Road safety behaviour of adolescent children in groups · 5.4 Road safety behaviour when alone 30 5.5 Road safety behaviour when with parents 30 5.6 Road safety behaviour when with

Road safety behaviour of adolescentchildren in groups

Prepared for Road Safety Division, Department for Transport

L Chinn, M Elliott, J Sentinella and K Williams

TRL Report TRL599

ii

First Published 2004ISSN 0968-4107Copyright TRL Limited 2004.

This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part ofa contract placed by the Department for Transport. Any viewsexpressed in it are not necessarily those of the Department.

TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducingwaste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of theseenvironmental goals, this report has been printed on recycledpaper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufacturedusing a TCF (totally chlorine free) process.

iii

CONTENTS

Page

Executive Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

1.1 Background 31.2 Objectives 31.3 Methodologies 3

2 Analysis of data on accident involved children 3

2.1 Method 32.2 Characteristics of accident involved children 42.3 Time and location of children’s accidents 42.4 Accompaniment of children at the time of the accident 42.5 Types of child pedestrian accidents 5

2.5.1 Age, sex and type of accident 62.5.2 Group size and type of accident 62.5.3 Age of companions and type of accident 6

2.6 Summary 7

3 Questionnaire survey 7

3.1 Method 73.2 Exposure: journeys on foot and by bike 8

3.2.1 The journey to school 83.2.2 The journey home from school 103.2.3 Evenings and weekends 12

3.3 Behaviour when alone and in groups 143.4 Beliefs and opinions 183.5 Summary 19

4 Video surveys 20

4.1 Method 204.2 Characteristics of children and composition of

groups observed 224.3 Road crossing behaviour by location and crossing type 24

4.3.1 General behaviour 244.3.2 Distractions 244.3.3 Safety checks 25

4.4 Child characteristics and road crossing behaviour 264.5 Group characteristics and road crossing behaviour 264.6 Summary 28

5 Focus groups 29

5.1 Method 295.2 The journey to/from school 295.3 Other activities (evenings/weekends). 30

iv

Page

5.4 Road safety behaviour when alone 30

5.5 Road safety behaviour when with parents 305.6 Road safety behaviour when with older/younger people 305.7 General road safety behaviour when with friends 315.8 Games and dares 315.9 The effect of age on road safety behaviour 325.10 Cycling 335.11 Summary 33

6 Literature review 33

6.1 Method 336.2 Risk 34

6.2.1 Accident studies 346.2.2 Exposure 35

6.3 Behaviour 356.3.1 Observation studies 356.3.2 Road crossing skills 366.3.3 Risky pedestrian behaviour 366.3.4 Risk-taking and peer pressure 37

6.4 Summary of literature review 38

7 Risk 38

7.1 Exposure and accidents 387.2 Summary 40

8 Summary 41

8.1 Exposure 418.2 Opinions 428.3 Behaviour 428.4 Accidents 438.5 Risk 438.6 Limitations of the study methods 43

9 General conclusions 44

10 Acknowledgements 44

11 References 45

Appendix A: Instructions to teachers and questionnaire 48

Appendix B: Video coding form 56

Appendix C: Focus group topic guide 58

Abstract 62

Related publications 62

1

Executive Summary

and who are likely to think road safety is for ‘kids’. Theliterature also suggests that it is this group of children whoare most likely to take part in ‘extreme risk’ behaviour.Campaigns to improve road safety might best be aimed atthis mid-age range, particularly males, and need to conveythat avoiding unnecessary risk is ‘cool’. In other groupsthe less safe individual behaviour is mainly the result ofcommon faults (lack of attention or misjudgement) ratherthan planned risk taking.

Both exposure and accidents appear to be high whengroup sizes are fairly small (i.e. with one to three friends),and more risky behaviour is undertaken and the level ofdistraction due to chatting is high for those in such smallgroups. Both accidents and reported behaviour suggestedthat looking both ways before crossing was often neglectedin groups of this size. However, some children believetheir behaviour is more sensible, and that they are saferwhen with just one friend. Again, campaigns could betargeted at children in these vulnerable group sizes, whomay be less visible to the motorist.

