked the students to close their eyes and put their hands up if

they did not always wear a seatbelt. They did this because they found that 10 percent of 17 to 19-year

olds admitted to not always wearing their seatbelts or at times slipping their arm out. Therefore, it

was imperative to explore why some people may not always wear their seatbelts. As a result, the

participants were asked to reflect on why some young people may not always wear their seat belt:

“they think their hard… think it’s cool” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“they’re showing off” (Female, 15, Non-Driver)

“because their mates are doing it…peer pressure” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“it might be that their parents are doing it too” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“uncomfortable” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“short journey” (Female, 12, Non-Driver)

“could be because they’re lazy” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“could be that they think the driver is safe” (Female, 15, Non-Driver)

“also when it’s hot, like I feel like in summer if I wear it properly… it always like sticks” (Male, 16,

Non-Driver)

“one time I was in a small car and I was in the back with two other people and the wrong person was

sat in the middle, I was like on the side, but the wrong person was in the middle, so I couldn’t find my

seat belt, like you know, it should be the smallest person in the middle, so, it’s like impractical

positioning… But also, people might not wear them if they’re younger, like if they’re going on a short

journey” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

There were a variety of reasons the participants gave for why young people might not wear their

seatbelt. These range from habits to social pressures to excuses about discomfort and short journeys.

The majority of the focus group discussions around seatbelt wearing steered towards the relationship

between seatbelts and public transport. Most participants agreed that a lot of young people rely on

public transport such as coaches, trains and buses, and most of these do not have seatbelts or they

do, but they are not commonly used. Therefore, when young people get into a car, they may forget

out of habit of not wearing a seatbelt on other means of transport. The quotes from these discussions

are included in Appendix A – Other themes

Challenging Family Members and Friends

One of the objectives of the intervention was to provide students with strategies for challenging family

members and friends when driving or behaving inappropriately in a car. Therefore, one of the

questions asked in the focus group discussions was whether they now felt confident in challenging

family members or friends when driving or behaving badly in a car.

“Yeah I feel more comfortable telling or asking my mum to drive at a slightly lower speed” (Male, 15,

Non-Driver)

18

“No, not really… I did it anyway” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“Yes – I suppose I didn’t really know which things would be, too far you know, like I didn’t guess as a

passenger you had responsibilities before the play” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“So, like, telling them to behave and like stop making a racket like in the back of your car, something

like that” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“No, not really” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“Yeah like tell my parents like or my sister to slow down when like going round a corner (Female, 16,

Non-Driver)

“Yes, we were showed different ways to do that” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“The tutor told us ways to challenge drivers but that’s not my way. I’m more authoritative and would

just get straight to the point.” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

Therefore, there were some clear examples of participants who did feel more comfortable challenging

others as a result of the intervention. It was felt that these skills were gained from the play (which

highlighted the responsibilities of passengers) and from the lesson (where specific techniques were

explored). There were some participants, who already felt confident at challenging others and were

using their own techniques.

Some stated that there was a difference in challenging friends and family members such as parents:

“I think yes. Probably it would be harder if they were like a family member still as I feel like you would

have to deal with the consequences of you know standing up to someone. Whereas if they’re your

friends then it doesn’t matter.” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“No, I think I’d say it’s both ways, like saying it to your friends is the same as saying it to your

family…” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“Kind of depends on what family member it is. Because I wouldn’t say it to my dad as he’d tell me to

be quiet. Whereas my mum like, I’d be like, well she can’t really drive so *laughter* no, she can drive,

but like I tell her all the time that she can’t. So, she’s used to it but my dad, “I know how to drive” so

he’d tell me off.” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“I have one, uhm, I agree with [Female -17], cos I’m certainly scared of my dad’s driving, but I don’t

say it because yeah same thing. But it’s not bad, it’s just fast and you know, and he hasn’t crashed

yet [group laughs] so yeah” (Female, 16, Non-Driver)

It could be that different techniques are needed, depending on how well the student knows the person

behaving in a risky manner. Challenging family members, especially parents, can bring repercussions

at home and the students may choose to avoid being told off. They may also find it dauting to

challenge peers who have passed their driving tests or have been driving for some time, or those they

don’t know particularly well. One recommendation for the future is that different types of strategy

are explored so that students have a range of techniques they could use, depending on the person

engaging in the behaviour.

The Play

The respondents were asked about the most important or key messages from the play. Listed below

are some of the responses they gave:

19

“Don’t drink and drive” (Female, 15, Non-Driver)

“Don’t get into a car with someone if they are drunk” (Female, 16, Non-Driver)

“don’t listen to your friends sometimes… they were shouting in the back” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“I feel like as a passenger you have more responsibility than you think you do” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“I know more now about why we should wear our seatbelts” (Male, 17, Non-Driver)

“And to always be aware of our surroundings.” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“don’t distract the driver” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“always wear your seatbelt” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“don’t make too much noise in the car” (Female, 16, Non-Driver)

“they drove over the limit, didn’t they? … don’t drink drive” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“they had the music on really loud, didn’t they? So that’s another distraction” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

All of these themes were included in the play and this shows good recall of the play overall.

