research into the national speed awareness course

1

Evaluation of the National Speed Awareness CourseCommissioned by the Association of Chief Police Officers for England, Walesand Northern Ireland National Driver Offender Retraining Scheme and theAssociation 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. Allrights reserved.

Unless ACPO specifically agrees otherwise in writing, no part of this publication may be (i) reproduced in anymaterial form (including photocopying or storing it in any medium by electronic means); or (ii) distributed ortransmitted to any other person or entity, in each case whether in whole or in part and in whatever media.

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

2

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

Beth Fylan

Additional information point added and

final internal review

1.2 23 June 2011 Fiona Fylan Additional information added on request

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


3

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


4

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% + 2–6mph 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 long-

term 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


5

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 participants’ 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 clients’ 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.


6

2. Background and methods


7

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

change speeding driver behaviour.1Their 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, RoadSafety Research Report 66. London: Department for Transport.


8

6. To recognise the impact of each client’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


9

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

courses (Stephenson et al., 2010).2

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.


10

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 participants’ 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

clients’ 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


11

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 698 698 184

Four hour: classroom 1093 1093 358

Three and a half hour: classroom 279 279 95

Total 2070 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


12

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 £30 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-and-

a-half hours and the audio recordings were transcribed verbatim.


13

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.


14

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.

1 3 5 7

70mphmotorway or

dualcarriageway

60mph ruralarea

30mph urbanarea

never all the time

5mph above the speed limit




15

3. Results


16

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


17

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.


Positive outcomes

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 7% 5% 5%

It feels exciting 7% 5% 4%

Getting rid of aggression 3% 3% 1%

Feeling superior to other vehicles 2% 2% 2%

Impressing passengers 1% 1% 0.3%

Other reason 4% 1% 2%

Negative outcomes

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% 60%

Other reason 2% 1% 0.3%

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.


18

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).

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

6

7

8

9

urban rural dualcarriageway/motorway

Pre-course

Post-course

Follow-up


19

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.

Figure 3: Positive attitudes towards speeding.

1

2

3

4

urban rural dualcarriageway/motorway

Pre-course

Post-course

Follow-up


20

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 – 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/

motorways

0.14 -0.59 -0.55 p<0.001

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.


21

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 self-

efficacy after the course is statistically significant (p< 0.001) for all three road types and remains so at follow-

up.

5

6

7

8

9

Urban Rural Dual carriageways /motorways

Pre-course

Post-course

Follow-up


22

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.

5

6

7

8


Pre-course

Post-course

Follow-up


23

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.

Figure 7: Intentions to speed in the future.

5

6

7

8

9

20mph 30mph 40mph 50mph 60mph 70mph

Pre-course

Post-course

Follow-up

5

6

7

8

9


Pre-course

Post-course

Follow-up


24

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

“3rd 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.

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

9%

90%

1%

Experienced difficulties

No difficulties

I didn't try to apply it


25

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.

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).

5

6

7

8

9


4 hour classroom

5 hour classroom plus car

3.5 hour classroom


26

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.

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.

5

6

7

8

9


4 hour classroom

5 hour classroom plus car

3.5 hour classroom


27

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

3.4.1 Challenging attitudesAttitudes 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 speedingThe 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]

Challengingattitudes

advantages ofspeeding

drivingenvironment

need forspeed limits

Giving insight

own driving

ownpressures

limits ofknowledge

Enablingapplication

skills inidentifying

limits

driving style

become anadvocate


28

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


29

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 environmentThe 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


30

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 limitsThis 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.


31

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


32

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 insightThis 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 drivingThis 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


33

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]


34

Insight into the pressures you face on the roadThis 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]


35

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 knowledgeThis 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]


36

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 applicationThis 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 limitThis 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.


37

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 styleThis 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


38

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.


39

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 advocateThis 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]


40

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 attendParticipants 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.


41

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

3.5.2 Preferences for cost and durationParticipants 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.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

avoid being caught

information

safer driver

avoid points

importance


42

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.

24

32

3

18

8

1 13

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

£50-£59 £60-£69 £70-£79 £80-99 £100-£119 £129-£139 £140-£159 £160+

%


43

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 bepatronised, and I resent all the dangerous drivers Isee every day who don’t get stopped.

Difficult to organise via the internet and a whole dayoff 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 datewasn’t set, but the course date couldn’t be changed.

An impression that you might be victimised forspeeding.

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

51%

5%

12%

12%

15%

5% 3 hour workshop

3.5 hour workshop

4 hour workshop

2 hours homework plus 2 hourworkshop

5 hours, workshop and car

5 hours with car bookedindependently


44

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

lessons and felt very self-conscious that they wereanalysing 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

and the other two types of courses are statistically significant at the p<0.01 level3. The four-hour course

receives the highest rating for value for money, and the differences are not statistically significant.

3 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.


45

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.

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

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9

Value for money

Improved driving

Safer driver

Identify appropriate speed

Identify speed limits

5 hours workshop plus car

4 hours workshop

3.5 hours workshop

6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9

Value for money

Improved driving

Safer driver

Identify appropriate speed

Identify speed limits

5 hours workshop plus car

4 hours workshop

3.5 hours workshop


46

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.

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

29%

14%

13%

11%

11%

8%

6%5% 3%

Identifying the speed limit

Detecting hazards

Driving with the instructor

Facts about speeding

All the course

Receiving practical tips

Interacting with others

Becoming more self-aware

Being reminded


47

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

such as “Tyres on Tarmac” and “Slow to Flow” as well as tips such as using “3rd 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.


48

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% 1% 23%

All of the course 13% 5% 14%

Receiving practical tips 8% 11% 1%

Interacting with others 5% 5% 10%

Becoming more self aware 7% 1% 5%

Being reminded 4% 2% 5%

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


49

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.


50

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]


51

4. Conclusions andrecommendations


52

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, self-

efficacy 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 clients’ 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-room-

based 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


53

better monitor and manage their speed. Focus group participants’ 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.


54

5. Appendices


55

5.1 Follow-up questionnaire


56


57


58


59

5.2 Focus group topic guide

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

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 itinteresting or boring? Did you find out anything new or surprising? What did you think of the tutors? What didyou think of the balance between the PowerPoint slides and workbook activities? What did you think of thegroup work? The individual work? What were the other people like that you were sat with? Did everybodyjoin 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 roomor in a car? The other people who might attend? Some courses are based just in the training room and inothers you also go out in a car with a driving instructor to help you put things into practice. If you had achoice, which course do you think you would choose? Why? Which do you think is better? Why?

3. 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 youpledged to do differently after the course? Did you actually do it? Why / why not? Would it be useful toreceive a reminder of your action plan a few months after the course? Did anything make it more or lessdifficult to put into practice? Did you consider doing any further driver training after the course? Why / whynot? What was it about the course that made you change / not change your driving? Has it changed how youbehave 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? Wasit clear that you could choose different dates and different locations? The mix of people – do you think thatyoung drivers should be mixed in with other drivers, or should they have their own course? Why? Anythingelse?

Debrief

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


60

research into the national speed awareness course

Documents