Research into the National Speed Awareness Course by Sussex Safer Roads Partnership

Evaluation of the National Speed Awareness Course Commissioned by the Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Wales and Northern Ireland National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme and the Association of National Driver Improvement Service Providers.

Brainbox Research Final Report Version 1.4 9 July 2011

© The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (“ACPO”), 2011. All rights reserved. Unless ACPO specifically agrees otherwise in writing, no part of this publication may be (i) reproduced in any material form (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means); or (ii) distributed or transmitted to any other person or entity, in each case whether in whole or in part and in whatever media.

Document control

Security level: Protect

Document Reference Document Name

Speed Awareness Evaluation Report

Document Ref

NDORS Speed Awareness

Customer

NDORS

Project

Speed Awareness

Security Classification

Not Protectively Marked

Document History Version

Date

Author

Comments

0.1

25 February 2011

Fiona Fylan

First draft

0.2

28 March 2011

Fiona Fylan

Additional analyses

0.3

27 May 2011

Fiona Fylan

Focus group data added

0.4

7 June 2011

Beth Fylan

Internal review

1.0

14 June 2011

Fiona Fylan

Report approved by client

1.1

19 June 2011

Fiona Fylan and

Additional information point added and

Beth Fylan

final internal review

Fiona Fylan

Additional information added on request

1.2

23 June 2011

of client 1.3

26 June 2011

Fiona Fylan

Additional information added on request of client

1.4

9 July 2011

Fiona Fylan

Gender analysis added

Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com ÂŠ The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

Contents 1. Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 4 2. Background and methods.............................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2 Methods................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1 Participating areas and providers .................................................................................................... 8 2.2.2 Procedure......................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2.3 Data collection ............................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.4 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2.5 Participants’ pre-course speeding behaviour................................................................................. 13 3. Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Participants’ perceptions of speeding ................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Predictors of speeding........................................................................................................................... 18 3.3 Differences between the courses .......................................................................................................... 25 3.4 How the course achieves its effects...................................................................................................... 26 3.5 Participants’ decision to attend the course............................................................................................ 40 3.6 Clients’ perceptions and experiences of the course ............................................................................. 44 4. Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................................ 52 5. Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 54 5.1 Follow-up questionnaire ........................................................................................................................ 55 5.2 Focus group topic guide ........................................................................................................................ 59

Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com © The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

1. Executive Summary The National Speed Awareness Course provides an alternative to prosecution for drivers caught speeding a little above the speed limit (speed limit +10% + 2â&#x20AC;&#x201C;6mph at the time of data collection). The provision of a common national course means that drivers can choose a course from any of the participating providers, which therefore makes the course more accessible. There are two core versions of the course: those based solely in a training room lasting four hours; and those based both in a car and a training room lasting five hours. In addition, a shorter three-and-a-half hour course is being piloted in one area. Data were collected from consecutive courses run in the participating sites during the initial data collection period from September to December 2010. A total of 2070 clients took part in the research, most of whom were driving a car at the time of their offence, and slightly more were on a social or domestic journey (55%) than were driving for work (29%) or commuting (11%). Clients completed three questionnaires: one before the course; one after the course; and a follow-up questionnaire three months after the course. An excellent response rate of 31% was achieved at follow-up, which gives us confidence that our findings on the longterm effects of the course are valid. Six focus groups were conducted with participants to explore their perceptions of the course, any changes to their driving following the course, and the reasons for any changes (or lack of changes). The research provides evidence that the National Speed Awareness course produces positive changes in attitudes with drivers perceiving fewer advantages and more disadvantages of speeding. The course makes it easier for clients to identify the speed limit for the area in which they are travelling and produces greater intentions to drive within the speed limit in the future. Previous research for the Department for Transport (Stephenson et al., 2010) showed that clients who were not offered a course did not show these increases. These changes are maintained at follow-up, indicating that the course provides clients with continued protection. The course produces approximately the same effects in males as in females with the exception of beliefs about how bad speeding is: the course helps males to "catch up" with females so that they view speeding in urban areas as just as bad as females do.

A total of 99% of clients who responded at follow-up reported that they had changed their driving after attending the course, notably driving more slowly, being more aware of the road environment and of their speed, and feeling less stressed while driving. While a minority (9%) described how they had found it difficult to break their driving habits, and that they sometimes felt pressure from other drivers to speed up, particularly on motorways, the majority (90%) reported that they had not experienced any difficulties in applying what they had learnt.

There are very few statistically significant differences in changes produced by the three different types of course. Clients who attended the five-hour course rate it significantly higher in improving their driving and helping them become safer drivers than those who attended the other course types. These outcomes are not, however, course objectives but instead provide benefits over and above the course aims. The in-car element of the five-hour course was frequently reported as being the most valuable although this aspect contains material delivered in the training room in the other two versions of the course. Focus group Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com ÂŠ The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

participants who attended the five-hour course noted that the time spent in the classroom was rather rushed and did not provide an opportunity to explore different viewpoints.

Clients reported many different aspects of the course as being the most useful, including being more aware of the need to watch out for hazards, being more aware of the difference that a few mph can make to the severity of a collision, learning how to identify the speed limit area they are in, and learning techniques to better monitor and manage their speed.

Focus group participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; accounts showed that they have recalled and applied a substantial amount of the course. Their discussions indicate the course is achieving its effects through three mechanisms. It provides information that challenges clientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; attitudes towards speeding, helps them to recognise that the advantages are not as great as they may have assumed, helps them understand the reason for speed limits being set as they are, and helps them realise that the driving environment is more hazardous than they had appreciated. The course gives clients greater insight into their own driving, including the pressures that they face and the limits to their own knowledge. The course enables clients to assimilate and apply what they have learnt by giving them skills in identifying speed limits, and easy-to-recall tips, knowledge and skills to improve their driving style. Many become advocates for the course and share their new knowledge and skills with friends and family. They promote slower more relaxed driving styles and actively encourage others to slow down.

2. Background and methods

2.1 Introduction The National Speed Awareness Course is a short driver offender retraining scheme that drivers can choose to attend in lieu of receiving three points and a £60 fine for a speeding offence. The courses are delivered on behalf of police forces by a range of different providers that include local authority road safety units and private training companies. The course covers offences at the low-level speeding end: at the time of the research this was the speed limit + 10% + 2–6mph, although this has subsequently been increased to the speed limit + 10% + 2-9mph. Prior to the National Course being implemented, course providers had developed their own content and format and accordingly there was a great deal of variation in what drivers experienced. In addition, drivers had to attend a course in the area in which they had committed their offence, which could represent a long journey to and from the course.

The content and recommended times for the National Speed Awareness Course were developed in 2007 by a sub-committee of the Association of National Driver Intervention Scheme Providers (ANDISP). The content they recommended was based on research commissioned by the Department for Transport on how to 1

change speeding driver behaviour. Their recommendations were developed into a PowerPoint presentation by Lancashire County Council road safety team, and this was made available to providers wishing to adopt an off-the-shelf course that meets the requirements of the national model rather than develop their own. The national model is intended to be flexible so that it can be tailored to the specific needs of the referred clients, both on a local level (e.g. the proportion of rural and urban roads in the area) and on the level of individual clients (e.g. the things that make it more difficult for them to comply with speed limits). There are two versions of course in the National Model: one is based solely in a training room and lasts four hours; and the other combines training room work with an in-car element and lasts five hours. In addition, one provider is piloting a shorter training-room-based course lasting three-and-a-half hours. All versions of the course should address the same content and make use of the same behavioural change components.

The course aims to contribute to reducing road casualties by increasing intention to comply with the speed limit and to drive at an appropriate speed. This is achieved through the following objectives:

1. To identify the benefits of complying with speed limits. 2. To raise awareness of appropriate attitudes towards the misuse of speed. 3. To understand the consequences of speeding and to explore the advantages and disadvantages of speeding. 4. To improve clients’ knowledge of speed limits and skills in identifying different speed limit areas. 5. To recognise personal responsibility for choice of speed. 1

Fylan F, Hempel S, Grunfeld E, Connor M, Lawton R (2006) Effective Interventions for Speeding Motorists, Road Safety Research Report 66. London: Department for Transport.

6. To recognise the impact of each clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s driving behaviour on other road users. 7. To provide clients with the opportunity to implement their increased knowledge and skills in hazard perception. The national model has now been widely adopted by providers and there is a need to evaluate its effectiveness.

2.2 Methods 2.2.1 Participating areas and providers The proposed research was presented to providers at an ANDISP meeting, and those interested in taking part were contacted and briefed about what would be required. Fifteen areas participated in the research, as shown in Table 1. Data collection was delayed in two areas, and so the data from these areas are not included in this report.

Table 1: Participating areas and providers. Area

Provider

Cheshire

Cheshire West and Chester County Council

Devon and Cornwall

Devon County Council

Durham

Durham County Council

Gloucestershire

Gloucestershire County Council

Kent

Kent County Council

Kirklees

Kirklees County Council

Lancashire

Lancashire County Council

Manchester

DriveSafe

Merseyside

DriveSafe

Norfolk

Norfolk County Council

Northern Ireland

DriveTech

North Wales

DriveTech

Staffordshire

Staffordshire County Council

Warwickshire

Warwickshire County Council

West Midlands

TTC

2.2.2 Procedure

Design and materials The team was challenged to find the most practical and cost-effective means of undertaking the research and we selected a mixed methods study involving questionnaires and focus groups. Three questionnaires were developed for the purpose of the research: one to be completed before the course; one directly after the course; and one three months later. They contained a question set that had been used in a Department for Transport project to collect baseline data in areas that at the time had not offered speed awareness 2

courses (Stephenson et al., 2010).