The respondents were then asked what their thoughts were on the play:

“They didn’t really act like us, I mean they were a bit weird… do you know what I mean, like they did

act like teenagers but it’s different to us… ? like at the start when they were like ‘wheeeey’ like that’s

not what we do” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“So, if you’re gonna drink, tell your parents kind of thing, so you can arrange to get picked up.

Because you drive there and then if your mates are drinking – you follow” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“Yeah, I think it was really good” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

Respondents were then asked to reflect on the play and if there are ways that they thought the play

could be improved to have more of an impact on young people:

“Smaller groups…because we were all kind of sitting with our friends, we weren’t paying much

attention to what was actually happening” (Female, 15, Non-Driver).

“Maybe make it shorter [the play], I don’t know, like it wasn’t really long, but like it was sad when

obviously to find out… what happened. I think maybe if it involved other people, to show how it can

affect, like if they crashed into someone and something happened…” (Female, 16, Non-Driver).

“Sid anyone die in the play? … oh, they should have done that and make us think he’s actually dead

and that will make us all think we won’t do it, because that will be more realistic” (Male, 15, Non-

Driver).

“And if they showed the other side of the story, so like if they behaved in the right way what would

have happened… cause like they show the negatives of driving” (Male, 17, Learning to Drive).

“Even the fact that it can affect your family and stuff” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“Obviously like it can paralyse you and stop you from doing things you wanna do in life… that could

be quite impactful?” (Female, 15, Non-Driver)

20

As the data shows, overall the respondents thought that the play was good and covered the right

topics. When asking questions around whether they would change the play, some suggested that

using fear appeals by showing death and carnage might have more of an impact. This was to be

expected as traditionally road safety interventions have a focus on fear appeal approaches, and as a

result, people expect fear to be included. However, evidence suggests that fear appeals can be

ineffective, or even counter-productive, especially with young males. It is therefore interesting to

learn what the young people themselves think might work. It should be remembered that what they

think might work and what actually does work might not be the same. Interestingly, in one of the focus

group discussions, a debate arose. As one of the respondents argued that fear appeal does not

necessarily work as his friends have crashed regardless and that he believes that it is a part of the

driving experience:

“I think the only way you learn is from a crash or whatever. Like all my mates have crashed when

they first got on the road. I can’t name one of them who hasn’t written off a car yet.” (Male, 16, Non-

Driver)

The Follow-Up Lesson

The respondents were asked about the most important or key messages from the follow-up lesson. The results show that they recall the main topics explored in the lesson:

“Seatbelts, and he told us to put our hands up if we wear a seatbelt kind of thing” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“About our responsibilities as passengers. Like with having loud music. I told my older brother about it.” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“He was on about speed and stuff” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“Don’t get encouraged by your mates” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

The respondents were then asked to reflect on the follow-up lesson:

“Didn’t see the point in that just went in on us about wearing a seatbelt, I didn’t take anything from

it personally, like, I don’t know, yeah” (Female, 16, Non-Driver)

“We’ve already been told” (Male, 17, Non-Driver)

“And it’s not like we got something like a poster of it all or like written down or anything. It was just

they spoke at us and that was kind of it” (Female, 17, Learning to Driver)

“I disagree, I learnt quite a bit, like how the passengers… like having your seatbelt on can affect the

other passengers, so I thought I learnt quite a bit from that” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“I felt the play was better than the after talk. Cause with the after thing, they just talked about one main thing. Whereas the play it talked about multiple” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“I think the follow-up lesson was quite useful as they used more realistic scenarios and they weren’t as predictable. They were both useful, like one wasn’t worse than the other, but they were both

useful in a way” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“Their approach was too authoritative… not my style” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“I think the second one [lesson] had everyone’s attention a lot more” (Female, 16, Non-Driver)

21

“Yeah, they were useful for people who don’t really like, you know what I mean, do it straight away kind of thing but erm, to me, I kinda know and stuff. I always been told, you see” (Male, 15, Non-

Driver)

As the above demonstrates, there were some mixed views on the follow-up lesson. Some of the

respondents believed they already knew what was said in the lesson and others were not sure why it

only concentrated on one topic. However, others stated that they had learnt quite a bit about

passenger responsibilities and that the presenters used more realistic scenarios. Overall, the play was

more positively received than the follow-up lesson. This could be because the lesson came after the

play and therefore it felt repetitive; however, this is the point of multi-dose approach, which is to

reinforce key messages. The mixed views could also be because students learn in different ways, and

the play works better than the lesson for some more than others. Lastly, it could be that some students

were already aware of their passenger responsibilities; seatbelt wearing issues; and had coping

strategies for dealing with risky behaviours.

