1. RSGB
East
young
driver
&
rider
intervention
survey
2015
David
Frost
David
Frost
PR
&
Marketing
September
2015
(updated
December
2015)

2.
2
Contents
1.
Executive
summary
............................................................................................
3
2.
Background
........................................................................................................
5
3.
Summary
of
interventions
..................................................................................
6
4.
Issues
with
current
interventions
......................................................................
11
5.
Numbers
of
young
people
involved
..................................................................
15
6.
Costs
(monetary
and
staff)
................................................................................
16
7.
Involvement
of
other
public
and
private
sector
partners
..................................
17
8.
Evaluation
and
monitoring
methodologies
.......................................................
18
9.
Opportunities
to
pool
resources
across
the
Region
...........................................
20
10.
Future
plans
to
target
this
age
group
..............................................................
21
11.
Summary
and
recommendations
....................................................................
22
Appendix
1:
Practitioner
questionnaire
...............................................................
25
Appendix
2:
Summary
of
Interventions
by
LA
......................................................
31
Appendix
3:
Summary
of
Interventions
by
type
...................................................
32

3.
3
1.
Executive
summary
This
paper
has
been
produced
on
behalf
of
the
Eastern
Region
of
Road
Safety
GB
(RSGB
East)
to
review
the
existing
road
safety
interventions
delivered
to
young
drivers
and
riders.
Every
road
safety
team
within
the
RSGB
East
region
was
asked
to
complete
a
questionnaire
for
each
intervention
they
offer
but
it
should
be
noted
there
were
some
omissions
to
the
data
requested.
The
paper
briefly
summarises
each
activity
delivered
by
teams
and
their
strategic
partners
up
to
Summer
2015,
with
a
quick
review
during
October
to
assess
if
any
additional
interventions
have
commenced.
Resources
available
for
road
safety
interventions
are
increasingly
under
pressure
from
austerity
measures
with
a
number
of
teams
being
reorganised
and
budgets
severely
reduced.
There
is
always
a
need
to
identify
and
work
with
strategic
partners
to
deliver
strong,
consistent
road
safety
messages
via
well
thought
out
interventions.
There
were
a
number
of
common
issues
identified
with
the
delivery
of
interventions
including
how
they
are
marketed
and
publicised
to
the
target
audience
and
how
‘free’
from
charge
the
newer
digital
channels
really
are.
Initiatives
delivered
in
educational
establishments
can
suffer
from
the
lack
of
timetabling
offered
and
there
remains
an
issue
between
the
benefits
of
a
series
of
sessions
to
reinforce
messages
versus
the
one-­‐off
presentation.
Timetabling
and
advance
coordination
is
not
just
an
issue
with
schools
and
colleges
but
also
with
partner
agencies
too.
Partner
agencies
can
also
raise
concerns
about
the
consistency
of
delivery
and
evaluation
of
the
approach.
Partner
agencies
do
however
bring
the
benefit
of
additional
resource,
whether
in
terms
of
direct
financial
support,
staff
time
or
other
physical
means
such
as
premises,
etc.
Turnover
of
staff
at
schools,
partner
organisations
and
indeed
with
the
road
safety
team
too
can
cause
issues
with
continuity
of
interventions
and
the
consistency
of
approach.
Parental
involvement
can
be
key
to
participants’
willingness
to
be
part
of
the
programme
and
the
reinforcement
of
messages.
Some
teams
offer
programmes
to
directly
engage
the
support
of
parents
to
avoid
‘interference’
of
the
message.
Language,
phraseology
and
use
of
media
are
hugely
important
when
delivering
to
this
target
group.

4.
4
All
interventions
need
to
be
evidence
led
and
all
teams
have
access
to
good
intelligence
data
with
their
partners.
Effective
use
of
this
data
can
lead
to
SMART
objectives
for
each
intervention.
There
exists
a
wide
range
of
evaluation.
Surprisingly
some
interventions
didn’t
appear
to
be
evaluated
at
all.
Evaluation
and
monitoring
should
be
integral
to
any
intervention
and
needs
to
be
an
essential
part
of
the
planning
process
with
a
budget
set
aside
at
the
outset.
Independent
evaluation
of
interventions
is
highly
recommended.
The
thinking
behind
campaign
development
and
production
is
changing
with
regard
to
Behavioural
Change
Theory
(BCT)
and
teams
are
increasingly
aware
of
this
to
deliver
the
message
positively
to
the
target
audience.
BCT
needs
to
be
considered
from
the
outset
when
planning
interventions.
There
are
some
resource
intensive
interventions
that
already
exist
within
RSGB
East
and
their
use
should
be
carefully
planned
and
shared
across
the
region
with
appropriate
reimbursement
for
their
development
and
use.
Road
Safety
Officers
(RSO)’s
have
a
good
track
record
in
delivering
high
quality,
well
thought
out
interventions.
Sharing
of
resources
should
continue
where
possible
and
cross-­‐authority
or
regional
wide
campaigns
should
also
be
considered.
There
already
exists
private
sector
involvement
in
interventions
and
this
should
continue
to
be
encouraged
where
possible
either
for
sponsorship
or
an
integral
part
of
the
delivery.
Involvement
with
road
safety
can
assist
with
corporate
social
responsibility
and
doesn’t
necessarily
require
input
at
the
time
of
the
intervention
but
could
be
the
use
of
corporate
teams
to
assist
with
marketing
or
assisting
with
the
public
relations
support
of
initiatives.

5.
5
2.
Background
Hertfordshire
County
Council
and
Suffolk
County
Council
have
commissioned
this
paper
on
behalf
of
RSGB
East.
There
currently
exist
a
number
of
multiple
projects
across
RSGB
East
involving
young
road
users.
Each
local
authority
(LA)
road
safety
team
has
interventions
directed
at
their
young
driver/rider
target
audience.
Some
of
these
are
delivered
solely
by
the
LA
road
safety
team,
some
with
or
by
partner
agencies
and
others
delivered
across
boundaries
with
neighbouring
teams.
RSGB
East
are
conscious
of
the
on-­‐going
need
to
review
what
they
are
delivering
within
their
authorities,
to
seek
new
and
better
ways
of
delivering
to
this
critical
group
and
to
avoid
unnecessary
duplication
of
resource.
Each
LA
was
requested
to
complete
a
questionnaire
(Appendix
1)
as
fully
and
frankly
as
possible
about
their
interventions
to
assist
in
illustrating
a
positive
way
forward
throughout
the
region.
This
paper
reviews
the
current
interventions
to
the
target
audience
within
the
RSGB
East
region
based
upon
information
provided
by
the
teams.
It
also
looks
to
comment
upon
what
appears
to
be
effective
and
what
is
worth
pursuing
wider
with
regional
colleagues.
The
questionnaires
were
completed
within
each
authority
by
those
responsible
for
the
delivery
and
it
should
be
noted
there
are
some
omissions
to
the
data
requested.