The pre-course questionnaire contained items that explored reasons for accepting the course, preferences for course duration and cost, and things that deterred clients from attending the course. Items also addressed the factors that predict behaviour, namely: ∙

How easy or difficult it would be to avoid speeding and to identify the speed limit (self-efficacy);

∙

How wrong it would be to speed (moral norms);

∙

How enjoyable it would be to speed (affective attitudes);

∙

How frequently participants anticipate speeding (intentions);

∙

How good and bad are the positive and negative things that participants get out of speeding (instrumental attitudes);

∙

Previous speeding behaviour.

Demographic questions were also included: age; gender; purpose of journey when they were caught speeding; and current licence points.

The post-course questionnaire included the behavioural predictor items, plus perceptions of the value of the course and suggestions for improvement.

2 Stephenson C, Wicks J, Elliott M, Thomson J. (2010) Monitoring Speed Awareness Courses: Baseline Data Collection,

Road Safety Research Report 115. London: Department for Transport.

The follow-up questionnaire included the behavioural predictor items, perceptions of the value of the course, and whether or not they had implemented anything from the course. The follow-up questionnaire is shown in Appendix 1.

In addition a focus group topic guide was developed which explored participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; experiences of the speed awareness course. This addressed their experiences of the course, aspects they found most memorable, interesting and relevant, any barriers to attending, the booking process, how and why the course might have influenced their driving, and their suggestions for improving the course. The focus group topic guide is shown in Appendix 2.

2.2.3 Data collection

Questionnaire data were collected from consecutive courses run in the participating sites during the initial data collection period, from September to December 2010. Providers running the four-hour course (the most common variety) were asked to collect data from 100 clients, those running the five-hour course were asked to collect data from 200 clients, and the provider running the three-and-a-half hour pilot was asked to collect data from 300 clients. This method of data collection was selected as it is both convenient and avoids introducing bias in the sample. Once data collection starts every client attending every course in that location is asked to participate. Data collection stops once the target number of questionnaires is reached.

Clients gave informed consent to participate in the research. Instructors read out a description of the evaluation research to clients, answered any questions that they had. Clients were assured that only the researchers would have access to the data, and that individual responses would remain anonymous. They were told that while the researchers hoped that they would take part, they were not under any obligation to do so, and that they would not be treated any differently by the instructors if they decided not to. No monetary incentive to take part was offered. Clients completed the pre-course and post-course questionnaire at the course venue. They also printed their name and address on a blank envelope. Both questionnaires and the envelopes were returned to the research team. The envelopes were used to send the follow-up questionnaire to participating clients, and this approach meant that providers were not asked to release clientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; personal details to the researchers.

The number of completed questionnaires recevied at each time point for each course is shown in Table 2. We understand from the providers that all clients chose to complete the pre-course and the post-course questionnaires. A 31% response rate was achieved for the follow-up questionnaire at the close of data collection. This is a very high response rate for follow-up questionnaires which do not offer a monetary incentive: with the exception of healthcare surveys (which have very high responses rates) we would typically expect a response rate closer to 20%. This gives us confidence that clients who responded at Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com ÂŠ The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

follow-up are reasonably representative of all the clients, and that the results obtained at follow-up are valid. To further check this assumption we compared the post-course responses of clients who responded at follow-up with those who did not. Across a range of 18 psychological predictors, non-responders differed from responders on only two: that they would get greater enjoyment if they drove faster than the speed limit on rural roads and on dual carriageways or motorways. While statistically significant, these differences were small. There were no statistically significant differences for the remaining 16 variables addressing: instrumental attitudes; moral norms; self-efficacy; or intentions to speed in the future. This gives us further confidence in the validity of the results obtained at follow-up.

2.2.4 Participants A total of 2070 participants took part in the survey research. More males (62%) participated than females (38%), which given the 100% response rate pre- and post-course reflects the greater number of males attending speed awareness courses during the data collection period. Ages ranged between 18 and 89 with the mean age being 47 years. The majority (89%) were driving a car when they were caught speeding, with 7% driving a van, 2% driving an HGV, 1.5% riding a motorbike or scooter, and the remainder driving a coach or bus. Just over half had been on a social or domestic journey (55%), with 28% driving for work, and 11% commuting. Most (70%) did not have any points on their licence, 21% had up to three points, 7% had up to six points, 1.5% had up to nine points, and the remaining 0.5% had more than nine points. Most of the previous points were for speeding.

Table 2: The number of completed questionnaires returned. Pre-course

Post-course

Follow-up

Five hour: classroom plus in-car

698

184

Four hour: classroom

1093

358

Three and a half hour: classroom

279

Total

2070

637

Focus groups were also conducted with clients who had undertaken different types of course. Six groups were held in total: four with those from the four-hour classroom course; and two with those who had undertaken the classroom-plus-car course.

Groups were held in Shropshire, Staffordshire, Lancashire and West Yorkshire. Groups were held between February and March 2011. Providers obtained contact details for a random selection of clients who had Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com ÂŠ The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

attended a course during 2010 and these clients either received a telephone call or a letter to explain the research and to ask whether clients would be willing to attend a focus group. This approach meant that clients from many different speed courses were recruited. A total of 28 speed awareness course clients participated (13 males and 15 females). They each received an incentive consisting of ÂŁ30 of vouchers. Using an incentive is important to avoid including only those people who feel strongly about the course: offering an incentive means that people who have less interest are also willing to take part. Participants gave informed consent to take part and for groups to be audio recorded. Each focus group lasted around one-anda-half hours and the audio recordings were transcribed verbatim.

2.2.5 Participants’ pre-course speeding behaviour

Participants were asked about how often they had driven at different speeds over the previous six months. Three speed-limit zones were explored: urban areas where there is a 30mph speed limit; rural roads where there is a 60mph limit; and a dual carriageway or motorway where there is a 70mph speed limit. Within each area they were asked about three different speeds representing 5, 10, and 20mph above the speed limit. They were asked to choose between seven options: never; less than once a month; about once a month; about once a fortnight; 1-3 days a week; 4-6 days a week; and every day.

∙

In urban areas with a 30mph speed limit 9% report they never travel at 35mph, 32% report they never travel at 40mph, and 77% that they never travel at 50mph.

∙

In rural areas with a 60mph speed limit 28% report they never travel at 65mph, 47% that they never travel at 70mph, and 76% that they never travel at 80mph.

∙

In 70mph areas 20% report they never travel at 75mph, 31% that they never travel at 80mph, and 63% that they never travel at 90mph.

Hence speed awareness course clients speed across all road types, with low-level speeding more commonly reported in urban areas and high-level speeding reported more often in 70mph areas. Responses are shown in Figure 1 in which higher scores indicate more frequent speeding. A score of 1 indicates that they never travel at this speed, 2 indicates that they do so less than once a month, etc, up to a score of 7 which indicates that they travel at this speed every day.

Following the methods of Stephenson et al. (2010) responses were combined across the different road types to explore the amount by which participants exceed the speed limit. Males speed significantly more frequently at all three levels above the speed limit, and the results are highly statistically significant (5mph t = 9.82, 10mph t = 9.97, 20mph t = 4.91, all p <0.001). The gender difference is less marked for speeding at 20mph over the limit, which is reported less frequently by both males and females.

Within each speed limit area scores were summed to provide a single score. Across each area there was a significant difference between males and females: males reported speeding more frequently than females in every area.

30mph urban area

5mph above the speed limit 10mph above the speed limit

60mph rural area

20mph above the speed limit

70mph motorway or dual carriageway

1 never

7 all the time

Figure 1: How frequently participants reported speeding.

Participants were asked to categorise themselves into one of the four categories identified by Fylan et al. (2006). ∙

46% reported: I didn’t mean to speed. I didn’t know the speed limit or I didn’t notice what speed I was doing.

∙

48% reported: I‘m not a real speeder. I’m a safe driver and I only usually drive a few mph over the limit.

∙

6% reported: I speed quite often, and I take a few risks, but I’m skilled and I’m not a high-risk driver.

∙

Only three participants (0.1%) reported: I speed quite often and I take a lot of risks, and I enjoy the risk. I get a thrill out of speeding fast.

3. Results

3. Results The results are presented in six sections. The first section explores clients’ perceptions of speeding and of how appropriate it is to use speed cameras to enforce speed limits. The second section reports the behavioural predictors of speeding. The third section identifies any differences between the different courses, and any effect of client characteristics such as gender and age. Section four reports focus group data on how the course is achieving its effects. Section five describes clients’ preferences for course delivery, including how much time and money they would be prepared to sacrifice in order to attend. The sixth section explores clients’ perceptions of the course, including their motivation to attend, any barriers to attending, and those areas of the course that they believe to be most useful. It also explores their experiences of attending the course. In each of these sections changes in clients’ perceptions and behaviours are reported before and after the course and at three-month follow-up.

3.1 Participants’ perceptions of speeding Participants were given a list of potential positive and negative things they might get out of driving faster than the speed limit. They were also able to suggest their own positives and negatives. The different positive and negative aspects of speeding are shown, together with the percentage of participants who listed them at each time point, in Table 3.

The most common positives are getting to their destination faster, not feeling pressure from cars behind, and not holding up other drivers. There was a sharp decline in the number of participants who cited these as positive reasons after the course. At three-month follow-up the numbers citing these positive outcomes increased again, but for two of the three this did not reach the pre-course levels.