The participants were then encouraged to think about what changes could be made to improve the

follow-up lesson:

“I think the lesson could be changed to have a demonstration of what goes on when you don’t wear a

seatbelt. Like, they explained that you can injure other people in the car, but it would be useful to

understand how… it doesn’t have to be mangled bodies or anything but some sort of demonstration.”


“…And with the lesson, they could have like involved us more” (Male, 16, Learning to Drive)

“Yeah, bit more interactive” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“Yeah if you lecture people, you lose interest a little bit” (Male, 17, Non-Driver)

“Like maybe talk through the theory exam and give tips, and hazard perceptions, maybe?” (Male, 16,

Non-Driver)

“Maybe computer simulation would be a good idea” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

Overall, the participants would have preferred the lesson to be more interactive and more practical.

This could be achieved through specific exercises which involve role play, perhaps working through

challenging different types of family and friends. Some of the respondents also highlighted that the

follow-up lesson was solely on seatbelt wearing, and that other behaviours should have been included.

The lesson was deliberately designed to only focus on one issue, so that sufficient time was provided

to explore the issue in full. Many road safety interventions try to cover a multitude of topics, which

could lead to confusion and insufficient time to explore practical solutions.

Some of the respondents were learning to drive and felt that they would appreciate some support in

the learning to drive process. This could be considered in wider road safety programmes.

One of the aims of the intervention was to encourage engagement with others on road safety and

passing on their knowledge gained from the intervention. Speaking about what they had learnt from

the play and follow-up lesson demonstrates that the message had resonated with them. Therefore,

one of the questions asked was whether they had spoken to anyone after the intervention about the

play and/or follow-up lesson, or what they had learnt. Most respondents stated they had not spoken

to anyone about the play and/or follow-up lesson or what they had learnt to their friends or family

members. A couple of the respondents stated that their parents asked how their day was and that is

22

when they briefly mentioned the play or follow-up lesson they had on that day, but a discussion did

not take place. There could be ways in which elements in the lesson could encourage follow up

discussions with family and friends.

Conclusions from Focus Groups

The focus groups indicated that the intervention has resulted in learning amongst the target audience

as the respondents were generally more aware of the responsibilities that they have as a passenger

and how to behave in a car. They believed that the intervention covered most, if not all, of the right

topics relating to young novice drivers. There are some conclusions which could be reached and might

inform future development of the intervention. Two main findings emerged from the focus groups:

that whilst some respondents felt confident challenging others’ risky behaviour in cars, and that this

had increased after the intervention for some, there were certain people (family and friends), who the

respondents felt it was difficult to challenge. The second main finding was that the students would

find the lesson more engaging if there were interactive sessions. One way of addressing both of these

findings would be to incorporate a role play exercise, where coping strategies for challenging different

types of family and friend were explored.

Reinforcement of messages

Many pre- and novice driver interventions are ‘single dose’. They involve one lesson or performance,

with no follow up. Behaviour change theories suggest that multiple doses are required to achieve long-

term change and using different delivery methods assists different learning styles. This intervention

does exactly that: learning from the play is reinforced through the delivery of the lesson. Further

reinforcements could be made through the use of posters placed around schools and colleges, to act

as prompts and cues for the messages already learnt. Support could be provided to parents to ensure

that they are delivering practical advice to their children as both passengers and new drivers.

Other road safety topics emerged from these discussions and whilst it would dilute the lesson to cover

some of these issues, these topics could be included in the wider road safety programme.

The play was received more positively than the lesson

There are a number of reasons why the respondents reported more positive feelings towards the play

than the lesson:

• The play was first, so the lesson was repeating things that they felt that they already knew

• The play covered multiple topics and behaviours whereas the lesson mainly discussed

seatbelts

• Although they described the play as ‘cringey’ or that the actors did not necessarily act like

their age group, they found it funny and relatable and thought it was generally good

• It was felt to be more engaging than the lesson, which was felt could include more interactive

elements

23

Questionnaire Findings Demographics

There were 42 questionnaires fully completed

prior to the focus group discussion (Appendix D

– Post-and-Pre-Questionnaire). As Figure 1

shows there was a higher percentage of males

(62%) that participated compared to females

(38%). The evaluation was conducted on two

Year 12 groups and two Year 11 groups.

Therefore, there was a mixture of 15, 16- and 17-

year olds (Figure 2). Only 24% of the participants

were of the legal age to start learning to drive.