6.
6
3.
Summary
of
interventions
Every
LA
has
a
young
road
user
casualty
problem
resulting
in
the
need
to
deliver
interventions
to
their
young
road
user
audience.
There
is
a
hugely
diverse
programme
of
interventions
across
RSGB
East.
This
wide
style
of
delivery
format
can
assist
in
effectively
getting
the
message
to
the
target
audience.
There
follows
an
incredibly
brief
overview
of
interventions
(for
the
purposes
of
this
paper)
reported
back
by
LA
road
safety
teams
in
RSGB
East.
A
full
list
of
all
interventions
appears,
as
Appendix
2,
but
it
should
be
noted
that
this
survey
only
reports
back
on
the
original
questionnaires
sent
to
RSGB
East
LA’s
during
the
summer
of
2015.
Towards
the
end
of
October
2015
the
LA’s
were
requested
to
advise
if
they
had
commenced
any
additional
interventions
since
they
first
completed
the
questionnaires.
Appendix
3
illustrates
the
interventions
by
type
and
the
authorities
that
deliver
them.
Bedford
Borough
Council
(BBC)
–
IAM
momentum
Young
driving
assessments
offered
free
to
17
–
26
year
olds
who
live,
work
or
attend
full-­‐time
education
in
the
BBC
area.
Paid
for
by
BBC
and
delivered
by
IAM
assessors.
BBC
–
Xcellerate
Day
long
event
for
up
to
27
attendees
pre
17
covering
presentations,
workshops
and
activities
improving
awareness
and
information
to
make
them
more
aware
of
the
responsibilities
to
themselves
and
others
when
in
charge
of
a
vehicle.
Central
Bedfordshire
Council
(CBC)
–
MORE
16,
MORE
Drive
Multi-­‐agency
separate
half
day
workshops
to
pre-­‐drivers
and
those
17
–
30
giving
advice
on
maintenance,
buying,
modifications,
reactions
collision
investigation
etc.
Also
offers
practical
session
‘first
drive’
for
16’s
and
‘skid
car’
for
17
–
30’s.
Delivered
with
Luton
Borough
Council.
CBC
–
OSCAR
Modified
vehicle
to
17
–
25’s
offering
simulated
drives
(not
always
resulting
in
a
crash)
on
a
number
of
driving
issues
promoting
discussion,
etc.
Cambridgeshire
County
Council
(CBC)
–
Young
driver
event
(Huntingdon
racecourse)
Multi-­‐agency
2
hours
‘Fresher
–
style’
event
for
school/college
students
and
individuals
aged
16
–
19
to
attend.
Includes
a
20-­‐minute
theatre
in
education
(TIE)
presentation
then
the
freedom
to
visit
individual
exhibitors
as
deemed
fit.
Delivered
via
the
wider
CPRSP1
.
1
Cambridgeshire
and
Peterborough
Road
Safety
Partnership

7.
7
CCC
–
Drive2Arrive
Package
of
20/30
minutes
classroom
presentations
to
6th
form/college
students
delivered
by
Fire
Service
as
a
CPRSP
intervention.
CCC
–
Crash
car
Modified
vehicle
supplementing
Drive2Arrive
programme.
Targets
16
-­‐29’s
with
a
simulated
crash
experience
to
promote
discussion,
explore
peer
pressure,
etc.
CCC
–
TIE
Written
as
a
‘showcase’
performance
by
performing
arts
tutor
and
delivered
by
first
year
students
to
other
16
-­‐19’s
students.
Essex
County
Council
(ECC)
-­‐
Roadster
Multi-­‐agency
interactive
day
(6
x
40
min
sessions)
for
year
12
students
delivered
with
partner
agencies
including
role
play
to
cover
mobiles,
seatbelts,
drink/drugs,
first
aid,
theory,
traffic
law,
etc.
Delivered
as
a
‘SERP’2
activity
with
Southend-­‐on-­‐Sea
Borough
and
Thurrock
Councils.
ECC
–
Sandon
young
driver
scheme
Off-­‐road
event
for
16
–
18’s
pre
drivers
including
an
introductory
15
min
RSO
presentation
on
topics
such
as
seatbelts,
mobile
phones
(intelligence
led)
and
a
further
45
min
session
with
an
Approved
Driving
Instructor
(ADI).
Hertfordshire
County
Council
(HCC)
–
Learn
2
Live
Multi-­‐agency
event
targeting
sixth-­‐form
students.
DVD
presentation
supported
by
speakers
addressing
hazards
to
passengers
and
drivers
trying
to
influence
behaviour
change
towards
distractions
and
driving.
HCC
–
Crash
car
simulator
Produced
to
support
Learn
2
Live
plus
simulated
journey
and
collision
to
promote
discussion,
etc.
HCC
–
First
Car
Targeting
new
drivers
throughout
the
county
and
distributed
at
Test
Centres.
Variety
of
topics
and
issues
covered
relevant
to
new
drivers.
HCC
–
Herts
Rider
Formerly
a
printed
magazine
for
riders
but
moving
to
digital,
targeting
all
bike
riders
with
relevant
safety
information
offering
the
opportunity
of
quantitative
on-­‐line
monitoring
analysis.
HCC
–
The
Honest
Truth
(THT)
Targeting
young
people
learning
to
drive,
this
intervention
enlists
ADI’s
to
deliver
relevant
messages
to
young
people
learning
to
drive.
Luton
Borough
Council
(LBC)
–
MORE
16,
MORE
Drive
Multi-­‐agency
separate
half
day
workshops
to
pre-­‐drivers
and
those
17
–
30
giving
advice
on
maintenance,
buying,
modifications,
reactions
collision
investigation
etc.
Also
offers
practical
session
‘first
drive’
for
16’s
and
‘skid
car’
for
17
–
30’s.
Delivered
with
Central
Bedfordshire
Council.
2
Safer
Essex
Roads
Partnership

8.
8
Norfolk
County
Council
(NCC)
–
PedSafe
Classroom
based
initiative
delivered
to
(interest
group
only)
year
11
students,
based
on
Bare
Bones
project
covering
legal
issues,
clothing/gear,
budgeting,
derestriction,
attitudes
and
advantages/disadvantages
to
this
mode
of
travel.
NCC
–
Y-­‐Di
One-­‐hour
presentation
one-­‐to-­‐one
(or
small
groups)
presentation
to
17
–
25
Youth
offenders
complete
with
workbook
covering
risk,
misuse
of
vehicles,
etc.
NCC
–
Tread
Four
2-­‐hour
workshops
covering
distractions,
vehicle
maintenance,
etc.
followed
by
a
skid
avoidance
session
targeting
17
–
24’s
during
their
first
year
of
driving.
NCC
–
Young
driver
education
50
–
60
minute
presentation
to
class
sized
group
15
–
25’s
(mainly
15
–
18)
including
video
clips
of
collision
reconstruction,
consequences,
collision
avoidance
and
bereaved
parents.
Peterborough
City
Council
(PCC)
–
Drive2Arrive
Package
of
20/30
minutes
classroom
presentations
to
6th
form/college
students
delivered
by
Fire
Service
as
a
CPRSP
intervention.
PCC
–
Wasted
TIE
for
pre
and
new
drivers/passengers
about
the
legal
and
personal
consequences
of
drug
driving.
Delivered
as
a
CPRSP
intervention
and
also
performed
in
CBC
as
a
joint
purchase
to
bring
cost
efficiencies.
PCC
–
Young
Driver
Forums
Working
with
focus
groups
of
young
people
to
assist
in
developing
road
safety
campaigns
and
initiatives
and
reviewing
concepts
prior
to
production.
PCC
–
Young
Driver
Event
(Huntingdon
racecourse)
Multi-­‐agency
2
hours
‘Fresher
–
style’
event
for
school/college
students
and
individuals
aged
16
–
19
to
attend.
Includes
a
20-­‐minute
theatre
in
education
(TIE)
presentation
then
the
freedom
to
visit
individual
exhibitors
as
deemed
fit.
Delivered
via
the
wider
CPRSP
(with
participants
bussed
into
event).
PCC
–
Scooter
day
Half-­‐day
event
for
pre
and
novice
riders.
Input
from
police
and
dealers
covering
skills
tests,
info
on
gear,
riding
tips
and
the
implications
of
derestricting
vehicles.
Potential
for
wider
inclusion
as
a
CPRSP
intervention.
PCC
–
Young
driver
education
day
Full
day
at
school/college
for
Pre/New
drivers
and
passengers,
broken
into
groups
of
20
for
50
minute
workshops
covering
accident
investigation,
modified
crash
car,
Fire
Service
(Too
Young
to
Die
DVD)
and
making
a
short
road
safety
film
with
the
potential
for
a
maintenance
session.
Includes
feedback
on
all
films
and
discussion.
Southend-­‐on-­‐Sea
Borough
Council
(SBC)
–
Roadster
Multi-­‐agency
interactive
day
(6
x
40
min
sessions)
for
year
12
students
delivered
with
partner
agencies
including
role
play
to
cover
mobiles,
seatbelts,
drink/drugs,
first
aid,
theory,
traffic
law,
etc.
Delivered
as
a
‘SERP’
activity
with
Essex
County
and
Thurrock
Councils.