The most common negatives are more risk of injury to others and to oneself and loss of licence. Interestingly, the percentage citing these negative outcomes increased after the course and increased further at follow-up.

Before the course 81% of participants identified at least one positive reason, and this decreased to 51% after the course, and increased again to 72% at follow-up. The number of positive reasons listed was calculated, as was the number of negative reasons. The mean number of positive reasons decreased from 1.53 before the course to 0.88 after the course, and increased again to 1.33 at follow-up. A repeated measures ANOVA showed that the decrease in the number of positive reasons after the course was statistically significant, and remained so at follow up: F (2,1118) = 73.6, p < 0.001). The effect size was small (partial eta squared = 0.12). Similarly, the mean number of negative reasons increased from 5.18 before the course to 5.86 after the course, and increased again to 5.89 at follow-up. A repeated measures ANOVA showed that the

increase in the number of negative reasons after the course was statistically significant, and remained so at follow up: F (2,1118) = 27.9, p < 0.001). The effect size was also small (0.05).

Table 3: The percentage of participants who reported getting each positive and negative outcome from speeding at the three different time points. Pre-course

Post-course

Follow-up

Getting there faster

46%

23%

37%

Not feeling pressure from cars behind

40%

22%

44%

Not holding up other drivers

40%

20%

35%

Using the car to its full potential

It feels exciting

Getting rid of aggression

Feeling superior to other vehicles

Impressing passengers

0.3%

Other reason

More risk of injury to others in an accident

82%

84%

87%

More risk of getting injured in an accident

75%

79%

77%

Risking losing licence

73%

75%

80%

Risking being caught by the police

66%

69%

76%

More risk of damage to the vehicle in an accident

63%

71%

70%

More difficult to detect hazards

62%

70%

75%

Feeling less safe

49%

63%

57%

Using more fuel

46%

60%

Other reason

0.3%

Positive outcomes

Negative outcomes

Participants were asked at all three time points how right or wrong it is to use speed cameras to enforce speed limits. They were asked to use a nine-point scale from extremely right to extremely wrong. After the course there is a decrease in scores, indicating that they believe it is more appropriate to use speed cameras, and this change is statistically significant: F (2,1118) = 9.9, p <0.001. However, this change was not maintained at three-month follow-up. There were no significant differences between the three different course types.

3.2 Predictors of speeding Participants were asked a series of questions to measure the behavioural predictors of speeding, namely attitudes, moral norms, their self-efficacy in identifying the speed limit and in driving within the speed limit, and their intentions to speed in the future.

3.2.1 Attitudes Affective attitudes Affective attitudes, i.e. beliefs about how you would feel if behaving in a particular way, were explored by asking participants how much they would enjoy it if they drove faster than the speed limit in the next six months. Participants responded on a scale from 1 to 9 where 1 indicates they would enjoy it very much and 9 indicates they would not enjoy it at all. Hence we expect the course will increase their scores. The mean scores for affective attitudes across all three road types increased after the course and although they fall again at follow-up they remain higher than before the course (Figure 2).

8 Pre-course Post-course Follow-up

6 urban

rural

dual carriageway/motorway

Figure 2: Affective attitudes towards speeding.

Repeated measures ANOVAs show that the changes in affective attitudes after the course are statistically significant for all three types of road, and that the effect is maintained at follow up. These results show that after attending the course participants believe they will gain less enjoyment from speeding. There was a Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com ÂŠ The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

statistically significant effect of gender (p< 0.001), with females getting less enjoyment from speeding on all three road types and time points but no interaction between time and gender, indicating that the course is as effective in changing affective attitudes in males as in females.

Instrumental attitudes Clients were asked two questions to explore their instrumental attitudes, i.e. their beliefs about speeding. One asked about their positive attitudes to speeding: thinking only about the things you find good about driving faster than the speed limit, overall how good are they. The other asked about their negative attitudes: thinking only about the things you find bad about driving faster than the speed limit, overall how bad are they. They were asked to score their responses on a scale from 1 to 9, and responses were coded so that higher scores indicate believing speeding to be better (positive attitudes) and worse (negative attitudes). Attitudes towards speeding were considerably more negative than positive (e.g. 30mph mean positive = 2.1, mean negative = 7.4). After the course we expect positive attitudes towards speeding to decrease and negative attitudes to increase, and this pattern is shown in the results. Positive attitudes are shown in Figure 3. Participants have attitudes that are less positive towards speeding in urban areas than on rural roads and dual carriageways. After the course participants perceive speeding as less positive across all three road types and time points. There was a statistically significant effect of gender (p< 0.001), with females reporting speeding as less positive and more negative than males on all road types and at all three time points. There was no statistically significant interaction between time and gender, indicating that the course is as effective in changing instrumental attitudes in males as in females. There was one exception: speeding on urban roads was perceived as more negative by females than by males before the course but not after the course or at follow-up. There was a statistically significant interaction between time and gender (p=0.03) indicating that the course leads males to view speeding on urban roads as being just as negative as females do.

3 Pre-course Post-course Follow-up

1 urban

rural

dual carriageway/motorway

Figure 3: Positive attitudes towards speeding. Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com ÂŠ The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

The attitude scores were used to calculate a measure of attitudinal ambivalence, which reflects the strength of an attitude that an individual has. For example, a client might believe that speeding will allow them to reach their destination faster (and view this as a positive outcome) and also that speeding uses more fuel (and view this as a negative outcome). Attitudinal ambivalence indicates whether on balance, taking into account both positive and negative attitudes, how strong their attitude it is. Strong attitudes are believed to have a greater influence on behaviour. The Griffin formula was used to calculate ambivalence, where P is the positive attitude score and N is the negative attitude score: Ambivalence = (P + N)/2 - |P â&#x20AC;&#x201C; N |

Possible scores range from -3 (no ambivalence) to 9 (high ambivalence with very strong positive and negative attitudes towards speeding). Ambivalence scores are shown in Table 4. Participants show greater ambivalence about speeding (i.e. seeing both positives and negatives) on dual carriageways or motorways. We already know that participants have a more negative attitude towards speeding than a positive one so we anticipate that the course should decrease ambivalence, i.e. scores should decrease. After the course there is a significant decrease in ambivalence across all three road types.

Table 4: Ambivalence scores. Pre-course

Post-course

Follow-up

Significance

Urban roads

-1.05

-1.21

-1.44

p=0.02

Rural roads

-0.57

-0.9

-1.02

p<0.001

Dual Carriageways/

0.14

-0.59

-0.55

p<0.001

motorways

3.2.2 Moral norms Moral norms, i.e. how wrong or right you believe it is to behave in a particular way, were explored by asking participants how wrong it would be for them to drive faster than the speed limit in the next six months. Participants responded on a scale from 1 to 9 where 1 indicates extremely right and 9 indicates extremely wrong. Hence we expect the course will increase their scores. The mean scores for moral norms across all three road types increased after the course, and although they fall again at follow-up they remain higher than before the course. The scores for the three different types of course are shown in Figure 4.

Pre-course

Post-course Follow-up 6

5 Urban

Rural

Dual carriageways / motorways

Figure 4: Moral norms about speeding.

Scores from each of the three different speed limit areas were combined to form a single score. A repeated measures ANOVA shows that the change in moral norms after the course is statistically significant (F(2,1112) = 43.3, p < 0.001), and that there is no interaction between course and time, indicating that there is no statistically significant difference between the three different types of course (F (4,1112) = 0.88, p=0.47). There was a statistically significant effect of gender (p< 0.001), with females reporting speeding as being more wrong than males but no interaction between time and gender, indicating that the course is as effective in changing moral norms in males as in females.

3.2.3 Self-efficacy Self-efficacy was explored using two items: in the next six months, how easy or difficult will it be for you to avoid driving faster than the speed limit; and in general, how easy or difficult do you think it is to know the speed limit when you are driving in the following speed limit areas. Participants responded on a scale from 1 to 9 where 1 indicates extremely difficult and 9 indicates extremely easy. Hence we expect the course will increase their scores.

The mean scores for avoiding speeding on all three types of road increased substantially after the course, and although they fall again at follow-up they remain higher than before the course. The scores for the different types of road are shown in Figure 5. Repeated measures ANOVAs show that the increase in selfefficacy after the course is statistically significant (p< 0.001) for all three road types and remains so at followup. Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com ÂŠ The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

7 Pre-course Post-course Follow-up

5 Urban

Rural

Dual carriageways / motorways

Figure 5: How easy or difficult it will be to avoid speeding on different types of road.

There was a statistically significant effect of gender (p< 0.01), with females reporting that it would be easier to avoid speeding on all road types in the future than did males, although the difference was less marked at follow up and was no longer significant on motorways. There was no interaction between time and gender, indicating that the course is as effective in increasing self-efficacy in males as in females.

Participants were asked how easy or difficult it is for them to identify the speed limit in different speed limit areas: 20mph, 30mph, 40mph, 50mph, 60mph and 70mph. Their responses are shown in Figure 6. Responses were coded so that higher scores indicate greater ease, and the results show a clear increase across every speed limit area. In each area the results are highly statistically significant (p<0.001), with scores being higher after the course and remaining so at follow-up. The course therefore makes it easier for clients to identify the speed limit for the area in which they are travelling. There were no statistically significant differences between males and females in how easy or difficult it is to identify the speed limit at any time point.

Pre-course 7

Post-course Follow-up

5 20mph

30mph

40mph

50mph

60mph

70mph

Figure 6: How easy or difficult it is to tell the speed limit.