Respondents were asked about their plans to

learn to drive, as shown in Figure 3. None of the

participants had passed their driving test, with

21% of respondents currently learning to drive,

40% planning to learn in the next year and a

further 38% planning to learn in the future.

Figure 2 – Age of respondents

62%

38%

Male Female

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

15 years old 16 years old 17 years old

Figure 1 - Gender of respondents

24

Figure 3 – Learning to drive intentions of respondents

Statements

The students had to reflect on a number of statements and state how much they agree with each

statement (Strongly Agree; Agree; Neither Agree or Disagree; Disagree; Strongly Disagree), after the

intervention (play and follow-up lesson) as well as reflect on how much they would have agreed or

disagreed with the statements prior to the intervention.

The statements were related to:

• Driver/passenger responsibilities;

• Direct challenging;

• Seatbelt wearing

As Figure 4 demonstrates, there is a general increase in ‘Strongly Agree’/’Agree’ after the intervention

in all the statements. In particular, there is a high increase in awareness of responsibilities as

passengers which supports the focus group findings, where the majority of the respondents stated

that they were more aware of their responsibilities as passengers. There was also an increase in being

able to directly challenge family and friends when behaving badly in a car. This also reflects the focus

group discussions, although the questionnaire questions are not able to show how they are not

universally confident in challenging other car occupants and that it depends on their relationship with

the person in question.

Most of the statements were phrased in a positive way apart from the statement: ‘I don’t notice bad

driving habits’. As expected, they did not read the statement properly and were confused. This,

however, does not invalidate the questionnaire as this statement was a reverse of the other positive

statements and still generally indicates that they were aware of bad driving habits.

Figure 5 shows that there has been a decrease in answering ‘Neither’ for after the intervention,

meaning there has been a shift from ‘Neither Agree or Disagree’ to either ‘Agree’ or ‘Strongly Agree’,

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Passed test Learning to drive Planning to learn inthe next year

Planning to learn inthe future

Not planning tolearn

25

showing that the respondents felt more positive after the intervention compared to their reflections

on their positive before.

Figure 4 – Agreement with the statements

69%

83%

52%

45%

57%

67%

86%

17%

79%

93%

98% 98%

90%93%

95%98%

26%

90%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Strongly Agree/Agree Before Strongly Agree/Agree After

26

Figure 5 – Responding ‘neither’ before and after the intervention

Conclusion from the Questionnaire Findings

This short survey was designed to complement the qualitative element of the evaluation. It should be

remembered that the sample size is small, but it does give a clear indication of how effective the

intervention might be. The respondents self-measured their understanding and awareness and the

results show that they measure these higher after the play and follow-up lesson. This supports the

focus group findings, as most of the respondents recalled key themes from the intervention and

demonstrated learnings from the play and follow-up lesson as a whole. The greatest improvements

were in the key aims of the lesson, about passenger responsibilities and challenging family and friends.

24%

17%

33%

38%

33%

29%

14%

40%

17%

0%

2%

0%

7%

5% 5%

0%

14%

10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Neither Before Neither After

27

Conclusions The focus groups and questionnaire results indicate that the intervention has resulted in learning

amongst the target audience.

The questionnaire results show that they measure their understanding and knowledge higher after

the play and follow-up lesson. There were nine statements which they were asked to rate their levels

of agreement with at the time of the focus group (after the intervention); and to think back to how

much they would have agreed with the statements before the intervention. There were positive

improvements in all but one of the statements; however, this statement was negatively framed, which

could have created confusion as to how to respond to it. There were large improvements in agreement

with statements about the responsibilities of passengers and being able to challenge friends and

family members if they behave badly in a car. The respondents were also more likely to agree that

they could identify risks associated with new drivers and identify good driving behaviours. These

results indicate the intervention is meeting its aims.

The focus group findings support the questionnaire results. Whilst there were some respondents who

stated that they felt confident in challenging others’ risky behaviours before the intervention, there

were others who clearly felt that they had benefited from the intervention. Overall, the play was

received more positively than the follow-up lesson. One reason for this might be that the play was

first, so the participants believed that the follow-up lesson was a repeat of what was highlighted in

the play.

The focus groups also provided participants with an opportunity to talk about more general road

safety topics, revealing some interesting insights. These are included as an appendix and could be used

in the delivery of a wider road safety educational programme. Participants also talked about how the

lesson and play could be improved in the future; the main finding of this being that the lesson could

be more interactive.

The findings of this evaluation, from both the questionnaires and the focus groups, suggest that the

intervention is meeting its aims in raising awareness amongst young people of their responsibilities in

cars and empowering them to use strategies to challenge others who engage in risky behaviours. It

suggests that the positive framing of messages; the use of a multi-dose approach through the delivery

of the play and the lesson; and the exploration of coping strategies within this intervention are leading

to positive results.