9.
9
SBC
–
Fresher
events
(university
and
college)
One
to
one
interaction,
especially
foreign
students,
to
find
out
how
they
travel
and
give
relevant
advice
and
information
and/or
signpost
to
further
advice.
SBC
–
THT
Targeting
young
people
learning
to
drive,
passengers
and
parents.
The
intervention
recruits
ADI’s
to
deliver
relevant
messages
to
young
people
learning
to
drive.
Suffolk
County
Council
(SCC)
–
College
and
upper
school
programme
Presentations
and
discussions
to
year
9-­‐plus
students
ranging
from
pedestrian
and
cycling
responsibilities
and
looking
out
for
others,
passenger
safety
strategies,
driving
and
riding
awareness,
planning,
positive
action,
budget,
gear
and
choosing
the
right
vehicle.
SCC
–
Crash
car
Modified
vehicle
targets
17
–
21’s
with
a
simulated
crash
experience
to
promote
discussion,
e.g.
mobile
phones,
explore
peer
pressure,
etc.
Loaned
from
CCC.
SCC
–
Assemblies
Targeted
presentation
to
year
groups
on
a
theme
that
is
relevant
to
the
local
school,
e.g.
pedestrian
behaviour,
anti-­‐social
driving,
etc.
SCC
–
Get
in
gear
A
two-­‐hour
class
based
session
to
17
–
19
new
drivers
with
the
opportunity
to
discuss
risk
factors,
coping
strategies,
etc.
Followed
by
two
further
two-­‐hour
sessions
(one
to
two
weeks
apart)
in
vehicles
with
self-­‐analysis
with
an
instructor
who
can
help
the
participant
to
reflect
on
their
skills
and
abilities.
Developed
and
currently
being
evaluated
by
Buckinghamshire
County
Council
also
to
be
used
by
Milton
Keynes
Council.
Thurrock
Council
(TC)
–
Young
driver
programme
Interactive
classroom
presentation
for
groups
of
thirty
students
aged
15
–
18
including
videos
and
group
discussion
on
the
issues
faced
by
young
drivers
and
passengers.
It
should
be
remembered
that
this
list
is
ONLY
the
result
of
completed
questionnaires
from
LA
road
safety
teams
and
there
are
without
doubt
other
interventions
not
reported
upon
these
forms.
For
example,
THT
programme
is
currently
operating
throughout
Bedfordshire,
but
not
reported
upon
to
this
survey.
A
full
list
of
the
interventions
reported
by
authorities
is
available
in
Appendix
2.
Whilst
there
exists
a
large
number
of
interventions
across
the
region,
many
follow
a
similar
style
or
format,
e.g.
classroom
activity,
mass
event,
post
test
training,
etc.
The
activities
are
primarily
influenced
by
data
and
resource
(including
staff,
facilities
&
financial).
There
is
a
wide
range
of
interventions
from
publicity
campaigns,
young
driver
day/events
(including
on
and
off
road
driver
training),
crash
car
simulators,
scooter
days
through
to
educational
programmes
within
schools/colleges.

10.
10
Some
of
the
interventions
appear
to
be
very
similar
in
their
content
and
delivery,
but
are
adapted
according
to
the
local
intelligence
data.
This
would
appear
to
bode
well
for
the
sharing
of
content
within
RSGB
East
to
those
authorities
that
are
looking
to
develop
similar
programmes.
Pre
Local
Government
Review
(LGR)
structures
appear
to
heavily
influence
how
resources
are
pooled
between
authorities.

11.
11
4.
Issues
with
current
interventions
There
are
a
number
of
weaknesses
identified
with
delivery
of
interventions
to
the
target
group.
A
common
theme
was
that
of
generating
enough
interest
to
participate
in
the
interventions.
Marketing
communications
with
the
target
audience
has
changed
in
recent
years
and
is
moving
from
paid-­‐for
advertising
and
print
media
such
as
posters
and
flyers
to
digital,
social
media
channels.
Whilst
engagement
on
social
media
can
appear
to
be
high,
converting
this
into
attendance
at
an
event
and
the
physical
commitment
this
requires
sometimes
doesn’t
materialise.
Whilst
social
media
is
often
regarded
as
‘free’,
to
successfully
engage
with
the
target
audience
may
require
‘paid
for’
promotion
via
the
individual
networks
of
Facebook
or
twitter.
Having
said
that,
the
opportunity
to
see
the
content
promoting
the
message
can
be
far
more
effective
than
print
or
radio
promotion.
This
is
because
the
profile
of
the
target
audience
can
be
selected
for
individual
promotional
messages.
To
date,
the
vast
majority
of
people
signing
up
to
social
media
accounts
have
kindly
supplied
their
personal
profile
in
terms
of
age,
gender,
etc.
Individuals
also
flag
up
their
interests
by
the
content
they
‘like’,
‘follow’,
‘favourite’,
‘share’,
‘re-­‐tweet’
and
‘post’.
All
of
this
data
therefore
helps
paid-­‐for
social
media
advertising
to
be
much
more
likely
to
be
seen
by
the
intended
recipients.
Social
media
as
a
marketing
tool
can
therefore
be
far
from
‘free’
and
often
requires
direct
financial
investment.
It
also
needs
the
investment
of
time
for
sourcing
and
posting
interesting,
relevant
content
and
the
availability
of
personnel
to
‘moderate’
comments
and
content
posted
by
others
to
road
safety
social
media
channels.
In
terms
of
getting
individuals
to
attend
interventions,
it
should
also
be
noted
that
some
interventions
were
targeted
to
Youth
Offending
clients.
There
are
occasions
when
staff
resource
is
wasted
when
customers
fail
to
attend
the
intervention.
A
number
of
interventions
targeted
within
schools
or
sixth
form
colleges
are
also
restricted
by
the
demands
of
the
timetable.
Nearly
all
of
the
road
safety
teams
delivering
school
programmes
would
ideally
like
to
deliver
these
interventions
over
a
series
of
weeks
to
reinforce
road
safety
messages.
The
demands
and
practicalities
of
the
timetable
usually
dictate
that
delivery
is
done
during
a
dedicated
day,
or
half
a
day.
A
good
example
of
where
an
authority
tries
to
overcome
this
is
ECC
where
they
offer
a
one
hour
presentation
to
year
12
and
then
try
to
persuade
them
into
taking
a
full
day
programme
when
they
‘see
the
importance’
of
the
information
given.
Also
of
note
is
the
challenge
of
coordinating
the
bookings
of
some
school
events
and
other
larger-­‐scale,
fresher
style
events
with
partner
organisations
and
agencies.
Although
advance
planning
of
events
can
assist
in
reducing
the
issues
surrounding
this,
the
timetable
of
schools
can
dictate
the
dates
and
personnel
in
partnership
organisations
may
be
called
away
to
other
priority
engagements
or
indeed
leave
the
organisation.