3.2.4 Intentions Participants were asked how often they think they will driver faster than the speed limit in the next six months. Responses were coded so that higher scores indicate being more unlikely to speed so that we expect scores to increase after the course. The results, shown in Figure 7, show a clear increase, which is statistically significant (F(2,1112) = 44.2, p < 0.001). The effect size is moderate (0.2). Scores at follow-up decrease but remain significantly greater than pre-course levels.

Pre-course

Post-course Follow-up 6

5 Urban

Rural

Dual carriageways / motorways

Figure 7: Intentions to speed in the future. Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com ÂŠ The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

There was a statistically significant effect of gender (p< 0.001), with females reporting that they are less likely to speed in the next six months on all road types than did males. There was no interaction between time and gender, indicating that the course is as effective in increasing intentions to drive within the speed limit in males as in females.

These results on behavioural predictors shows that the course shifts males and females by more or less the same amount in the measures we used so that they are safer after the course but with females remaining safer than males. The exception is beliefs about how bad speeding is - the course helps males to "catch up" with females so that they view speeding in urban areas as just as bad as females do.

3.2.5 Post-course behaviour Participants were asked whether or not they had experienced any difficulties in applying what they had learnt on the course. They were able to choose from three options and the percentage giving each option is shown in Figure 8. ∙

Yes, I had some difficulties;

∙

No, I was able to apply it easily;

∙

No, I didn’t try to apply anything.

Participants described how they are much more aware of speed limits and of the speed at which they are driving. They drive more slowly and they concentrate more on the way in which they drive and on the road environment. They described tips from the course that they use to help ensure they do not speed such as rd

“3 gear in 30”. Several noted how it takes effort to apply what they have learnt but they are able to continue driving in this new, slower safer way. The minority (9%) who described problems in applying the course’s messages mainly encountered difficulties in breaking long-held driving habits, and a few described how they can feel pressured to speed up by other drivers, particularly when driving on motorways.

Experienced difficulties No difficulties I didn't try to apply it

90%

Figure 8: Participants’ reports of whether they applied what they had learnt on the course.

3.3 Differences between the courses Attitudes There are no statistically significant differences between the courses for changes in positive or negative attitudes towards speeding or for affective attitudes.

Self-efficacy There are no statistically significant differences between the courses for changes in how easy or difficult participants believe it will be to drive within the speed limit. While there is no statistically significant difference between the three different types of course in changes in how easy it is to tell the speed limit, there is a trend that after the course participants on the 3.5 hour course believe it is less easy to identify that they are in a 30mph (p=0.13) or a 60mph (p=0.15) limit area than participants on the other two course types (Figure 9). There are no trends for 20mph, 40mph, 50mph or 70mph roads.

4 hour classroom 7

5 hour classroom plus car 3.5 hour classroom

5 Pre-course

Post-course

Follow-up

Figure 9: Differences between the courses in how easy or difficult it is to tell the speed limit in a 30mph zone.

Moral norms Scores from each of the three road types were combined to form a single score. A mixed ANOVA with time as the within-subjects factor and course type as the between-subjects factor shows that there is no interaction between course and time, indicating that there is no statistically significant difference between the three different types of course (F (4, 1112) = 0.88, p=0.47).

Intentions to drive within the speed limit All three courses, shown in Figure 10, show a clear increase in scores immediately after the course, indicating greater intentions to drive within the speed limit. There are differences between the courses, and although they don’t quite reach statistical significance (F (4, 1112) = 2.3 p=0.055), there is a trend that the training-room-plus-car course increases intentions to drive within the speed limit, and for this effect to be maintained to a greater extent at follow-up.

4 hour classroom 7

5 hour classroom plus car 3.5 hour classroom

5 Pre-course

Post-course

Follow-up

Figure 10: Differences between the courses in intentions to drive within the speed limit.

3.4 How the course achieves its effects Discussions during focus groups enabled us to understand the way in which the National Speed Awareness Course has achieved its effects, namely positive changes in attitudes towards speeding, confidence to drive safely and intentions to drive safely in the future. We identified three themes in the data to explain how the course operates. It challenges clients’ attitudes towards speeding, it gives them greater insight into their own driving and the pressures they face that might make them speed, and it enables them to apply what they have learnt. These themes are described below and illustrated with quotes from focus group discussions. A thematic map that summarises the key points in the analysis is shown in Figure 11.

Challenging attitudes

Giving insight

Enabling application

skills in identifying limits

advantages of speeding

own driving

driving environment

own pressures

driving style

need for speed limits

limits of knowledge

become an advocate

Figure 11: Thematic map of how the National Speed Awareness Course achieves its effects.

3.4.1 Challenging attitudes Attitudes towards speeding are beliefs about the outcome of speeding, plus an evaluation of whether that outcome would be good or bad. This theme is about how the course challenges clients’ attitudes and facilitates them in developing safer and more responsible attitudes. There are three sub-themes that make up this theme: thinking about and re-evaluating the advantages of speeding; reviewing the driving environment and the hazards it contains; and understanding and accepting the need for speed limits. Participants in all the groups highlighted how the tutors were excellent at challenging attitudes and managed to do so in a way that was engaging and supportive rather than aggressive or confrontational.

Advantages of speeding The course explores clients’ perceptions of the advantages of speeding and presents information that leads clients to question just how much of an advantage speeding offers them. Clients discussed how they had always assumed that speeding saves time, and how they were very surprised that they save a few minutes at most by speeding.

He [the tutor] said about if you drive, say if you’re driving to work and you break the speed limit, that it was just a few minutes that you gained, it was so little. I think that as well, there was no point in speeding, just for a minute, what’s the point? You know, so that stuck in my mind. [FG5] Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com © The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

The advantages of driving within the speed limit were also examined, such as not having to worry about speed cameras, not being fined, and not having additional insurance costs.

He just said “If you drive within the limit you can forget about speed cameras, it doesn’t matter, they’re irrelevant”, and that was the bit I picked up. So I try and drive within the speed limit and within the appropriate speed in the conditions, you know. [FG4]

If you are driving correctly it shouldn’t matter if speed cameras are there or not, you shouldn’t have to look out for them should you? [FG3]

This aspect of the course led clients to conclude that the advantages of speeding are fewer than they had assumed and are outweighed by the disadvantages. The information presented has led clients to reconsider their speed choice, and change they way in which they drive.

There was some good points. Good things where I thought – yeah you know what I’ll think about that next time – and it probably did make a difference to the way I drive. [FG1]

The course did not, however, change all participants’ attitudes: many highlighted that the speed at which they had been travelling was not what they termed “real speeding”, and that they had been careless rather than reckless, and that they had not deserved to be fined or sent on a course. Their discussions indicate that this attitude is sometimes encouraged by the course tutors, who reassure clients that they are not bad drivers, that bad or dangerous drivers would not have been offered a place on the course, and that speed awareness clients have not really done anything seriously wrong.

I think because we are not bad drivers we speed responsibly, in other words that you’re still very aware of what you’re doing: you’re not on the phone or texting or with no seatbelt on or driving recklessly when there’s parked cars, you’re not doing 40 slaloming round. It’s speeding responsibly which means you’re doing slightly over the limit but you feel safe and confident and responsible still at that speed. I don’t think any of us have been going so fast that we’re not in control. [FG1]

Other clients still did not believe that their speeding was dangerous. Their discussions show how they still consider it as a relatively unimportant behaviour that does not necessarily mean that the driver is reckless or a poor driver. The following quote is part of a discussion about whether a course that involved an in-car element would be useful. Their discussions clearly indicate that speeding is perceived as less serious than what they consider to be poor driving.

Speeding is just putting your foot down a little bit too much and not paying as much attention to the speed limit around you. Whereas something like that [an in-car element to a course] I think is for reckless drivers

that bomb round everywhere and they don’t indicate and everything like that and they’re just generally poor drivers. [FG1]

Participants in the focus groups who viewed speeding in this way were less likely to report that they had changed their driving, as shown in the following example.

The difficulty I have is driving down this road at 36 miles an hour and associating that with death and ‘Oh you’re a criminal, we’re going to take £85 off you and we’re going to teach you a lesson by trying to educate you on driving skills’………. Let’s be honest around the table, will I still do 36/40 miles an hour? Probably, yes, and why? Well because I’m not totally convinced that that 36 mile an hour that I did at that camera is going to cause anybody any trouble at all ever. [FG4]

The driving environment The course gave clients much more appreciation of just how dangerous the driving environment can be. They were surprised at how frequently crashes occur, and the number of people who are injured on the roads. Several talked about how realising just how many people are affected by road crashes has led them to re-evaluate the way in which they think about driving and the need to take responsibility for themselves and other road users. They were particularly affected by finding out how commonly crashes occur in their own areas.

I think it was a lot of the statistics that they used and, you know, the mortality rates on roads that are round where we live that you would never have realised that it was that high, and it was like – God! [FG6]

The course has made clients much more aware of the hazards they face on the road and therefore the need to slow down in order to respond appropriately and safely. This aspect of the course has helped them to recognise that road safety is very important and they should take it much more seriously than they had done so previously.

The following quote highlights how the tutors were able to use interactive discussion and questioning to help clients recognise that their thinking had been wrong – that they had seriously underestimated the extent of road casualties.