In the future, refinements could include an interactive element, where students roleplay challenging

different types of fellow car occupant such as family members, close friends, and acquaintances and

how strategies might differ depending on the person being challenged.

28

Appendix A – Other themes

Public Transport All of the discussions led to public transport being raised as a mode of transport which leads to habit

formation, and that these habits begin at a young age.

“Well I feel like on public transport, you don’t really have to put a seatbelt on, and as a young person

you like use that quite often. So, you forget sometimes when you get into a car” (Male, 16, Non-

Driver)

“on trains and buses, you don’t wear a seatbelt, so if you use public transport more often, then you

might… forget” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“like I get onto a school bus and it’s a coach and no one wears their seatbelt. It’s like, there’s a couple

of people who do, but most people don’t. I’d say peer pressure in that kind of area” (Female, 17,

Learning to Drive)






to Drive).

“yeah and like a lot of the times the bus drivers don’t stop long enough so you have to get up, just

before, while they’re still moving, to the front of the bus” (Female, 15, Non-Driver)

“I feel like public transport should have seatbelts or better standing facilities. Because I take the

public bus everyday and if there’s no seats left, you have to stand, and I don’t think that’s safe,

because the floor gets wet, so you can’t stand properly, and the hand rails get all sweaty, so you

can’t grip it either. So, you’re kind of holding on, so yeah. And even when you’re sitting down, you

feel like you’re not safe. I don’t feel like it’s a problem with trains but with buses and stuff” (Male, 16,

Non-Driver)

Overall Intervention Key themes emerged from the focus group regarding the overall intervention. Several participants

stated that the intervention should reinforce the message:

“I think you should do more than one age group, so people see it more than once, so they kinda

remember it better” (Female, 15, Non-Driver).

The respondents stated that they should start younger, some stated Year 9 as being the right age

group (to start with), while others said as young as Year 7s as they recognised that they do not always

wear their seatbelts on school buses.






to Drive).

29

There was an interesting difference between the Year 11s and the Year 12s, as the Year 12s believed

that they should have had the intervention later on as they found it unrelatable with only a small

number of them learning to drive at the time of the play and follow-up lesson.

“I think the timing was wrong at the beginning of the year. It was quite a good play, but it was too

soon.” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“Yeah, at the beginning of Year 12, you don’t know about driving. It doesn’t feel relatable.” (Male,

16, Non-Driver).

Whereas the Year 11s thought they were the right age group to receive the intervention and did not

think it was too soon or unrelatable, and were suggesting starting younger:

“yeah, we’ll be driving in the next year or two, so like it’s good to get like a heads up or something”


“probably could have it again” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“yeah probably but like after GCSEs, because obviously its near our GCSE, and obviously we’re gonna

care about it but we’re not going to worry too much, because we have other things to worry about”


“remind us of the safety we need to take” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

Questions were also asked around whether the right topics were covered within the intervention

(play and follow-up lesson), and what the main topics road safety interventions should include for

young people:

“Risk taking. Driving too quickly and showing off” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“How many people you should fit in a car, like 9 in a Vauxhall Corsa with a couple in the boot” (Male,

16, Non-Driver)

“I think so, like people our age, so they drive and listen to music in their car, I feel like that’s the

biggest distraction for new drivers is music or loud music” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“I think instead of focussing on drink driving it should be more on drug driving… these days” (Male,

16, Non-Driver)

“It kind of showed how peer pressure can affect it more, like I didn’t know beforehand and like how

driving with a load of people is probably not the best idea” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“I think younger people can be more like impatient compared to like more experienced drivers”


“I think they cover the right sections – like drink driving and all that stuff” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“and like tiredness, in case you got tired, you shouldn’t drive” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“like messing around/showing off” (Female, 16, Non-Driver)

“like, angry driving so like when your road raged. No, like when you’re driving really fast, so not like

road rage, so like when they go in a mood and they get in a car, like frustration” (Female, 16, Non-

Driver)

30

By discussing the overall intervention with the respondents, the study found that the intervention

generally covers the main topics that young people consider relevant such as risk taking, speeding,

showing off, peer pressure, listening to music and drink driving. However, some of the focus group

discussions mentioned focusing on drug driving. One of the teachers present at the focus group stated

that drugs is prevalent among sixth form students and gave an example of one of the students being

searched at a petrol station.