The responses from interview surveys and focus groupsshowed that children were aware that their individualbehaviour when in groups was more risky. There wouldappear to be scope to persuade them to be more carefulwhen in groups to capitalise on any ‘safety in numbers’effect and thus reduce the overall number of roadaccidents. Campaigns emphasising ‘it could be you’ mightbe considered. However, children seem to readily takeresponsibility for children younger than themselves, soperhaps they could be encouraged also to takeresponsibility and ‘look out for’ their friends – ‘it could beyour best friend’. This might be particularly relevant withvery small groups (2 or 3) because for these any ‘safety innumbers’ effect is likely to be relatively small.

Amongst the younger adolescents, safety strategies arestill developing. For girls, group activity becomesincreasingly important through adolescence, and there issome evidence that the risk to girls is higher when they arewith friends than when they are alone. For boys, mid-adolescence risky behaviour trying to impress peers givesway to a tendency to more trips being made alone or inpairs by the age 15-16.

There is evidence of more adult road crossing behaviourin older adolescents with safety assessments being madeprior to reaching the kerb. Groups are often preoccupiedwith chatting, particularly the older girls, until they reachthe kerb, but then it is usual to stop and look. Overall, thetotal number of safety checks made appears to beindependent of group size.

Large groups tend not to cross between parked cars andeither use a crossing if available, or they are able to forcetraffic to slow down by sheer numbers. Children crossingalone or in pairs are more likely to use the centre of theroad as a temporary ‘refuge’ even if no facility is provided.

In general adolescents appear to make appropriate safetychecks, but it is possible that they do not assess situationscompletely, or misjudgements are made. It is possible that

In Britain, the number of children killed or seriously injuredas pedestrians peaks in the first few years of secondaryschool. The peak in adolescent casualties is associated withincreased exposure time and exposure to busier roads –partly because of the longer school journey and partlybecause of their increasing freedom to travel and socialisemore widely. Previous studies have shown that adolescentsare more likely to be travelling in a same age group thanyounger children are. Christie (1995) found that 54 percentof child pedestrians aged 11-16 involved in an accidentreported that they were with their friends at the time, ahigher percentage than that reported by younger casualties.

This project is part of the Child Development 3programme of research for Road Safety Division of DfT,and aimed to determine whether adolescents in groupsbehave differently with regard to attention paid to roadsafety than when they are on their own, to determine inwhat ways behaviour differs and why. If less safebehaviour does occur when adolescents are in groups, theinformation gained in this study might be used to helpidentify the target population and form of future safetyeducation publicity

The research programme included:

1 Analysis of data from interviews from an earlier study(Christie, 1995) with accident-involved children.Analyses from police fatal accident data files weresubsequently used in addition.

2 A school-based attitude survey in the form of a self-completion questionnaire for Year 7, 9 and 11 pupils

3 Video surveys of child pedestrian behaviour at or nearthe kerbside.

4 Focus groups with pupils in schools.

5 Review of the literature relevant to adolescent behaviourin groups.

The study has shown that although around two-thirds ofadolescent accidents occur while they are walking or cyclingin groups, this largely reflects the fact that similarproportions of their walking and cycling is done in groups.Within this overall picture there are subtle and complexchanges in behaviour and activity as children grow throughtheir adolescence. These changes result in different attitudesand activities among boys and girls at different ages, whichdo impact on their road safety related behaviour. Estimatesof risk from the data available in the literature and in thisstudy suggest that risk is higher for girls when in groups,and that the age range 13-14 are more at risk than older oryounger children when in groups.

Individually adolescents behave less safely when ingroups, but this does not generally result in more accidentsas the behaviour of the group as a whole, and perhaps theirvisibility to motorists, tends to mitigate this. The exceptionto this appears to be Year 9 (age 13-14) boys, who tendtoward more ‘planned’ risky behaviour. It is perhaps thismid secondary school age range children who most wantto appear ‘cool’ and to impress friends by their bravado,

2

adolescent pedestrians and cyclists facing busy trafficconditions, like novice drivers, take some time to acquirethe experience necessary to fully appreciate the dangersthey face. Some form of hazard perception training foradolescents might be considered.

