Evaluation of the Crash Course March 2009 - De Montfort University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The differences on self-reported behaviour in the last month could have been affected by the frequency of the journey made. The difference on not wearing a seat belt for instance could be due to more frequent journeys. There is a very small significant correlation between the use of a seat belt and the reported number of journeys but less than 0.7% of seat belt use is related to journeys so that for practical purposes this factor can be ignored. On the attitude scales: • Girls felt more positively about “always wearing a seat belt” (p
For self-reported behaviour on having: • Gone with a driver who'd used drugs recently: (top 10% most deprived more often) • Not worn a seat belt in the back seat: (top 10% more often) • Watched the driver use a mobile: (top 10% more often) • Been driven by someone who had no licence: (top 10% more often) • Driven with a driver who had been drinking: (SOAs in top 20% less often) On the knowledge of how to stay safe: • The maximum positive score for three things as a passenger to keep safe: (SOAs in top 20% scored lower) On the attitude questions: • Driving at 28 miles an hour in a 30 mile an hour area: (both top 10% and below top 30% perceived this as more “OK”) • Driving at 45 miles an hour in a 30 mile an hour area: (a mix of top 10% and top 20% saw this as more “OK”) • How would you feel being driven in a car going 98 on a motorway?: (a mix of top 10% and top 20% felt they would be more “scared/anxious”) • How would you feel being driven home by a friend who has had a bit too much to drink?: (young people in wards outside the top 30% most deprived reported feeling least “scared/anxious”) Broadly this shows that young people attending education or training in the most deprived areas were more inclined towards risky behaviours but also that those least deprived had at least ambivalent attitudes towards speeding, and drinking and driving. 4.7 Young people’s opinions about the Crash Course For those young people who completed questionnaires after they had seen the presentation, there was a set of options on reactions to the course. They were asked to tick all the options that applied to their own responses. Figure 4.4 below shows the range of responses. The numbers expressing resistance (“I didn’t really believe them” or “Waste of time.”) are extremely small: 15 and 14 respectively. The number finding the presentation “too scary” was also small at 34. The vast majority found the session thought provoking, helpful and informative about how they could stay safer. 36
Page 1 and 2: Staffordshire Fire & Rescue Service
Page 3 and 4: 5.6 Pastoral care for pupils 46 5.7
Page 5 and 6: In the comparison of those who rece
Page 7 and 8: oad collisions. The team requires f
Page 9 and 10: Section 1: Introduction and backgro
Page 11 and 12: Accident Prevention Trust, www.capt
Page 13 and 14: Staffordshire, the ‘severity rati
Page 15 and 16: the presenters had either personal
Page 17 and 18: Section 2: The design and methodolo
Page 19 and 20: The survey instruments constructed
Page 21 and 22: The questionnaires were piloted wit
Page 23 and 24: � If the course is perceived as b
Page 25 and 26: has also been suggested that risk-t
Page 27 and 28: (McKenna, 2006.) He also draws atte
Page 29 and 30: Section 4: Findings from the survey
Page 31 and 32: Comparing the ‘after’ responses
Page 33 and 34: (www.staffordshire.police.uk , 2009
Page 35: 4.5 Gender differences Significantl
Page 39 and 40: Table 4.4: Suggestions made by youn
Page 41 and 42: An illustrative selection of the co
Page 43 and 44: • There was evidence of some incr
Page 45 and 46: Practical logistics and professiona
Page 47 and 48: “My year thought it was excellent
Page 49 and 50: “No - the staff support is not su
Page 51 and 52: “When you compare what they do an
Page 53 and 54: “It’s all reality isn’t it. E
Page 55 and 56: It was horrible. Don’t remember m
Page 57 and 58: One. He’s just a sick driver - go
Page 59 and 60: Most saw their response as conditio
Page 61 and 62: Figure 6.2: Differences between mal
Page 63 and 64: Section 7: Conclusions and recommen
Page 65 and 66: frequently “scared about the driv
Page 67 and 68: This may show itself in the Crash C
Page 69 and 70: or ‘one-liners’ to use in respo
Page 71 and 72: 16. The Crash Course is currently t
Page 73 and 74: APPENDIX B List of schools, college
Page 75 and 76: 3. Is there anything you would want
Page 77 and 78: 9. Circle the number on each scale
Page 79 and 80: Jonah, B. A. (1990). Age difference

Evaluation of the Crash Course March 2009 - De Montfort University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?