Rural Roads “I was in a car accident, it wasn’t anything serious, it was with a school friends and uhm we crashed

into a tractor. We were going like 10mph and he just forgot to turn the wheel. *group laughter* that

is actually what happened, we were meant to be going round a corner and he was checking to see

what the road we normally go on is closed, and he wasn’t looking and the tractor was like still but he

kept looking… and then he just completely wrote his car off… because the front like yeah… but

everyone was fine.” (Female, 17, Learning to Drive)

“if they’re on their own land, they go driving and stuff don’t they, and if they don’t wear it, so they

don’t… maybe forget about it.” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“when my brother takes his hands off the steering wheel when he’s driving and gets me to steer for

him… He does it on like private fields and like private land and stuff. He does occasionally do it on a

road” (Female, 15, Non-Driver)

What was prominent about the focus group discussions was the issue of rural roads and bad habits

on private land. It is interesting because Suffolk is very rural, and collision risk is higher on rural

roads. The respondents have demonstrated that they pick up bad habits from driving carelessly on

private land, which then get replicated on the road, out of habit. These students, therefore, face an

extra challenge that students from other parts of the country don’t necessarily have. Suggesting a

one size fits all approach is not appropriate and rural roads must be considered for road safety

interventions in Suffolk and other rural counterparts.

Novice Drivers “all of my mates have said that they go absolutely mental until they get their Black boxes, because there’s gap between when you get your insurance and your Blackbox installed. They go absolutely

mental and drive everywhere around 100 or whatever, some of them will lose their licenses or whatever, and then they say they sort of, still go a bit mental even if they’ve got a black box, and

then they crash, and then they calm down afterwards. So, after their first car, they write it off, and they sort of get a rubbish car afterward that because they can’t afford to get a good one, that’s when

they calm down and get more sensible” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“one of my mates has a Black box in his car, cus like it registers how good your driving is, but he messed around and wrote his car off” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

He went through 5 cars in his first year” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

“what happens is they buy a car for £100, and then write it off, buy cheap cars so you don’t care so much” (Male, 15, Non-Driver)

“he went along like because insurance is expensive, he bought like cars no one wanted, because the insurance was cheap, so he could have big engine. So, he could have like a 3 litre Vauxhall Sofira or something… if you look at motorbikes and stuff, there’s only so much power you can have until you

get older. But with cars you can get anything that you can afford.” (Male, 16, Non-Driver)

31

“I think the only way you learn is from a crash or whatever. Like all my mates have crashed when they first got on the road. I can’t name one of them who hasn’t written off a car yet.” (Male, 16, Non-

Driver)

General discussions took place around novice drivers, which reiterated that interventions may need

to include real life examples of young novice drivers and the subsequent consequences of driving and

behaving badly in a car. This does not necessarily mean using a fear approach but could incorporate

the use of black boxes; the risks and dangers of modifying cheap cars; the financial aspect (such as

insurance costs rocketing); and how this could have a negative impact in the future (for example,

needing a car to drive to work, losing their independence and freedom as well as social stigma).

32

Appendix B – Lesson Plan Lesson Plan Braking Point 2018 (60 minutes)

1. 10

min

Introduction: a very brief reminder of the play they saw. Straight into group discussions. Q: by this age you have heard lots “things you should do” and “things you shouldn’t do” messages about cars and driving. Which ones can you remember? Which are easy to do, which more difficult? Thinking about the population of the country, which ones do you think are obeyed most? which least?

2. 30-40

min

Taking Seatbelt wearing as an example. Think about this scenario: You get into the car as a passenger, a friend is driving, there is another friend in the car too. You put your seatbelt on. One of them doesn’t have their seatbelt on.

1. Are YOU at risk? 2. Is your friend at risk? 3. Why might they not wear it? 4. What do you do?

Discuss each within your groups and feedback on each of the points. Information:

• 90% of 17-19-year-olds say they wear a seatbelt.

• In the event of a collision, all the contents of the car will keep moving at the speed the car was originally doing until they hit something in the car.

• Seatbelts keep passengers within the vehicle. 77% of those thrown from a vehicle are killed.

SECRET VOTE: Q1 occasionally don’t wear seat belt Q2 Occasionally wear it in a different way (Record results) Share the 10% /90% statistic, talk about the clear majority believing it to be a good idea. Q: What do the 90% know that makes them do it? Q: How can the 90% influence the 10%?

3. 10 min

Influencing people: Q: What sorts of things make people stop doing something NOW, and which ones might change their behaviour, long term? Q: What are YOU happy to do to influence a friend? Scenario: You are at an event with friends. You are a passenger in the car and when you get back in to the car a new person has been offered a lift and they don’t put the seatbelt on. What do you do?

33

4.

Extra ideas for longer sessions In the car with new driver scenario Your friend has just passed their driving test. They give you a lift. They are keen to show you that they are a good driver.

1. What is the difference in driving style between a driver you would describe as ‘good’, and would travel with, and one who you don’t feel safe with?