3

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

In Britain, the number of children killed or seriouslyinjured as pedestrians peaks in the first few years ofsecondary school. It is also within this age group that forthe first time girls aged between 10-15 have a greater riskper unit of exposure than boys (Ward et al. 1994). Thepeak in adolescent casualties is associated with increasedexposure time and exposure to busier roads – partlybecause of the longer school journey and partly because oftheir increasing freedom to travel and socialise morewidely. Government policy is to encourage greaterwalking and cycling especially on the school journey.Therefore there is a need to understand what risks may beassociated with this particularly for adolescent children.

A comparative study of European child pedestrianexposure and accidents found that there was littledifference between countries in the amount of timechildren spent in the streets and that in Britain childrenseemed to cross the road less frequently than other children(Stephenson et al., 2001). About half the increasedcasualty rate among British children was attributable tohigher exposure to busy roads.

Another difference between the British children and theothers was that they were more likely to be accompanied byother children. Other studies have shown that Britishadolescents are more likely to be travelling in a same agegroup than younger children are. Christie (1995) found that54 percent of child pedestrians aged 11-16 involved in anaccident reported that they were with their friends at the time,a higher percentage than that reported by younger casualties.

Walking in a same-age group may affect a child’s abilityto be safe:

� The ability to switch or divide attention is a key factor inroad safety of children. ‘If a child approaches the roadtalking to a friend, they need to switch their attentionaway from the conversation and towards the roadsituation and, conversely, once they are focused it isimportant they are not distracted by any furtherconversation’ (Dunbar et al., 1999).

� Travelling as a group may influence risk-taking andbravado leading to dangerous behaviour by one or moremembers of the group.

� Group members, even if they are not distracted bytheir friends, may nevertheless just ‘follow the herd’when crossing a road and pay no attention to theirpersonal safety.

It is likely that these factors may vary with journeypurpose and the size and composition of the group in termsof the age and sex of group members. Conversely, it maybe that travelling as a group affords some protection or, atleast, promotes independent travel because children (andtheir parents) feel that they are safer.

The study described in this report on the behaviour ofadolescent children in groups is part of the ChildDevelopment 3 programme of research for Road SafetyDivision of DfT. Two other projects were conductedalongside this project as part of the same research

programme: Adolescent attitudes and behaviour (Elliott,2004); and a study of police reports of adolescents’ fatalroad accidents (Sentinella et al., 2004). The methodologyand findings of these two other projects have provided asignificant input to this research and report on thebehaviour of adolescents in groups.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of the research described in this report areas follows:

1 To determine whether adolescents in groups behavedifferently with regard to attention paid to road safetythan when they are on their own; e.g. does groupbehaviour modify road crossing behaviour?

2 If they do behave differently, to determine in what waysbehaviour differs i.e. how does group behaviour modifyroad user behaviour?

3 To determine which are the factors that influence groupbehaviour with regard to road safety, and why.

A better understanding of adolescent road safety behaviour,particularly when in groups, will facilitate the futurepreparation of effective safety education and publicity.

1.3 Methodologies

The study involved five separate research tasks as follows:

1 Analysis of data from interviews with accident-involvedchildren. Analysis from police fatal accident data fileswere subsequently used in addition.

2 A school-based attitude survey in the form of a self-completion questionnaire for Year 7, 9 and 11 pupils.

3 Video surveys of child pedestrian behaviour at or nearthe kerbside.

4 Focus groups with pupils in schools.

5 Review of the literature relevant to adolescent behaviourin groups.

Each of these research tasks was conducted independentlyto a certain extent, although findings from each fed intoothers as the project as a whole progressed. The tasks takentogether formed a coherent programme of research,measuring exposure, attitudes and behaviour of adolescentsalone and in groups, both subjectively and objectively.

The tasks described above studied the behaviour ofadolescents as pedestrians and cyclists, apart from the first(interviews with accident involved children) which studiedonly pedestrian accidents.

Although not initially a primary objective of thisresearch, data from this study and from the literature havebeen used to examine the relative risk to adolescents in andaround roads when alone and when with friends.