When he was putting the things up on the screen and then sort of discussing what was there and then revealing the sort of answers, asking us to discuss like you said about the mortality thing, so he put it up and said ‘How many people do you think die at 30 mph if they were hit?’ so you toss it about a bit and then he would say the actual number is and as you said you think – wow that’s a heck of a lot more – so it’s that sort

of thing where he was sort of asking your opinions, you know asking you to take part and then revealing it and then sort of saying this is what happens. [FG3]

Many participants discussed how they had not been aware of how road markings indicate stretches of roads with increased risk. The course informs clients about the meaning of road signs and road markings, so that they are more conscious of the roads being a risky environment, and they are better able to identify when they need to slow down in case they encounter a hazard. Participants discussed how the activities around identifying hazards made them realise that they had not previously been properly concentrating on the road. They recognised that other drivers may also not be concentrating fully on the roads and many therefore make mistakes or fail to respond to hazards. The focus groups show that the course makes clients more aware of how unpredictable other road users can be.

I remember the sheets we had had pictures and you had to come up with all the different hazards and whatever else that were on there and it was good working together and the things that someone else noticed that I wouldn’t have done.

It was the way that seeing how other people see things as well because they’re obviously out on the road anyway and some people pay attention to other things that other people don’t. [FG1]

Some participants discussed how the facts they learnt on the course have had a marked influence on how they think about driving, and how they behave on the roads. For example, one participant discussed that she had leant that children are poor at judging speed and distance, and so may step out into the road unexpectedly. Having greater awareness of why other road users can behave unpredictably had made her more willing to accept that incidents could happen to her, and therefore she has become more cautious.

During the focus groups participants were surprised at just how much of the course they could recall. Many discussed how they had assumed that they would forget the course soon after attending, but it had remained with them, and they had remembered the content whenever they drive.

Need for speed limits This sub-theme describes how the course content has helped clients to re-evaluate the acceptability of speeding and to understand why there is a need for speed limits. Before the course many had assumed that speed limits were there in a “nanny state” capacity, to strip them of their ability to judge safe speeds for themselves. Others discussed how speed limit zones they consider too low are there as a money-making exercise: to collect fines from unsuspecting drivers who assume the speed limit is higher than it actually is. The facts presented during the course made clients realise just how much more injury is caused by driving a few mph faster. They began to realise why speed limits are set at 30mph, and why it is important to comply with them. Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com © The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

The thing that made a really big difference to my thinking was looking at the mortality rate at the speed you are travelling and how much it comes up between 30 and 40, I mean there is a really good reason why you should stick to 30, I mean most people there have been caught doing a little bit over 30, that was the case for me, there is a really good reason to stay below 30 because the mortality rate group just shoots up exponentially between those two speeds and that really pound it home for me. [FG5]

Participants’ discussions demonstrated how they are much more aware of the importance of speed should they be involved in a collision, how a few mph can make the difference between being able to stop in time, and the amount of injury a passenger will sustain if they are hit. The following quote illustrates how one participant realised that had she hit a pedestrian at the speed at which she had been caught then the consequences would have been severe. She also recognised that other drivers on the road may or may not be paying attention, and this should influence the way in which she drives.

I was thinking about it afterwards, oh God what if I had been driving along and I’d been doing the speed that I was doing when I got caught, what would have happened then and I was like, oh that could have been very nasty. [FG1]

Participants also discussed how they recognised that the consequences of being involved in a collision in which they injure or kill somebody means that their life will be changed permanently. They recognise that they could not live with the guilt, and that they personally cannot accept speeding as something they are prepared to do. What hit home is like if you do sort of decide to ignore it and you are the instigator of an incident, that is going to change your life forever. And I don’t know how many people can actually cope with that because I couldn’t. So for me it is sort of, you know it was life changing. I’m pretty much a careful driver anyway, but even more so now, you know. [FG6]

Participants also discussed how they now understand that there are many factors that determine how a speed limit is set. In the following example the participant described how she assumed the speed limit was governed by the type of road, for example a dual carriageway always has a limit of 70mph because it is designed to take cars at that speed. The course enabled her to understand some of the other factors that mean it is not safe to set the speed limit at 70mph, such as who uses the road (pedestrians, cyclists, etc) the surrounding buildings (schools, shops, etc) and road layout (side roads, roundabouts, hills and bends that might limit visibility, etc).

That was one of the big things that I went away with, like you’ve got this thing of thinking right built up area 30, dual carriageway 60/70 whatever, and you don’t get that out of your mind because that’s what you were taught all the years ago when I learnt to drive. And it was just, it was nothing to do with that was it, it’s

nothing to do with the fact that it’s a dual carriageway: your speed limit is governed by so many other things. And it was getting that through that I went away with saying now I can understand why they’re suddenly saying it’s 50 and to me it should be 60. [FG5]

Many of the participants’ discussions highlight how the course has made them accept that it does matter if they speed, and that it is important that they drive at an appropriate speed. They now actively monitor their speed and slow down where appropriate because they recognise that it is important that they do so and that driving at 35mph is “real speeding”. They have accepted that slowing down can reduce casualties on our roads. The following quote shows how they have accepted the link between speed and injuries, and therefore that it is not acceptable to speed and that they are now driving more slowly.

When I notice that I’m going 35 or something in a 30 mile limit I just slow down whereas before I thought it doesn’t matter, it’s not that fast. [FG2]

People don’t realise this, if you just knock your speed back 5mph, there would be 50 less deaths. [FG4]

3.4.2 Giving insight This theme is about how the course gives clients insight into their own driving and the things that influence it and has alerted them to the fact that that they are not as knowledgeable or skilled as they had previously thought. There are three sub-themes that make up this theme: insight into one’s own driving; insight into the things that pressure you on the road; and insight into one’s own limitations as a driver. Participants in all the groups highlighted how the tutors were excellent at challenging attitudes and managed to do so in a way that was engaging and supportive rather than aggressive or confrontational.

Insight into your own driving This sub-theme is about how the course gives clients insight into the way in which they drive. Participants described how they had given very little thought to the way in which they drive, and that once they passed their test they had assumed that they were a safe and competent driver. The course made them re-assess the way in which they drive, and clients talked about it “opening their eyes” and making them realise that they had not been concentrating properly on the road, and that rather than them being a very good driver they make many mistakes.

I don’t know how many years I’ve been driving, it sort of adds a new spin on it, it makes it a little bit more interesting because I must admit before I tended to drive a lot, unfortunately, under remote control, you just

get into the car and you drive and you think nothing of it, in fact you’re not even concentrating on what you’re doing. That’s the danger, you just become very over-confident in your abilities, so it has opened my yes. [FG4]

Other participants discussed how they had felt aggrieved at being caught speeding and having a course invitation as they did not believe they had been speeding, or that they are what they describe as a “real” speeder. The course made them realise that not only had they been speeding, but also that they probably speed more often than they had realised.

It does make you think “Where else am I speeding?” You know, it brings it home to you that you’re obviously doing it without even realising that you’re doing it. [FG5]

They discussed how they are now much more aware that their speed can creep up and that they need to monitor it and to make an effort to slow down. They also talked about the course being a useful refresher as it made them consider how they drive and the decisions that they make on the road. As well as being reminded of information, the course also gave them the opportunity to reflect on their driving and to compare their beliefs and experiences with those of other clients and this gave them greater insight into their own driving.

It gives you the time to reflect, to have some time to reflect on things and discuss things in an adult way. [FG3]

Some participants (who had attended the five-hour version of the course) discussed how watching the ADI drive had made them realise that their own driving could be much smoother and much more controlled.

I was very impressed with one of them [the ADI] that was particularly good and he never braked. We drove all the way through Leyland and never braked at all and he was looking that far ahead of him and he never braked and I thought “This is a bit good”. [FG4]

They also discussed how having a driving instructor highlighting the way in which they drive made the extent to which they had not been concentrating on the road strikingly clear.

You always think you’re aware of what’s going to happen but sometimes it takes somebody to say “Stop, look what you’re doing, think about it!”… I drive along and “Oh, that’s a nice house”, or you’re driving along and you’re looking at things in the shops. We all do it. We’re all guilty of exactly the same things but somebody’s pointing it out to you, suddenly you’re driving along and you think “Oh no, I shouldn’t be doing that.” [FG5]

Insight into the pressures you face on the road This sub-theme is about how the course gives clients insight into the pressures they face on the road, including internal pressures and those arising from other drivers. Many participants discussed how the course helped them to recognise how much time pressure they felt under, and that it enabled them to make a conscious decision to slow down and to take their time. The following quote illustrates that, having accepted that speeding does not actually make much difference to how quickly you arrive, clients are more relaxed in the face of time pressures.

They [speeding drivers] are not going to get there any quicker. …. I’m a lot more laid back about it; it’s not worth getting het up about it. [FG4]

Some participants talked about how they had previously felt pressured to compete with other drivers or challenge themselves to arrive at their destination before a certain time (e.g. to “beat the sat nav”), or to speed when they are trying to overtake. The course has given them insight into the pressures they experience, and therefore has helped them to experience less stress on the roads and to respond more appropriately.

It’s that mentality, isn’t it: you’ve got to be in front, got to be in front, got to be in front. I just sit back now. My drives to work are far more relaxed now than they ever used to be. I just watch people go by: just like “You get on with it – I’m not getting to work stressed”. [FG 1]

I have become a lot calmer driver since then [the course] because I’m driving for a living all day long and now I’m not half as stressed. I would like have a heart attack all the time but now I’m letting everybody else have a heart attack and I just plod. [FG2]

Things happen when you have to speed, like when you’re on the motorway and you’re overtaking and they suddenly speed up, what do you do? There are certain types of situation where at one time it would be foot down. You know, I’d race against the clock at one time, but now I don’t. [FG2]

Some clients discussed how the course had given them the confidence to drive within the speed limit even when pressured by other drivers to speed up. There were several debates in the focus groups about the need to leave more space in front of you if being followed by a tailgater and why it is important not to keep touching the brakes to try to force the other driver to slow down. Instead participants talked about being able to relax and to ignore the pressure.