2. What could go wrong on your journey? Information – what risks do you know that are associated with ‘new drivers’?

3. What could you do to keep yourself and your friend safe??

34

Appendix C – Focus Group Moderator Guide [1] Explain why we’re here (Tanya)

[2] INTRODUCTION

“Hello, as you know, my name is Aman and I’m going to run the discussion today.

Tanya will be our note taker.

My job is to make sure we cover all our questions and to make sure that everyone has an

opportunity to be involved.

So, our purpose today is to find out your attitudes towards road safety since the play/lesson.

There are no right or wrong answers to any of the questions.

The purpose is to find out what your personal opinions are, and everyone’s opinion is equally

important to us. We will try to keep our conversation within 45 minutes.”

Before we get started, here are some ground rules and points of information:

1. Please talk one at a time

2. Avoid side conversations with neighbours

3. We need to hear from everyone in the course of the discussion, but you don’t

have to answer every question

4. Feel free to respond directly to someone who has made a point. You don’t have

to address your comments to me. Would like to have a group discussions

5. Say what is true for you. Don’t let the group decide your opinion for you.

6. Respect for opinions: you may find that you disagree with an opinion voiced here

by another person. That is okay, and I hope you will say so when that happens in

a respectful and polite way. You may also change your mind in the middle of our

discussion, perhaps as a result of something that someone else says, and again I

hope you will say so, if and when that happens

7. We will be recording the session to help us write up responses but everything

you say here is treated in confidence and you’ll all be kept anonymous. There will

be no record of what you say with your name on it. We are not going to quote

anyone specifically using her/his name.

[3] ICE BREAKER

We’re going to go around the group quickly to find out who you are:

Name

Age

Passed test

35

Learning to drive

Planning to learn in the next year

Planning to learn in the future

Not planning to learn

[4] MAIN QUESTIONS

We’re going to start with a few questions on how you have felt as a passenger in a car

in the last few months

1. Can you think of a scenario where you have felt uncomfortable as a passenger

recently?

Follow up questions:

o What happened? What did you do?

o Do you think you behaved differently than you would have done before the

play/lesson?

Probing questions:

o Please tell me more

o Please give me an example

o Non-verbal: remain silent/nod head/use puzzled expression

2. Do you feel more confident challenging others in cars now than before the

play/lesson? For example, those who drive unsafely or act carelessly as a

passenger?


o In what ways do you feel confident?

o How would you challenge them?

o Has the play/lesson influenced you in anyway?

Probing questions:




3. Scenario: Imagine your best friend has just passed their test and they’ve got their

own car, you get in the car with two other friends and you notice the two friends

aren’t putting their seatbelts on and you know the destination is only 10 minutes

away within the same town.

36

o Would you wear your seat belt? [Would your answer have been the same

before the play/lesson plan?]

o Would you also encourage the others to wear a seatbelt or would you think

that’s the responsibility of the driver? [Would your answer have been the

same before the play/lesson plan?]

o If you were the driver, would you make sure everyone’s got their seatbelt

on before driving? Or do you think everyone’s responsible for themselves?

[Would your answer have been the same before the play/lesson plan?]

4. At the lesson the presenter asked questions around seat belt wearing and a few

didn’t always wear them. Why do you think some young people choose not to

wear a seat belt? Or why they might slip their arm out of the belt?

Now we’re going to think back to the play/follow-up lesson

5. What do you think were the most important messages from the play?


o What sticks in your mind the most?

o What did you learn – that you didn’t know before?

o Has the play influenced you or your decisions in anyway?

Probing questions:




6. What can you remember from the follow-up lesson?


o What sticks in your mind the most?

o What did you learn – that you didn’t know before?

o Has the lesson influenced you or your decisions in anyway?

o Do you think it was beneficial having a follow-up lesson after the play?

Probing questions:




7. Have you spoken to anyone else about what you have learnt in the lesson or play?


37

o Who did you speak to?

o What did you say? What did they say?

Probing questions:




8. How would you change the play and lesson, so they would have more of an impact

on young people’s thoughts and behaviour? i.e. how the message is delivered?


o Why do you think that would be more effective?

Probing questions:




9. Is there a specific behaviour that these road safety interventions should target for

young people?


o Why do you think that?

Probing questions:




38

Appendix D - Behaviour Change Theory – Prototype Willingness Model Many road safety interventions are founded on the Theory of Planned Behaviour, which works as a

model to explain behaviour as the result of a decision-making process, founded on attitudes. It

suggests that risk behaviour is intentional and premeditated. There is evidence that the relationship

between intentions and behaviour is weaker amongst younger subjects. “For example, Beck and Ajzen

(1991) suggested that few young children intend to engage in some risk behaviours (e.g. use illicit

drugs), and thus, the low variance in intention restricts the usefulness of the intention construct as a

predictor of future behaviours.”9 Given the findings of previous evaluations conducted by RSA, where

pre- and novice drivers had positive intentions towards risky driving behaviours both before and after

the intervention, it would seem that using intentions alone to measure effectiveness of pre- and

novice driver interventions might not reflect actual subsequent behaviour.

