Evaluation of the Crash Course March 2009 - De Montfort University

or ‘one-liners’ to use in response to pressure. One example might be to go out
always equipped with the bus or taxi fare in case of an emergency need to refuse a
lift with an irresponsible driver. Some stakeholders suggested that first aid training
for young people would also contribute to the ability to cope with a road collision. The
coping strategies should also acknowledge the pressures from peers and the need
to fit in and establish an image and identity.
In view of the poor levels of awareness on the effects of alcohol, somewhat more
emphasis might also be placed on this issue. Young people need to realise that
judgement and coordination are affected long before a person appears seriously
drunk.
Follow up is weaker than it might be. Some schools do take up the topic in tutor
group discussions after the presentation but few take consistent opportunities to
reinforce the messages in other parts of the curriculum. There is a missed
opportunity here. Other road safety interventions can also play a part in reinforcing
the learning. Young people have also suggested involving parents. If this could be
achieved, the probable follow up in family discussion might also reinforce impact.
Assertiveness training would be extremely valuable as follow up, both in relation to
avoiding dangerous situations and in respect of peer pressure.
No written material is currently supplied with the course. There is a need for a
handout that can be given to the young people for reference to reinforce the
essential messages of the course. This should address directly key steps that young
people can positively take to make themselves safer and reduce risk even before
they are drivers. It is essential not to leave people with a sense of helplessness at
the end of the input. Such a handout might be combined with information on other
road safety resources and the contact details of support agencies.
Some young people suggested the use of activities within the presentation itself. As
it is, the course is in danger of being a little too long so major interactive work is
unlikely to be feasible. A short exercise like a quiz might possibly work well to vary
the dynamic of the session. Other activities such as those around the effects of
alcohol or computer-based hazard reaction exercises could well be part of follow up
work.
There is a danger that young people will become negative towards the safety
messages if they feel that they are being blamed for dangerous driving on the roads.
There was certainly some evidence from the focus groups that some felt they were
being made scapegoats for the reckless behaviour of some adult drivers. This will
require careful nuancing of the way in which the risks are expressed. Affirmation of
the basic common sense of young people and the wish of the majority to stay safe
should be emphasised in the presentation.
The evidence confirms the risk-taking tendencies of young males and also suggests
a link to deprivation. This is of huge concern for the development of more effective
road safety education. Further exploration is needed for Crash Course to seek topics
or styles that might further harness the motivation of young men to act safely. One
possible avenue for consideration might be to suggest that ‘grown up’ adult men (‘big
men’) protect their ‘mates’ and their loved ones rather than putting them at risk. In
68