12.
12
Delivering
continuous
interventions
in
schools
can
also
be
challenging
for
LA’s
in
terms
of
finding
or
getting
the
appropriate
road
safety
contact
that
is
willing
to
act
as
a
coordinator.
As
with
any
other
partner
organisation,
individuals
eventually
move
on
giving
the
need
to
encourage
support
and
commitment
from
key
individuals
within
the
school
organisation.
Obviously,
this
happens
with
the
road
safety
personnel
too!
Clear
teaching
and
intervention
plans
help
to
overcome
these
continuity
issues.
An
interesting
issue
has
also
developed
with
the
reliance
of
ADI’s
as
‘volunteer’
partners
in
initiatives.
One
team
in
particular
had
received
the
good
fortune
of
ADI’s
offering
their
input
for
free,
but
in
recent
times
have
not
enjoyed
this
as
the
driving
schools
have
seen
an
upturn
in
business.
This
results
in
either
the
loss
of
the
partner
as
a
volunteer
or
an
increase
to
the
delivery
budget
as
they
become
a
‘paid-­‐for’
resource.
Local
authorities
utilising
THT
in
particular
should
note
this
as
an
issue
for
potentially
reduced
time
allocation
for
the
discussion
of
road
safety
message
delivery
by
this
method.
Issues
with
partner
organisations
can
also
extend
to
the
provision
of
other
resources.
An
example
given
was
surrounding
the
‘planning
conditions’
for
the
use
of
the
premises
offered
for
the
intervention.
It
was
noted
that
there
are
also
issues
in
terms
of
interacting
with
parents
on
a
number
of
initiatives.
This
can
be
in
terms
of
trying
to
encourage
participation
but
also
the
re-­‐confirmation
of
the
information
and
knowledge
being
delivered
by
the
intervention.
Some
interventions
are
promoted
to
parents
to
encourage
them
to
book
their
sons
and
daughters
onto
the
programme.
For
example
the
CBC/LBC
MORE
programme
requires
parents
to
attend
and
undergo
a
specific
programme
to
assist
with
post
delivery
reinforcement.
This
is
a
good
example
of
catering
for
the
specific
needs
of
the
parents
if
they
are
attending
an
intervention
so
that
they
don’t
‘interfere’
with
the
message
at
the
time
of
delivery.
The
above
approach
can
help
to
reduce
the
feeling
of
some
attendees
who
may
otherwise
have
felt
‘forced’
or
‘told’
they
must
attend
an
event.
It
should
be
noted
that
this
could
happen
in
some
interventions
held
in
school
or
college
environments
too.
This
‘forced
attendance’
is
sometimes
regarded
as
a
barrier
to
quality
engagement
even
before
the
intervention
commences.
There
is
also
a
clear
need
to
ensure
resources
used
for
the
interventions
are
kept
up
to
date
and
fresh.
Relevant,
up
to
date
information
and
data
needs
to
be
disseminated
to
the
target
audience.
Whilst
there
is
a
temptation
to
use
current
phraseology,
care
needs
to
be
taken
on
the
tone
and
pitch
(therefore
the
language
used)
to
the
target
audience.
Certain

13.
13
phrases
‘date’
very
quickly
and
it
is
easy
to
alienate
the
audience
with
them
thinking
‘this
isn’t
relevant
to
me’.
Printed
materials
with
a
repeat
use
may
also
need
to
be
updated
before
re-­‐print.
On-­‐line
materials
are
arguably
easier
to
update,
particularly
in
terms
of
social
media
posts.
When
using
video
as
part
of
interventions,
care
needs
to
be
taken
on
scripting,
terminology
and
particularly
background
music
that
can
quickly
pigeonhole
a
piece
and
then
easily
be
disingenuous
with
the
target
audience.
Within
RSGB
East,
a
few
authorities
have
purchased
crash,
or
simulator
cars.
The
initial
cost
of
providing
these
vehicles
is
relatively
high,
probably
purchased
with
a
specific
grant
or
capital
budget.
One
authority
in
particular
mentioned
the
potential
for
costly
repairs
on
such
‘physical
equipment’.
Therefore
an
on-­‐going
cost
of
maintenance
for
the
project
needs
to
be
built
in
otherwise
there
could
be
a
significant
drain
on
already
limited
revenue
budgets.
Use
and
storage
costs
also
need
to
be
built
into
the
annual
programme
of
work
to
ensure
that
once
the
resource
is
purchased
there
is
staff
resource
to
promote,
programme
and
deliver
events
around
the
LA
area.
An
issue
with
regard
to
evaluation
was
also
referred
to
when
it
is
be
completed
by
a
partner
organisation
delivering
the
intervention.
Whether
this
is
effective
evaluation
is
in
question
and
certainly
best
practice
would
be
to
plan
and
budget
the
evaluation
in
advance
of
the
intervention.
As
a
final
observation
on
issues
with
current
interventions,
one
LA
quoted
the
following:
‘As
a
partnership,
particularly
from
the
LA
perspective,
there
is
an
identified
risk
that
if
we
cease
this
(relatively)
constructive
delivery
there
is
a
community
demand
for
‘something
to
be
done’
for
young
drivers
and
this
demand
will
be
fulfilled
by
individuals/organisations
whose
chose
method,
i.e.
shock
tactics,
has
a
questionable
evidence
base,
compared
to
the
small
group,
peer
discussion
approach
developed
through
this
intervention’.
This
comment
certainly
underlines
the
need
for
interventions
to
be
evidence-­‐led,
well
researched
and
planned
with
consideration
to
how
evaluation
will
be
undertaken.
Planning
campaigns
under
behavioural
change
methodologies
must
also
be
considered
with
measurable
outcomes,
at
least
with
an
eye
to
the
monitoring
of
the
impact
upon
local/regional
casualty
data.
asked
schools
to
assist
(some
do,
most
don’t)
newspaper
advertising,
tweeting
but
we
still
have
a
considerable
number
of
the
initial
assessments
left

14.
14
consistency
–
in
Fire
service
delivery
students
are
“forced/told”
they
have
to
attend
which
puts
up
a
barrier
before
you
even
begin
repairs
can
be
costly
staff
who
have
been
in
colleges
for
years
and
won’t
change
first
issue
with
the
scheme
came
with
the
planning
permission
for
the
site
main
issue
has
been
schools’
buy-­‐in
to
the
project
fail
to
attend
when
requested
by
Youth
Offending
staff
so
RSO/police
time
is
wasted
-­‐
YOT
staff
have
even
been
to
collect
and
bring
young
people
to
sessions
with
no
success
duplication
of
interventions
is
also
an
issue
–
partnership
is
working
hard
to
address
this
uniformed
services
are
often
seen
as
a
quick
fix
by
colleges/schools
and
will
be
given
access
to
deliver
a
quick
“shock”
presentation
main
problem
is
recruiting
clients
on
to
the
course