Source: Gerrard et al, A dual-process approach to health risk decision making: The prototype

willingness model (Developmental Review 28 (2008) 29-61)

The Prototype Willingness Model (PWM) is a dual-processing model which is based on an assumption

that there are two types of decision making involved in health behaviour: a reasoned path (similar to

that described in the Theory of Planned Behaviour) and a social reaction path that is image-based and

involves more heuristic processing. The social reaction path was hypothesised in an attempt to explain

adolescents’ unintended behaviour, specifically their unplanned decisions to start, continue, or stop

behaviours that can put their health at risk. It incorporates two new constructs: risk prototypes, which

are images of people who engage in risky behaviours (e.g. the typical smoker), and behavioural

willingness – an openness to engaging in risky behaviour.”10

The behaviour change model suggests that for adolescents, willingness to do something risky (even if

there is no actual intention to do it) is a good predictor of likelihood to engage in the behaviour. This

9Gerrard et al, A dual-process approach to health risk decision making: The prototype willingness model,

(Developmental Review 28 (2008) 29-61) p.34

10 ibid., p. 35

39

is because of the social situations in which they find themselves in, where they are more likely than

adults to act in spontaneous ways. “Adolescents often find themselves in situations that facilitate (but

do not demand) risky behaviours (e.g. an unsupervised party where alcohol and drugs are available).

Once in these situations, it is frequently not a reasoned decision-making process, but rather their

willingness that determines their behaviour.”11

The behaviour change model also explores the influence of family and friends on behaviour. In the

model, the role of parents has a greater effect on intentions, whilst peers influence willingness.

The model also contains a more substantive concept than social norms; the prototype or risk image.

According to the model, these are the images of the kind of person who engages in a particular

behaviour. It indicates what the behaviour will communicate about the person who performs it. If

negative images are held about the type of person who behaves recklessly, respondents might choose

to disassociate their friends and family from such images and report that they are less likely to engage

in the behaviour. The more favourable the image, the more willing they are to accept the social

consequences of the behaviour. Furthermore, if they believe that their friends are engaging in or

approving of the behaviour, they are more likely to be willing to do it, too. Reporting friends’ behaviour

is often a reflection of the behaviour of the respondents themselves and therefore this could indicate

a positive movement in their own disapproval and likelihood.

Within the diagram of the model shown at the beginning of this section, ‘Attitudes (personal

vulnerability)’ are also shown to affect willingness. It is the perceived risk – the perception of the

extent to which the person is vulnerable to the various risks associated with the behaviour. “In the

prototype model, this construct is a conditional perception of vulnerability, measured in the

subjunctive, e.g. “If you were to drink and drive what are the chances that you would have an

accident?”, rather than an absolute assessment, e.g. “How dangerous is it to drink and drive?” The

less conditional vulnerability an adolescent feels, the more willing s/he will be to engage in the risk

behaviour.”12However, this relationship doesn’t appear to be based on a lack of information – instead,

high willingness adolescents are likely to be optimistic about their ability to get away with risky

behaviours compared to others and are also more likely to process risk information in a superficial

manner by focusing on the gains and not the possible losses. “The more willing a young person is to

engage in risk behaviours, the less likely s/he is to think about the consequences associated with that

behaviour.”13

11 ibid., p.36 12 ibid., p.39 13 ibid., p. 39

40

Appendix E – Post-and-Pre-Questionnaire

AFTER THE PLAY/FOLLOW-UP LESSON BEFORE THE PLAY/FOLLOW-UP LESSON

Strongly

Agree Agree

Neither

Agree or

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree Strongly

Agree Agree

Neither

Agree or

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

I am able to identify risks which are

associated with ‘new drivers’

I am aware of the responsibilities

drivers have

I am aware of the responsibilities

passengers have

I believe I could direct challenge

friends if they behave badly inside a

car

I believe I could direct challenge

family members if they behave

badly inside a car

I am able to identify good driving

behaviours

I know the importance of keeping

safe on the road and in the car

41

Age:

Please tick one of the following:

Passed test

Learning to drive

Planning to learn in the next year

Planning to learn in the future

Not planning to learn

I don’t notice bad driving habits

I always think about wearing a

seatbelt at the beginning of my

journey

Female

Male

42

Documents

Braking Point play and Lesson Evaluation 2019 · The focus groups and questionnaire results indicate that the intervention has resulted in learning amongst the target audience. The