I find now that I drive at the speed limit or slightly below, depending on what the conditions are, and everybody’s sort of three inches from my bumper at the back and I get a perverse pleasure in just thinking: well you can just sit there. [FG4] Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com © The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

Several clients also discussed how they no longer feel stressed or pressured by other drivers when they do not know the speed limit: they are confident that they will see a refresher sign shortly and that they should keep their speed low until they know that the speed limit is higher.

Insight into the limit of your knowledge This sub-theme is about how the course gives clients insight into the fact that there is a limit to their knowledge about driving. Through activities such as detecting hazards, and being asked the speed limits and appropriate speeds on different types of road and for different types of vehicle, the course opened their eyes to the fact that they didn’t know everything. In many cases this awareness of their lack of knowledge surprised them and made them more open to question their beliefs (and therefore attitudes) about speeding.

I thought I knew everything but I didn’t; I knew very little. [FG2]

It was quite shocking, how little you know, personally, how little of those road signs I was aware of, what they really meant. [FG3]

Participants discussed how they had not given much thought to how the road environment had changed since they learned to drive. Some talked about how they had assumed that they knew the rules around speed but the course made them realise that they did not in fact know how to tell what the speed limit is. Some talked about how speed limits were much more straightforward when they learnt to drive (e.g. built-up areas, rural areas and dual carriageways and motorways) and they hadn’t given much thought to there being more speed limits or how to identify speed limits. They were unaware that they had responsibility to keep their knowledge of the Highway Code up to date and many expressed surprise that it had changed so much.

They passed the Highway Code round, the new one, I didn’t know half of it. The last time I read the Highway Code was about 30 years ago…. I didn’t know it had changed. [FG3]

Realising that they do not know everything about driving and being more realistic about their own knowledge has made clients less complacent about their driving. Participants discussed how driving has become so routine that they no longer think about the risks or that they need to concentrate on the roads, particularly when they drive a lot of miles. This can lead them to believe that nothing can go wrong and that they are a good driver.

I think people like myself who are on the road all the time I think that you can get very blasé and you think you’re untouchable and I think that’s what has brought it home to me, especially that with the speed limit outside the school. I mean there’s a school near us and you know when he said “What speed limit should you be doing?” I said 30, he said “No 20.” I didn’t know it. [FG2] Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com © The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

After the course clients are more motivated to keep their driving knowledge up to date, and several discussed how they would be interested in undertaking some additional driver training. Many talked about how drivers should go for regular updates or assessments to ensure that their knowledge and skills are sufficient.

I think we all ought to be re-evaluated…. Cars have MOTs, drivers ought to have MOTs, awareness ratings sort of thing. [FG3]

3.4.3 Enabling application This theme is about how the clients have assimilated the key messages of the course and how the course has encouraged and enabled them to put things into practice. There are three sub-themes: giving clients the skills to identify the speed limit; helping them to develop a safer and more responsible driving style; and turning them into an advocate for the course and for driving at an appropriate speed within the speed limit.

Skills to identify the speed limit This sub-theme is about the clients learning the speed limit on different types of road for different types of vehicle, and acquiring skills to be able to identify what the limit is on any road they are driving on. Participants discussed how they had often been completely at a loss to know what the speed limit is. They often relied on the general “feel” of the road, such as its width and the amount of houses nearby. If a road looks quite wide and there are few houses they tend to assume it is a 40pmh zone, and they often assume a dual carriageways is a 60mph zone. A major achievement of the course is that it has given clients the confidence that they can always tell what the speed limit is.

He [the tutor] highlighted different speed limits and just like going down a country lane with no street lights I would have been looking for signs to say what the speed limit is if I hadn’t noticed at the beginning it was a national speed limit but he told me that if there’s not street lighting and no repeaters it’s automatically a national speed limit. There was a lot of information that he gave me that I found very useful and it has made me a lot more aware of speeds and where the signs are to see what speeds you should be at. [FG5]

Participants discussed how they now actively look out for speed limit change signs, and that they are more aware of where to look for them. They talked about knowing to look for “gateway” signs that announce a change in speed limit areas. The following exchange demonstrates both how useful the course has been in enabling clients to identify the speed limit and also how much that the focus group participants have recalled and now apply in their everyday driving. The facilitator asked participants to explain gateway signs in more detail and it is clear that they have a good understanding of them. Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com © The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

Participant 1: I’ve found myself looking and noticing more gateways, which I never thought about before so after I’ve seen a gateway I look for the repeater signs. Oh yeah, he’s right there: there’s repeaters and things I wasn’t aware of. It taught me a lot. Participant 2: When he started talking about gateway signs I had no idea what the hell he was talking about. I’ve never been told anything like that. Facilitator: I’m not sure what a gateway sign is: what’s that? Participant 2: As soon as you get into a speed limit part they have the two on either side of the road so you can see and that’s when you go from the one to the other. Participant 1: Yeah, so if you’re driving in a 30 it will be two posts, one either side, with a 30 on. As you go through those there will be a smaller sign on a lamp post and that’s the repeater of the gateway to remind you you’re still in that 30 area. Facilitator: So was that new to you? Participant 1: Yeah, it was. Participant 2: There was a lot of things on there that I’d never been taught before. [FG1]

Participants also discussed how they were surprised that there were different limits for different types of vehicles, and realising that some vehicles were subject to lower limits than cars had helped them not to feel so frustrated if they were driving behind a lorry. Others had taken this information and told others who may have been inadvertently speeding. A lot of the facts that were in there I’ve sort of remembered and found it interesting like the different speed limits for different vehicles, like vans. My partner drives a van and he didn’t realise the speed limit for that was 50 so that was really interesting coming away with that. [FG6]

Driving style This sub-theme is about the clients applying the COAST message that is conveyed throughout the course. This message – of the need for Concentration, Observation, Anticipation, Space and Time – had been assimilated by most of the focus group participants.

Participants talked about how they are now much more aware of other road users when they are driving. Some of those on the five-hour course talked about how they still carry out commentary drives so as to

increase their concentration on the road. Participants in all the focus groups talked about how they are better at concentrating on the road and anticipating what might happen.

I think I drove so fast ‘cos I’m a bit bored, just want to get there quickly. Now I’ve got something else to concentrate on while I am driving like reading the road ahead, thinking about the speed limit, thinking about what the dangers are. I’m much more engaged with the activity and I am gong to do it better and I like to do things well, so that appealed to me. [FG3]

I am more aware when I’m driving along because the person that took us out he said “Right, if you see a church, what do you associate with that? A school. What do you associate with that? Children” Making you more aware that in those sort of areas people might be dashing out and if there’s a car parked there could be a door opening, there could be a cat or a dog underneath and things that are really common sense but I never really thought about that before. So that’s made me a lot more aware when I’m going in a place that there is a lot going on. [FG4]

Participants frequently talked about applying the simple tips they had picked up, such as driving in third gear in a 30mph area. These easy-to-recall tips are also easy to apply and are also effective, as illustrated in the following exchange. I think it’s just the simple things, drive in third gear at 30mph. Simple, but it works. I still remember that, actually, third gear in 30. Yeah, I do it every time now. I come to a 30 limit, I drop down to third gear and it slows you down. [FG4]

Easy ways of remembering the speed limit were also appreciated and applied by participants. They often talked about how they should assume that “it’s 30 unless it says otherwise”.

The course has made clients much better informed about driving, and in some cases they talked about how they have started noticing the mistakes that other people make, and that they have become much more critical of other people’s driving. I sort of drive down the road and I see things and it prompts back to perhaps something I’ve remembered from the course, you know even sort of writing in the road and such. And you see other people making mistakes and you think “You’re doing that wrong.” You sort of become very critical of other people. [FG6]

Some participants admitted that they aren’t always able to put the lessons they learnt into practice, and it is easy to slip back into old habits after a while.

A week after the course I’m driving a bit slower and I’m liking the “slow to flow” movement and I’ve got it all and then a month after the course I’m back to normal again. So I’ve gone back to my old habits. [FG4]

However, others highlighted that they think of the course every time they drive, and that it has produced a fundamental change in the way in which they drive. The following exchange demonstrates how the clients either actively think about the course or something happens on the road that reminds them of it. This recall of what was covered explains why the course produces long-term changes in attitudes and intentions. On reflection I would say there’s never a time I get in a car and I don’t remember I’ve done the training. There’s always, always, whenever I get in my car, there’s going to be at some point in that journey I think about it, absolutely no doubt. Even if it’s something that somebody does around you, or you see something. It triggers it back. [FG6]

Becoming an advocate This sub-theme is about clients recognising how valuable the course has been and wanting to tell others about it. Many discussed how every driver should do the course, and it shouldn’t be available only when they have already been caught speeding. They talked about how the course could be viewed as a preventative rather than a reactive measure to help people not to speed before they are caught. Some noted that young drivers should have to do a speed awareness course before they sit their driving test. Others suggested that it should be available through the workplace. Several talked about how they would definitely recommend the course to others.

Participants talked about how they would appreciate the opportunity to attend the course more frequently than once in three years, not so that they are “let off” the points, but because it would remind them of things they might have forgotten from the course.

Many participants described how they had told their friends and family about the course, not only that they had enjoyed it but also about the main points of the course content. In some cases they had tried to teach others the main things that they had learnt.