15.
15
5.
Numbers
of
young
people
involved
The
numbers
of
people
reached
within
the
target
audience
is
difficult
to
record,
particularly
with
marketing
interventions.
However,
the
minimum
audience
reached
by
direct
interventions
across
RSGB
East
is
well
in
excess
of
68,000.
30
per
session
/
12
sessions
to
date
we’ve
had
79
students
take
part
in
the
course
–
each
classroom
session
has
around
4
–
6
students
on
average
600
–
700
annually
120
each
day
currently
25
ADIs
in
Southend
‘signed
up’,
(100
plus
in
Essex)
over
the
2
days
around
700
students
in
this
academic
year
over
8,000
young
persons
will
have
received
one
of
the
YDE
presentations
33,000
this
is
a
new
tool
so
we
don’t
have
data
as
yet
it
has
to
date
been
delivered
to
in
excess
of
8,000
students
–
the
15/16
programme
aims
to
deliver
to
9,500
students

16.
16
6.
Costs
(monetary
and
staff)
The
cost
of
road
traffic
collisions
is
well
documented
by
the
Department
for
Transport
(DfT)
and
updated
on
an
annual
basis
in
the
annual
‘Reported
Road
Casualties
Great
Britain’
report.
The
average
value
of
prevention
per
reported
fatal
casualty
(2013)
is
£1,742,988
and
per
fatal
collision
£1,953,783.
LA
budgets
are
under
constant
pressure
and
in
recent
years
have
suffered
reductions
as
part
of
central
governments
austerity
programme.
Service
delivery
is
therefore
under
scrutiny
and
many
road
safety
teams
have
been
or
are
under
review.
Partner
agencies
are
also
facing
the
same
pressures
with
funding.
The
changes
to
public
health
from
the
National
Health
Service
to
local
government
is
‘one
of
the
most
significant
extensions
of
local
government
powers
and
duties
in
a
generation.
It
represents
a
unique
opportunity
to
change
the
focus
from
treating
sickness
to
actively
promoting
health
and
wellbeing’
according
to
the
Local
Government
Association.
Clearly,
this
brings
opportunities
as
well
as
threats
to
funding
and
road
safety
professionals
need
to
fully
engage
with
health
service
professionals
to
promote
their
issues.
Colleagues
within
the
police
service
are
also
undergoing
a
period
of
significant
change.
There
has
also
been
significant
re-­‐structuring
to
the
police
services
within
RSGB
East
that
inevitably
has
an
impact
upon
road
safety
service
delivery
and
again
engagement
with
partner
professionals
is
key
to
securing
support
in
terms
of
resource.
There
is
also
a
large
disparity
with
diversionary
funding
through
enforcement
interventions
within
the
region.
Having
noted
the
above,
identifiable,
or
recorded
(for
the
purposes
of
this
exercise)
budgetary
expenditure
for
interventions
throughout
RSGB
East
is
a
minimum
of
£153,000.
In
reality
the
figure
will
be
far
in
excess
of
this
amount
as
it
does
not
include
staff
time
or
non-­‐specific
incidental
costs
of
providing
the
services3
.
There
are
other
‘hidden’
costs
in
terms
of
staff
resource
from
partner
organisations,
venue
provision
and
other
goodwill
which
may
be
as
little
as
refreshment
provision.
Venue
hire
charges
are
also
often
hidden
or
supplied
as
a
contributory
factor
from
the
partner
organisations.
In
terms
of
promotion
of
events,
some
of
this
is
included
in
the
physical
budget
for
the
intervention,
but
sometimes
it
is
‘free’
from
charge
(particularly
some
of
the
digital/social
media),
but
there
is
still
an
inherent
staff
cost
in
terms
of
time
resource.
3
small
print
runs,
development
and
updating
resources,
mileage,
etc

17.
17
7.
Involvement
of
other
public
and
private
sector
partners
Many
of
the
interventions
carried
out
across
RSGB
East
are
done
so
by
directly
by
RSO’s.
It
is
also
encouraging
to
see
a
number
of
interventions
are
delivered
either
jointly
or
on
behalf
of
RSO’s
by
ADI’s,
police
officers,
fire
personnel,
trading
standards,
collision
investigation
officers
and
the
ambulance
service
(with
Essex
bringing
in
some
external
‘brought
in’
presenters).
Some
voluntary/charities
are
also
involved,
such
as
the
Road
Victims
Trust,
Global
Action
Plan,
DrinkSense
and
Magpas.
There
are
also
private
organisations
playing
their
part
in
delivering
the
interventions,
such
as
Alconbury
Driver
Centre,
Driving
Schools
and
Centres,
Kwik
Fit,
Millbrook,
St
John’s
Ambulance,
Skanska,
TIE
companies
and
Young
Marmalade.
As
previously
noted
there
is
a
sense
that
the
use
of
partners
in
interventions
needs
to
be
carefully
planned.
This
is
to
ensure
that
delivery
is
‘on
message’
from
the
outset.
very
little
amount
of
staff
time
approx.
£10k
pa
which
includes
an
element
of
staff
time
but
probably
not
all
costs
costs
approx.
£150
–
200
per
deployment
–
development
of
the
resource
cost
£32k
cost
per
event
varies
–
if
it
is
in
college:
up
to
£600
if
3
presenters
are
bought
in
although
it
can
run
for
free
staff
resource
has
not
been
quantified
–
approximately
£24,500
for
all
venues,
materials
and
external
staff
for
the
15/16
programme
£6,750
for
first
issue,
plus
£3,250
for
launch
marketing
no
formal
budget
but
costs
involved
are
RSO
time
and
design/printing
costs
for
the
relevant
booklets
and
feedback
sheets

18.
18
8.
Evaluation
and
monitoring
methodologies
Casualty
statistics
in
the
target
age
group
are
recorded
and
monitored
on
an
annual
basis
by
LA’s.
There
is
a
wide
range
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
for
interventions
across
RSGB
East.
It
must
be
noted
that
some
interventions
didn’t
appear
to
be
evaluated
at
all.
The
range
of
monitoring
and
evaluation
encompasses
the
simple
notation
of
numbers
engaged,
‘happy
forms’,
the
monitoring
of
casualty
statistics,
current
evaluation
underway
and
available
separately
through
to
independent
evaluation
from
academic
establishments
that
will
be
published
on
the
Road
Safety
Observatory.
It
is
noted
that
some
interventions,
e.g.
First
Car
have
been
evaluated
elsewhere.
Having
said
that,
there
is
a
clear
recognition
of
the
need
to
independently
evaluate
interventions
and
a
move
towards
this
by
authorities.
There
are
also
some
interesting
ways
to
note
how
road
safety
teams
are
monitoring.
ECC
Roadster
issues
a
USB
freebie
that
has
an
embedded
direct
link
to
the
Roadster
website.
This
monitors
the
website
analytics
(social
media
was
also
monitored
for
a
while)
for
individual
users,
time
spent
on
the
site,
shares,
referrals,
etc.
There
is
also
monitoring
of
the
site
content
to
see
what
is
popular
and
brings
increased
on-­‐line
traffic.
HCC
Learn
2
Live
are
exploring
other
follow–on
activities
via
BCT
in
addition
to
using
social
media
to
encourage
feedback
and
are
looking
at
independent
evaluation
in
the
future.
‘would
like
to
do
post
1
year,
2
year
follow
up’
evaluation
on
the
usefulness
of
each
exhibit
–
great
feedback
for
(potential)
sponsors
breakdown
of
numbers
attended
and
able
to
predict
patterns,
evaluation
in
place
covering
experience
and
opinions
of
road
safety
before
and
after
the
event
available
separately

19.
19
a
move
to
digital
e-­‐magazine
will
assist
with
on-­‐line
analytics
in
isolation
will
not
have
a
long-­‐term
effect
on
reducing
KSI’s,
rather
it
is
just
the
first
engagement
tool
fire
service
complete
evaluation
forms
–
no
apparent
evidence
of
effectiveness
regarding
casualty
reduction
at
the
end
of
the
session,
participants
are
asked
to
complete
a
feedback
sheet
detailing
changes
in
attitude
–
short
term
behavioural
changes
are
commented
on
by
YOT
case
workers
–
long
term
changes
can
only
be
noticed
by
analysis
of
STATS
19
data
and
this
is
not
possible
various
evaluations
after
events
and
follow
up
evaluations
–
casualty
data
as
well
as
information
received
from
different
partner
agencies
no
current
plans
apart
from
casualty
data

20.
20
9.
Opportunities
to
pool
resources
across
the
Region
There
is
a
clear
willingness
among
the
majority
of
RSGB
East
to
work
together
on
joint
initiatives.
It
can
be
seen
in
the
Summary
of
interventions
chapter
that
there
are
already
LA’s
working
in
partnership.
These
cross-­‐authority
partnerships
appear
to
be
strongest
in
areas
where,
prior
to
LGR
wider
‘county’
structures
existed
and
the
joint
working
has
continued
either
through
‘safety
partnerships’
or
a
willingness
to
work
with
direct
neighbours.
The
re-­‐structuring
of
police
forces
within
the
RSGB
East
region,
e.g.
Beds/Cambs/Herts
also
brings
opportunities
to
work
across
a
wider
area
within
the
region.
Clearly
partnership
working
would
have
to
be
based
on
available
budget
and
staff
resource
and
the
assumption
of
continued
issues
with
the
young
driver/rider
target
audience.
There
was
also
a
note
to
express
that
joint
working
would
also
need
to
be
dependant
on
national
research
into
young
driver
interventions.
Some
of
the
resources
are
costly
to
set
up,
e.g.
crash/simulator
cars
but
are
available
for
other
LA’s
to
‘hire’
therefore
minimising
outlay
and
duplication
of
resource
within
the
region.
RSGB
East
has
a
history
of
working
on
joint
campaigns;
in
the
1990’s
joint
speed
campaigns
were
produced
and
financial
resource
contribution
was
dependant
upon
whether
the
LA
was
a
unitary
or
shire
organisation.
If
such
joint
working
were
to
occur
again,
critical
success
factors
would
need
to
be
agreed
in
advance
of
any
joint
intervention.
Those
factors
should
include
good
planning,
with
long
lead
in
times
being
critical.
The
willingness
to
pool
resources
(perhaps
dependant
upon
number
of
population
within
the
target
audience
of
the
participating
LA)
will
also
play
a
large
part.
An
understanding
of
which
organisation
is
responsible
for
each
individual
part
of
the
intervention
and
agreeing
outcomes
and
measures
of
success
prior
to
commencement
would
also
be
necessary.
There
are
a
number
of
authorities
noting
the
need
for
interventions
being
aligned
to
BCT.
Evaluation
of
interventions
also
clearly
needs
to
be
an
integral
part
of
the
planning
process.

21.
21
10.
Future
plans
to
target
this
age
group
The
target
audience
continues
to
be
an
issue
with
RSGB
East
and
as
such
LA’s
will
need
to
persevere
in
targeting
this
group.
Future
interventions
will
depend
upon
individual
budgets
and/or
the
opportunity
to
pool
resources
as
already
discussed.
Some
LA’s
are
either
currently
reviewing
there
interventions
or
will
be
doing
so
as
part
of
their
annual
planning
process.
It
is
of
note
that
two
specific
interventions
already
occurring
within
RSGB
East,
fresher
style
events
and
crash/simulator
cars
are
being
looked
at
by
authorities
that
are
not
currently
running
these
activities.
Other
plans
include
introducing
THT,
TIE,
and
amending
existing
interventions
such
as
Xcellerate
and
Learn
2
Live
plus.
BCT
in
mind
aim
to
introduce
Learn
2
Live
plus
new
presentation
covering
the
FatalFour
THT
in
the
process
of
analysing
the
effectiveness
of
the
driving
simulators
depend
on
national
research
from
young
driver
groups
and
budget
available
introducing
in
2016
TIE
program
aimed
at
yr
11s
Considering
a
large
event
where
students
are
brought
to
a
central
location

22.
22
11.
Summary
and
recommendations
There
are
a
number
of
interventions
delivered
to
young
drivers
and
riders
across
the
RSGB
East
region
of
a
similar
nature
but
all
meeting
the
needs
of
the
target
audience.
RSO’s
have
a
good
track
record
of
delivering
high
quality,
well
thought
out
interventions
and
sharing
best
practice
with
fellow
professionals,
particularly
via
RSGB,
at
regional
and
national
meetings,
the
annual
conference
and
it’s
newsfeed.
Resources
available
to
some
road
safety
teams
continue
to
be
under
scrutiny
and
pressure
to
deliver
best
value
to
the
local
community
and
minimise
the
number
of
road
users
causing
or
involved
in
road
traffic
collisions
remains
high.
This
has
been
compounded
by
austerity
measures
in
recent
years
that
have
seen
budgets
cut
and
teams
re-­‐organised
with
the
reduction
in
staff
numbers
as
a
result.
The
austerity
programme
and
re-­‐organisation
has
not
been
restricted
to
LA’s.
Police
forces
are
facing
similar
demands
with
budgets
and
scrutiny.
The
way
in
which
the
health
service
is
funding
has
changed
and
is
now
within
the
LA
framework.
Road
safety
delivery
continues
to
adapt
to
change
as
it
has
done
previously
through
LGR
and
the
forming
of
safety
camera
partnerships.
Partnership
working
has
evolved
with
historical
strategic
partners
in
the
public
sector.
This
continues
with
new
partners
in
the
private
sector
but
opportunities
still
need
to
be
exploited
with
those
organisations
with
a
mutual
interest
in
road
safety
target
audiences.
Fresh
thinking
is
emerging
also
on
better
ways
to
engage
with
the
target
audience.
New
technologies
and
digital
media
have
emerged
that
offer
different
ways
to
connect
with
road
users,
particularly
in
the
young
driver
and
rider
market.
The
use
of
digital
media,
if
used
correctly
can
assist
with
monitoring
campaigns
and
therefore
an
element
of
digital
should
be
considered
in
future
interventions
to
this
target
audience.
Interventions
need
to
be
effectively
monitored
to
demonstrate
their
effectiveness.
The
monitoring
needs
to
be
SMART
and
should
include
casualty
data
as
an
absolute
minimum.
The
objectives
of
the
campaign
need
to
be
set
at
the
outset
of
the
intervention
to
ensure
that
they
can
be
demonstrated
during
delivery
if
it
is
to
be
long
term
and
certainly
afterwards
if
it
is
a
shorter-­‐term
programme.
The
thinking
behind
campaign
development
and
production
is
also
changing
with
regard
to
the
theories
behind
BCT
and
road
safety
teams
are
aware
of
this
together
with
the
need
to
capitalise
on
ensuring
that
interventions
make
best
use
of
these
techniques.
Indeed
RSGB
East
is
hosting
a
road
safety
practitioner
course
within
the
region
during
September
2015
to
how
these
theories
can
be
best
applied
to
road
safety
interventions.