It has improved my wife’s driving, she read the book and everything and I talked it over with her and she has started noticing stuff now, She said recently “It’s 30 here now” and so on. She’s took it all on board as well, so it’s had double the effect. [FG2]

I’ve sat in a car with my partner many a time and said “Do you know this?” and he’s like “I feel like I’ve been on the course.” [FG6]

Many participants discussed how when they are travelling as passengers they point out hazards, the need to leave more space and time, and when the driver is speeding or travelling at an inappropriate speed. I always find now that I stay a lot further away from cars, and even if I’m sat in my girlfriend’s car I’m like “What’s the need for that? Get back!” [FG4]

In one of the focus groups participants suggested that the course could be improved by including material on how they can encourage other people to slow down and to drive more safely. They talked about how they had all accepted ownership of the problem of speeding and they are committed to changing and that they feel so strongly about it being important to drive at an appropriate speed that they want others to change too.

Ok, you take your ownership but how do you support the people around you to make a difference? How do you impart what you’ve learnt that means you can maybe support other people? [FG6]

3.5 Participants’ decision to attend the course

3.5.1 Motivation to attend Participants were asked about their motivation to attend the course, namely how important four different aspects were in their decision to attend. They scored each one on a 9 point scale where 1 indicates not important at all and 9 indicates extremely important. Aspects addressed were: §

wanting to avoid penalty points on their licence;

wanting to avoid getting caught speeding again;

getting information that will help them to drive within the speed limit;

anticipating that they will become a safer driver.

The mean score for each reason is shown in Figure 12. The results show that while all possible aspects of the course are important to clients, they are most motivated by wishing to avoid points on their licence.

avoid points

safer driver

information

avoid being caught

importance

Figure 12: Aspects important to clients when they decide whether to attend the course.

3.5.2 Preferences for cost and duration Participants were also asked about how much they would be willing to pay for a course as an alternative to a fixed penalty notice (£60) and three points. They were asked to choose between amounts that ranged from £50-£59 to more than £160. The percentage of clients who gave each response is shown in Figure 13. The most common response is to pay between £60 and £69, although 18% reported they would be prepared to pay between £80 and £99. Unsurprisingly, those clients on a five-hour course, which costs more than a shorter course, would be prepared to pay more. These results indicate that if the cost of the course is to rise much above the cost of the fixed penalty notice, the hidden costs associated with fines such as increased insurance premiums would need to be highlighted to potential clients.

30 24

25 20

% 15 10

3 1

0 £50-£59

£60-£69

£70-£79

£80-99

£100-£119 £129-£139 £140-£159

£160+

Figure 13: How much participants would be prepared to pay for the course.

Clients were also asked if they had a choice, which type of course they would prefer to attend. The options were: ∙

A three-hour workshop

∙

A three-and-a-half hour workshop

∙

A four-hour workshop

∙

Two hours homework and a two-hour workshop

∙

Five hours, including a workshop and time with a driving instructor

∙

A three-hour workshop and two hours that you book directly with a driving instructor.

Their responses are shown in Figure 14. The most common response is a three-hour workshop, with relatively few participants preferring a three-and-a-half hour workshop or a three hour workshop and a separate session with a driving instructor that they book individually.

3 hour workshop

5% 15%

51%

3.5 hour workshop 4 hour workshop

12%

2 hours homework plus 2 hour workshop 5 hours, workshop and car

12% 5%

5 hours with car booked independently

Figure 14: Participants’ preferences for the type of course they attend.

Few clients (only 15%) reported that anything had deterred them from attending the course. A representative range of their responses is shown in Table 5. As well as difficulties taking the time to attend the course, usually due to work or childcare commitments, clients were deterred by the duration of the course, that they feel embarrassed or ashamed that they have been caught speeding, that they would be patronised on the course, and that they feel apprehensive about having their driving watched by the instructors and other clients. The distance they would have to travel also deterred some people, which suggests that they had not understood that they could choose to attend a course in any area.

Table 5: Things that deterred clients from attending the course. Embarrassment at my wrong doing, expect to be patronised, and I resent all the dangerous drivers I see every day who don’t get stopped.

Difficult to organise via the internet and a whole day off work – limited days on which to do it.

Cost more than penalty fine.

Four hours.

Days and times of courses offered.

A day off work costs me money.

Distance – a 200 mile round trip.

Heard that it is like being back at school.

Distance from my home, petrol costs, time, travelling.

I might have had a job interview, and that date wasn’t set, but the course date couldn’t be changed.

An impression that you might be victimised for speeding.

Being patronised.

Difficulty organising childcare.

Driving with an instructor.

Feeling of shame, not being a fast driver but caught

Having to drive in front of people. I hated driving

in an unknown area. Thinking that the course will be frustrating and demoralising.

lessons and felt very self-conscious that they were analysing my driving.

Taking a day’s holiday from work.

Having to talk in front of strangers.

3.6 Clients’ perceptions and experiences of the course After the course, clients completed a series of questions about their experience of the course. They were asked the extent to which:

the course provided them with information that will help them identify the speed limit;

the course provided them with information that will help them identify the appropriate speed for the conditions;

the course provided them with skills that will help them become a safer driver;

the course will improve their driving;

the course was good value for money.

They used a scale from 1 to 9 where 1 indicates not at all and 9 indicates a great deal. Hence higher scores indicate more positive perceptions of the course. The responses for all three types of course are shown in Figure 15.

Participants clearly have very positive perceptions of the course. Apart from value for money, the longer the course the more positive perceptions participants have of it. These differences between the five-hour course 3

and the other two types of courses are statistically significant at the p<0.01 level . The four-hour course receives the highest rating for value for money, and the differences are not statistically significant.

One-way ANOVAs, F(2, 2084) = 15.4 (identify limit), 15.0 (identify appropriate speed), 21.7 (safer driver), 24.4 (improved driving) using Dunnett’s C post-hoc contrasts. Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com © The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

Identify speed limits

Identify appropriate speed 5 hours workshop plus car Safer driver

4 hours workshop 3.5 hours workshop

Improved driving

Value for money 6

6.5

7.5

8.5

Figure 15: Perceptions of the course effectiveness directly after the course.

At follow-up, once participants had had the opportunity to implement what they had learnt on the course, they were asked the same questions about their perceptions of the course. The average (mean) responses from each of the three course type are shown in Figure 16.

Identify speed limits

Identify appropriate speed 5 hours workshop plus car Safer driver

4 hours workshop 3.5 hours workshop

Improved driving

Value for money 6

6.5

7.5

8.5

Figure 16: Perceptions of the course effectiveness three months after the course.

While there is still the tendency for longer courses to be viewed as more effective, only two aspects reach statistical significance. The five-hour course has significantly higher scores on the course has provided them with skills to help them become a safer driver (F (2,615) = 8.32, p<0.001), and the course has improved their driving (F (2,597) = 7.17, p=0.001).

At follow-up clients were asked an open question about what they had found most useful about the course. Their responses were content analysed in which different responses were grouped together into categories of similar meaning. These are described below and illustrated with representative responses. The proportion of responses falling into each category are shown in Figure 17 for all the courses, and separately for the different course types in Table 6.

Identifying the speed limit

29%

Detecting hazards

Driving with the instructor Facts about speeding All the course

11%

Receiving practical tips Interacting with others 14%

11% 13%

Becoming more self-aware Being reminded

Figure 17: The aspects of the course that participants found most useful.

Identifying the speed limit These responses are about knowing the speed limit on different types of roads and being able to identify the what the limit is on any road they are driving on. Clients noted how they learnt useful tips about looking into side roads to identify the speed limit if they suspected they might have missed the speed limit sign. They reported that they felt much more confident that they could tell what the speed limit is. Responses also addressed it being useful to know the speed limit for different types of vehicle.

Detecting hazards These responses are about being better able to identify hazards when driving and being able to better anticipate what other road users might do, and therefore potential hazards. It also included being better able to read the road, including information about road or condition changes, such as white lines on the road, or

that seeing lamp posts in the distance means they are approaching an urban area. Clients are more aware of the need to concentrate more on their driving and on the changing road condition.

Driving with the instructor These responses were about getting feedback on their driving from the instructor. Topics noted as useful included use of mirrors, vehicle positioning, and simply the opportunity to spend time with an ADI.

Finding out facts about speeding This group of responses is around finding out facts about speeding, such as the proportion of people killed when hit at different speeds, how a few mph won’t get people there much faster, but make a huge difference if they crash, about stopping distances, and about the consequences of being involved in a crash.

All of the course Many participants were unable to identify any particular aspects that were most useful and simply described how all the course was useful.

Receiving practical tips These responses are about useful practical tips that clients could readily apply. They included statements rd

such as “Tyres on Tarmac” and “Slow to Flow” as well as tips such as using “3 Gear in 30” zones and how to do pre-drive vehicle checks. Participants also described useful advice on handling tailgaters. This category also included finding practical tips on eco-driving useful.

Interacting with others Participants gave responses around the most useful aspect of the course being the group discussions and the group work in the training room. Some identified the videos and the opportunity to talk about them with other clients and the instructor. They also identified meeting other people and sharing their experiences as being a valuable part of the course.

Becoming more self-aware These responses are about participants becoming more aware of their own driving, their own choice of speed and the reasons for their speed choice. They had recognised that they had become complacent in their driving. Responses indicate that clients have slowed down and have better self-discipline when driving.

Being reminded These responses stress that the most useful aspects of the course were being reminded of things that they had known and forgotten, or being brought up to date with changes in the highway code or car design that have occurred since they passed their driving test. Clients described the course as a useful refresher and noted that they now realise the importance of keeping up to date and taking refresher training.