23.
23
Existing
interventions
can
be
measured
against
a
number
of
BCT
and
can
be
used
in
amending
the
delivery
of
such
initiatives.
When
developing
new
interventions
BCT
should
be
used
to
ensure
they
are
effective
with
the
target
audience.
Evaluation
of
interventions
is
critical
and,
as
with
monitoring
needs
to
be
considered
at
the
outset.
It
should
be
seen
as
an
integral
part
of
the
intervention.
There
should
be
a
realistic
budget
set
aside.
To
ensure
objectivity
and
credibility
in
measuring
outcomes
evaluation
should
be
conducted
by
an
independent
body
outside
of
the
delivery
organisation(s).
It
is
certainly
worth
establishing
links
with
local
colleges
and
universities
to
assist
with
evaluation.
There
is
wide
interest
in
two
particular
styles
of
intervention
currently
occurring
within
RSGB
East;
mass
action
events
and
crash/simulator
cars.
The
interventions
must
ensure
they
meet
the
above
requirements
however
(in
terms
of
monitoring,
BCT
and
evaluation)
before
they
are
considered
for
wider
RSGB
East
delivery.
The
mass
event
interventions
already
operating
within
RSGB
East
could
potentially
expand
to
include
young
drivers
and
riders
from
other
local
authority
areas.
Some
currently
operate
in
fixed
locations,
e.g.
CBC/LBC
MORE
at
Millbrook.
This
event
may
only
be
suitable
to
neighbouring
LA’s
because
the
attendees
would
need
to
travel
independently.
Other
LA’s
also
have
fixed
venues
for
their
mass
event
interventions,
but
a
number
of
these
either
bus
students
into
a
location
or
hold
them
at
individual
schools/colleges
on
a
smaller
scale.
As
with
many
of
the
smaller
scale
school/college
interventions
there
were
concerns
in
terms
of
attracting
buy
in
and
subsequently
the
numbers
of
students
wanting
to
be
engaged
of
their
own
volition.
Improved
public
relations
and
marketing
for
these
and
indeed
all
interventions
needs
to
occur.
Whilst
a
full-­‐scale
marketing
plan
is
probably
unnecessary,
as
with
any
good
project
plan
this
needs
to
be
considered
at
the
outset.
It
was
mentioned
on
a
number
of
occasions
that
take
up
rates
for
initiatives
were
not
as
initially
hoped
for
and
anticipated.
For
example
BBC
has
experienced
difficulty
in
offering
40
FREE
IAM
assessments
to
eligible
young
drivers.
PCC
also
mentioned
working
with
focus
groups
of
young
people
to
assist
in
developing
road
safety
campaigns
and
initiatives
and
reviewing
concepts
prior
to
production.
As
stated
above,
establishing
links
with
the
local
college
or
universities
may
assist
in
the
area
of
campaign
development,
planning,
public
relations
and
marketing.
There
is
currently
a
Safe
Drive,
Stay
Alive
National
Forum
(hosted
by
First
Car)
that
is
no
doubt
looking
at
the
similarities
of
these
events
and
how
they
could
best
be
operated
on
a
similar
format,
covering
the
caveats
of
monitoring,
BCT
and

24.
24
evaluation
mentioned
above.
Otherwise
it
is
certainly
worth
RSGB
East
discussing
amongst
itself
how
this
could
be
taken
forward
within
the
region.
Branding
of
these
events
needs
to
be
considered
if
these
events
were
opened
up
across
RSGB
East.
Crash/simulator
cars
have
already
been
purchased
by
a
number
of
authorities
within
RSGB
East.
Other
LA’s
have
either
already
paid
for
the
resource
to
attend
their
area
or
are
considering
purchasing
their
own.
Subject
to
evaluation,
to
optimise
these
resources
regionally,
RSGB
East
should
consider
the
sharing
of
these
across
the
region.
The
costs
of
these
resources
are
significant
in
terms
of
initial
outlay
and
potential
maintenance.
There
should
be
financial
reimbursement
to
the
originating
LA
every
time
they
are
used
via
an
agreed,
realistic
charging
structure.
Interventions
such
as
THT
should
also
be
subject
to
effective
monitoring,
BCT
and
evaluation
factors
if
they
are
implemented
across
the
region.
Indeed,
a
number
of
LA’s
within
RSGB
East
seem
to
be
considering
where
next
with
the
monitoring,
BCT
and
evaluation
of
existing
interventions.
This
is
strongly
recommended
as
a
formal
review
within
each
authority
as
a
measure
of
effectiveness.
A
number
of
interventions
have
mentioned
the
use
and
support
of
private
sector
partners.
It
is
clear
that
if
interventions
were
carried
out
RSGB
East
wide
that
sponsorship
opportunities
exist
to
assist
in
the
purchase
of
resources,
their
delivery
and
promotion.
Private
sector
organisations
would
need
a
clear
project
proposal
and
plan
to
understand
how
initiatives
could
be
a
part
of
their
corporate
social
responsibility.
Certainly
the
public
relations
and
marketing
of
interventions
could
be
boosted
significantly
by
the
use
of
corporate
teams
dedicated
to
these
roles
within
private
sector
organisations.

25.
25
Appendix
1:
Practitioner
questionnaire
RSGB
EAST
practitioners’
questionnaire
into
young
driver
and
rider
interventions
At
our
recent
meeting,
we
identified
a
number
of
initiatives
currently
being
carried
out
around
the
region
targeting
16
-­‐
21
year
old
road
users.
During
the
meeting,
we
(RSGB
EAST)
discussed
carrying
out
a
study
into
the
work
of
road
safety
teams
across
the
region
directed
at
young
drivers
and
riders.
This
questionnaire
is
being
sent
to
all
road
safety
teams
across
the
region
to
identify
current
road
safety
interventions
directed
at
16
to
21
year
old
drivers
and
riders.
The
interventions
(see
below)
include
education,
training
and
publicity
initiatives
and
activities
conducted
directly
by
yourselves,
in
partnership
with
others
or
on
your
behalf.
We
would
expect
your
interventions
to
be
based
upon
existing
published
road
safety
research,
(http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/KeyFacts/drivers/young,
http://www.roadsafetyobservatory.com/KeyFacts/riders/motorcyclists,
etc.).
The
information
gathered
is
for
RSGB
EAST
use
only
to
be
shared
and
fed
back
at
the
September
meeting.
Please
complete
the
following
questionnaire
as
fully
&
frankly
as
possible
in
order
that
we
can
share
information
and
knowledge
as
widely
as
possible
and
report
back
meaningful
results
to
colleagues
throughout
the
region.
We
would
appreciate
a
timely
turnaround
and
would
ask
you
to
complete
the
questionnaire
no
later
than
10
JULY
2015.
To
assist,
please
tick
each
intervention
you
have
delivered
in
your
authority
and
complete
the
questionnaire
for
each
one
:-­‐
Type
of
Intervention
Used
in
my
authority
Mass
events
Classroom
activities
Forums
Crash
cars
College
presentations
Assemblies
ADI
campaign
Post
test
training
interventions
(Pass
Plus)
DVDS
Cruiser
events
First
Car
magazine
Other
–
please
state
QUESTIONS
1
–
15
APPLY
TO
THE
INTERVENTION,
THEREFORE
PLEASE
COMPLETE
A
QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR
EACH
YOUNG
DRIVER/RIDER
INTERVENTION
YOU
PROVIDE.

26.
26
Questions
16
onwards
are
generic
about
your
individual
authority
and
your
future
intentions.
1.
What
is
your
intervention
(eg
ADI
campaign,
college
presentations,
etc)?
2.
Please
describe
your
intervention
including
objectives,
methodology
and
outcomes.
3.
Who
is
the
target
audience,
please
be
as
specific
as
possible
and
advise
how
the
intervention
addresses
your
local
casualty
problem
(eg
16
year
old
moped
riders)?
4.
How
many
road
users
are
engaged?
5.
Who
delivers
the
programme?
(eg,
RSO’s,
Health
Professionals,
external
organisation/agency,
etc)?

27.
27
6.
Is
this
funded
solely
by
your
own
authority
or
are
there
contributory
funds
from
partners
(please
state)?
7.
Is
this
initiative
delivered
solely
within
your
LA
area
or
do
you
work
in
partnership
with
neighbouring
authorities
(and
if
so
please
list
all)?
8.
What
is
the
scope
for
pooling
resources
for
this
intervention
with
other
LA’s
in
the
region
with
similar
target
group
dynamics?
9.
What
is
the
overall
budget
for
your
intervention
within
your
LA
in
terms
of:-­‐
a) staff
resource?
b) physical
materials
&
other
marketing
promotions?
10.
Have
you
worked
out
the
cost
per
head
of
population
within
your
authority
area
(if
so
please
quote)?

28.
28
11.
In
terms
of
this
activity,
can
you
advise
of
any
pitfalls
along
the
way
that
stalled
the
delivery
(this
is
valuable
information
to
share
with
regional
colleagues
to
avoid
potential
future
waste
of
resources)?
This
may
be
in
terms
of
cost
barriers,
difficulties
in
reaching
the
target
audience
or
‘partnership’
issues,
etc?
12.
What
did
you
do
or
what
will
you
do
differently
to
overcome
this?
13.
How
are
you
monitoring
and
evaluating
the
impact
of
your
intervention
(eg,
numbers
engaged,
casualty
reduction,
etc)?
14.
Is
this
published
(eg
Road
Safety
Observatory,
please
give
links
where
possible
or
advise
if
this
can
be
requested
separately)?
15.
If
you
have
not
completed
any
evaluation
and
monitoring
to
date,
what
are
your
aims
with
regard
to
this?

29.
29
16.
How
do
you
measure
your
overall
effectiveness
in
delivering
road
safety
interventions?
17.
What
future
plans
do
you
have
to
target
this
age
group
(whilst
we
appreciate
this
might
be
sensitive
info,
please
outline
as
much
as
you
can
at
this
stage)?
18.
Would
you
be
prepared
to
work
with
other
RSGB
EAST
colleagues
on
interventions
with
a
mutual
target
audience
in
mind
(please
list)?
19.
Please
advise
us
of
anything
else
you
wish
to
raise
or
comment
upon
with
regard
to
this
target
audience?
Finally,
please
enter
your
contact
details
in
case
we
need
to
come
back
to
you
with
specific
queries
to
any
of
your
above
interventions.
NAME
AUTHORITY
EMAIL

30.
30
PHONE
Many
thanks
for
taking
the
time
to
complete
this
survey.
We
intend
to
compile
the
results
and
present
back
to
you
at
the
next
RSGB
EAST
meeting,
4
September,
Norwich.

31.
31
Appendix
2:
Summary
of
Interventions
by
LA
Authority
Intervention
Target
Bedford
Borough
Momentum
Drivers
17
-­‐
26
Xcellerate
under
17’s
Central
Beds
OSCAR
safety
car
16
+
also
see
Luton’s
MORE
16
&
MORE
Drive
16
–
30
Cambridgeshire
Crash
car
16
–
19
Drive
2
arrive
16
–
18
Theatre
in
ed
16
–
19
YDE
Huntingdon
16
–
19
Essex
Cruiser
events
17
+
First
Car
17
+
Roadster
(plus
website)
Year
12
students
Sandon
young
drivers
16
–
18
THT
*
17
+
TIE
*
16
–
18
Hertfordshire
First
Car
17
+
Herts
Rider
16
+
Learn
2
Live
16
–
18
Simulator
Crash
Car
16
–
18
THT
17
+
Luton
MORE
16
&
MORE
Drive
16
–
30
Norfolk
‘Pedsafe
16
(p2w)
THT
*
17
+
Tread
17
–
24
Y-­‐Di
15
–
25
(Youth
Offenders)
Young
driver
education
15
–
18
Peterborough
Crash
car
*
16
+
Drive
to
arrive
17
–
25
Freshers
Fayre
*
18
+
Forums
16
+
Scooter
day
16
Theatre
in
ed
16
–
25
Young
driver
ed
day
15
–
25
YDE
Huntingdon
16
–
19
Southend
on
sea
Freshers
16
–
20
Roadster
16
–
17
THT
17
+
Suffolk
Assemblies
16
–
18
Crashed
car
at
event
17
–
21
Get
in
gear
17
–
19
School
&
college
programme
16
–
21
Thurrock
Freshers
16
–
20
Roadster
16
–
17
Young
driver
classroom
15
–
18

32.
32
Appendix
3:
Summary
of
Interventions
by
type
Intervention
type
Local
Authority
ADI
campaign
Essex
(THT)
Hertfordshire
(THT)
Peterborough
(planned
September
2015
onwards)
Southend-­‐on-­‐Sea
(THT)
Assemblies
Suffolk
Classroom
activities
Cambridgeshire
(Drive
2
Arrive)
Essex
(Roadster)
Norfolk
(PedSafe,
Tread,
Y-­‐Di,
young
driver
education)
Peterborough
(young
driver
education
day)
Southend-­‐on-­‐Sea
(Roadster)
Suffolk
(upper
school
classroom
deliveries)
Thurrock
(young
driver
classroom)
College
presentations
Essex
Suffolk
Peterborough
(Drive
2
Arrive)
Southend-­‐on-­‐Sea
(Freshers
fayre)
Crash
cars
Cambridgeshire
(crash
car)
Central
Bedfordshire
(OSCAR
safety
car)
Hertfordshire
(simulator
crash
car)
Peterborough
(crash
car)
Suffolk
(crash
car)
Cruiser
events
Essex
Peterborough
(currently
investigating
with
Fire
Service)
DVDS
Essex
(Driving
with
Grace,
Roadster)
Peterborough
(as
part
of
wider
activities)
First
Car
magazine
Essex
Hertfordshire
Forums
Peterborough
Mass
events
Bedford
Borough
(Momentum,
Xcellerate)
Cambridgeshire
(young
driver
event,
Huntingdon)
Central
Bedfordshire
(MORE
16,
MORE
Drive)
Essex
(Freshers
fairs,
Sandon
young
drivers
scheme)
Hertfordshire
(Learn
2
Live)
Luton
(MORE
16,
MORE
Drive)
Peterbough
(young
driver
day
–
Huntingdon,
‘Scooter’
Day
–
Regional
College)
Post
test
training
Suffolk
(Get
in
Gear)
TIE
Cambridgeshire
(development
and
delivery
of
TIE)
Essex
Peterborough
Other
Cambridgeshire
(Focus
groups
–
campaign
development)
Essex
(USB
sticks
to
promote
Roadster
and
website)
Hertfordshire
(Hertfordshire
Rider)

33.
33
Produced
for
RSGB
East
by:
David
Frost,
MSc.
David
Frost
PR
&
Marketing
david.frost@dfpr.co.uk
07958
575
625
This
document
is
available
on-­‐line
at
http://ow.ly/RLJVC
until
31
December
2016