Table 6: The proportion of responses in each category for each type of course. 4 hour course

5 hour course

3.5 hour course

Identifying the speed limit

35%

20%

24%

Detecting hazards

14%

11%

19%

Driving with the instructor

N/A

44%

N/A

Finding out facts about speeding

14%

23%

All of the course

13%

14%

Receiving practical tips

11%

Interacting with others

10%

Becoming more self aware

Being reminded

Table 6 shows that clients on the five-hour course find driving with the instructor to be the most useful part of the course, and that they are less likely to find all aspects of the course useful. The time spent with the driving instructor addresses aspects covered by the other two courses in the training room, such as identifying the speed limit, and detecting hazards. Other main differences are that clients on the five-hour course are less likely and those on the three-and-a-half hour course are more likely to report finding out facts about speeding as the most useful aspect of the course. Clients on the four-hour course are more likely to report that knowing and identifying the speed limit is the most useful aspect.

Participants’ experiences of their courses were also explored during focus groups. Their discussions indicate that most found the course very informative and enjoyable. They discussed how they had expected to be patronised or chastised during the course and they were pleasantly surprised that this was not the case. There was only one exception, in which a participant described how the tutor was deeply unpleasant, seemed to be trying to make clients feel ashamed, and treated the course as a punishment that they had to endure. She described how she left the course at the halfway break and had been offered a place on a different course, which was completely different as the tutor was very engaging and supportive. This account was completely different to all the others and so this finding does not indicate a pervasive problem with the course tutors.

Participants discussed how they very much enjoyed the group work, although some found it difficult to interact with other clients due to being seated in rows. They did not talk about the PowerPoint slides being too long or dull, although some noted that several of the slides were repetitive.

During focus group discussions, participants were asked about what they had put on their action plan. Their responses indicate that this part of the course is not running as planned, with clients being asked to “make a

pledge” to change their driving. Many did not do so. Instead, they are supposed to identify a journey they are at risk of speeding in, and to identify what they can do to ensure that they do not speed.

Participants were asked about the duration of the course: whether they found it too long or too short. Their discussions demonstrated a wide range of opinions and indicate that the tutors themselves and their ability to engage with clients have a major influence on perceptions of the length of the course. Some participants discussed how the tutors seem to struggle to find things to say and to fill the four-hour duration.

It was very long. I think if there was anything negative, I came on Friday afternoon 2 ‘til 6, and by the last hour or so I was nearly asleep to be fair. I found it was just a little bit too long. Even the tutor was struggling to pad it out, really struggling to fill the time. It was just way too long. [FG1]

Others described how the tutors had to curtail discussions in order to keep the course running to time. Participants who felt that they were learning a lot, or who were working in groups that interacted well together did not find the course long.

It was long, but at the time I didn’t think it was long because I actually felt I was learning quite a bit. I don’t remember it as being long: I didn’t come away with that impression about the length of time at all. Maybe the difference is whether it is a good group of people because the group I were with were really good and they were all interactive. [FG6]

Most participants described the tutors as handling questions from the clients well. All the focus groups talked about having a few clients on the course who challenged the tutors, and often because they drive a lot of miles, seemed to think that they knew more than the tutors. In most cases the tutors were able to deal with objections and challenges effectively. A few participants noted that the tutors seemed unwilling to deal with clients’ questions, and discussed how it is important that the tutors are willing to engage with clients and to answer their questions even when they do not have PowerPoint slides to address the point.

Participants were asked about the format of course they would prefer to attend: one based solely in the training room or one that involved driving an instructor’s car. Most stated a preference for the type of course they actually attended. Those who attended a five-hour course described how the section in the classroom was a bit too rushed and they had learnt more in the car. Those who attended a four-hour course often expressed reluctance to drive in front of other people, although some did express an interest in getting feedback on their driving. Most, however, admitted that given a choice of course they would probably select the cheaper option.

Participants were asked about the process of booking a place on the course. Some had found it confusing, particularly those who applied by post. Those who booked online described it as very clear and easy. Some were unsure about whether they had actually received a choice of locations, but most had chosen the most convenient course location. Several participants noted that their course included clients who had travelled a long way, suggesting that they were not aware that they had a choice of locations. The following exchange indicates that some clients may not be clear that they have choice.

There was a girl on my course and she was from Newcastle so what she was doing on it I don’t know. We had one from Hinchey. Yeah, I mean, because I just thought if you were caught in a certain area you had to do it in that area; that’s what I thought. On the computer there were loads of different times, one that was closest, there was a really good choice. I got a letter and it said you could book online. I think I just sent mine back. I did do. It came back as XXX and I just thought wherever you have been caught you must have to go there. [FG2]

4. Conclusions and recommendations

4. Conclusions and recommendations 1. The results provide evidence that the National Speed Awareness Course produces changes in key psychological predictors of speeding, namely instrumental and affective attitudes, moral norms, selfefficacy and intentions. The course changes males and females by more or less the same amount so that they are safer after the course but with females remaining safer than males. The exception is beliefs about how bad speeding is in urban areas: the course helps males to "catch up" with females so that they view speeding in urban areas as just as bad as females do.

2. These results indicate that the course makes clients more likely to drive within the speed limit. There is no difference between the three different course types in the change in these psychological predictors.

3. At follow-up, 99% of clients reported that they had applied what they had learnt on the course and 91% reported that they had experienced no difficulty in doing so.

4. The qualitative research indicates that the course has achieved its effects through three mechanisms. It challenges clientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; attitudes towards speeding; it gives them insight into their own driving and the pressures that they face; and it enables them to apply what they have learnt. Many clients become advocates for the course and tell friends and family what they have learnt so that the course has the potential to reduce speeding in the wider population.

5. The research showed that participants on the five-hour course (workshop plus in-car training) had significantly higher scores on perceptions of the effectiveness of the course, specifically on it helping them to become a safer driver, and in improving their driving. However, these two areas are not key objectives for the course, so the five-hour version of the course provides additional benefits over and above the stated objectives. As previous research has demonstrated that the take-up of the longer course is substantially lower (around 40%) than the four-hour course (around 80%), the training-roombased course should be promoted as the national model.

6. Service providers should be encouraged to promote a cost-effective voluntary in-car element that clients can choose to take in order to enjoy the additional benefits of the car-based module provides. This could be offered directly after the course or at a time and place convenient to the client.

7. Participants described many different aspects of the course they found most useful. Examples are becoming more aware of the need to watch out for hazards, being more aware of the difference that a few mph can make, learning how to identify the speed limit area they are in, and learning techniques to Brainbox Research Ltd | 0113 238 0157 | info@brainboxresearch.com | www.brainboxresearch.com ÂŠ The Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, 2011. All rights reserved.

better monitor and manage their speed. Focus group participantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; accounts of the course showed that they have recalled and applied a substantial amount of the course. They tend to drive slower, be more aware of other road users, and as a passenger they ask other drivers to slow down.

8. Focus group results show that some clients found the course too long, particularly the four-hour course based entirely in the training room. These clients described how they had not been particularly engaged in the group activities and that the trainers seemed to struggle to fill the time. In addition, focus group accounts revealed that some of the course components were not completed as planned. Not all trainers delivering the course understand the content and how to deliver it. This highlights the need for a comprehensive training programme for trainers to be introduced for future courses. The current model of cascade training should be improved.

9. To increase uptake, a course brochure should be produced that highlights the financial advantages of attending, such as no insurance increases resulting from the offence, and that previous clients have found the course enjoyable and very worthwhile. Potential clients should have the option of booking a weekend course and it should be clear that courses are available locally. Where providers offer a voluntary in-car module the brochure should highlight the benefits of this, and include quotes from clients who have attended it.

10. This research provides evidence of the short-and medium-term effects of the course. Further evaluation research would be useful to establish the long-term effects of the course.

5. Appendices

5.1 Follow-up questionnaire

5.2 Focus group topic guide

Briefing: Purpose of research; confidentiality; who has access to results; permission to audio record; contact information.

1. Tell me about the Speed Awareness course you attended? Prompts: What do you remember about it? Which parts stand out? Why is that? Was it useful or not? Was it interesting or boring? Did you find out anything new or surprising? What did you think of the tutors? What did you think of the balance between the PowerPoint slides and workbook activities? What did you think of the group work? The individual work? What were the other people like that you were sat with? Did everybody join in? Which were the best bits? And the worst? What did you find most useful? Least useful?

2. Did anything put you off attending the course? Prompts: How much it cost? How much time it would take? The choice of location? Based in a training room or in a car? The other people who might attend? Some courses are based just in the training room and in others you also go out in a car with a driving instructor to help you put things into practice. If you had a choice, which course do you think you would choose? Why? Which do you think is better? Why?

Did you change anything about your driving after going on the course?

Prompts: What did you change? What you do? How you think? Why/ why not? Do you remember what you pledged to do differently after the course? Did you actually do it? Why / why not? Would it be useful to receive a reminder of your action plan a few months after the course? Did anything make it more or less difficult to put into practice? Did you consider doing any further driver training after the course? Why / why not? What was it about the course that made you change / not change your driving? Has it changed how you behave as a passenger? Did you tell anybody else about the course? Who? What did you tell them about? Why? Do you think that it has influenced their driving?

4. How do you think the course could be improved? Prompts: The duration? The activities that you do? The PowerPoint? The tutors? The booking process? Was it clear that you could choose different dates and different locations? The mix of people – do you think that young drivers should be mixed in with other drivers, or should they have their own course? Why? Anything else?

Debrief ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙

Thank you very much for taking part Any questions? How to contact us Thank you.