2 Analysis of data on accident involvedchildren

2.1 Method

Questionnaire data were available from a TRL survey of153 accident-involved children. These data were collected

4

in 1992 and 1993 by interview, usually at the child’shome, and were based on a sample of children treated athospitals in Bristol, Bradford, Reading and Slough,following road accidents as pedestrians. Data collectionprocedures are described by Christie (1995). Analysis ofthe data has aimed to identify any differences betweenadolescents and younger children with respect to thenumber and type of accidents, and the extent ofaccompaniment (particularly whether the child was in agroup of other children) at the time of the accident.

2.2 Characteristics of accident involved children

Cyclists and children who were passengers in vehicleswere excluded from the current analysis, which hasfocused on the behaviour of child pedestrians.Characteristics of the accident involved children includedin these analyses are given in Table 2.1.

Most (71 percent) of the children reported that theaccident happened during a journey that they made often.Almost half (48 percent) of the accidents occurred whenchildren were on their way home, and 53 percent happenedduring a journey from home. Fewer accidents happenedduring journeys directly to or from school. This isconsistent with the observation that the weekday peakperiod for accidents is spread over several hours, with thehighest point between 6 pm and 7 pm rather thanimmediately after school. A total of 32 accidents (one infive) occurred in the street outside the child’s own home.Analysis of the fatal accident data found that over half ofpedestrian accidents occurred when the children wereplaying/involved in leisure activities, and fewer (8 percent)occurred on the journey to/from school. Details of theorigins and destinations of journeys on which accidentsoccurred (from interviews with accident involved children)are given in Table 2.2.

There were no significant differences between boys andgirls in the proportion of accidents in the street outsidetheir own homes.

Table 2.1 Characteristics of accident-involved childreninterviewed

Male Female Total

6 -10 years 59 34 9311-16 years 37 23 60

Total 96 57 153

Table 2.2 Departure and destination points of journeyson which accident occurred

Number of respondents (N=153)

Location Journey to Journey from

Home 74 81Shop or shopping* 28 13School** 13 20Friend’s home 9 7Family member’s home 3 8Park 2 4Play 5 2Work 1 2Car 2 1

* Includes responses such as ‘town’, ‘town centre’ and ‘market’.

** Includes by school bus.

There were more boys (63 percent) than girls (Chi-square test, p<0.01) in the sample, indicating that overallboys are more likely than girls to be involved in roadaccidents. This is confirmed for the older age group by theanalysis of police fatal accident data (Sentinella et al.,2004) where 61 percent of pedestrian fatalities of childrenaged 9 to 15 were male.

For the purposes of some analyses of the questionnairedata of accident involved children, the sample was dividedinto two age groups: younger children (ages 6 to 10 yearsinclusive) and older children (11 to 16 years). The cut-offage of 11 years was chosen as the transition from primaryto secondary school occurs around this age.

2.3 Time and location of children’s accidents

Data on the timing of the accident (time and day of theweek) were available for 149 children. Of these accidents,110 happened on weekdays and 39 at weekends – i.e.accidents were spread roughly equally across weekdaysand weekends. An examination of police fatal accidentfiles for children aged 9 to 15 (Sentinella et al., 2004) alsofound that pedestrian fatal accidents were distributed fairlyuniformly by day of the week. The peak period for roadaccidents in the current analysis was between 6 pm and 7 pm.This was true for both weekdays and weekends. During theweek, most accidents occurred during late afternoon andearly evening (3 pm to 8 pm) with smaller peaks duringthe before-school period (8 am to 10 am) and at lunchtime(noon to 2 pm). At weekends accidents were more evenlyspread throughout the day, with peaks at lunchtime and6 to 7 pm. Analysis of the fatal accident data again foundmost accidents occurred between 3 pm and 8 pm, althoughthe peak was at 4 pm.

2.4 Accompaniment of children at the time of theaccident

The majority of accompanied children were with friends atthe time of the accident. Others were with siblings, parents,grandparents, cousins, aunts and uncles, or adult friends ofthe family. Just over 30 percent of all children weretravelling alone at the time of the accident. Thirty-fivepercent of the older children (11 to 16) were travelling alonewhen the accident happened. This figure is comparable tothat found in the examination of police fatal accident files(children age 9 to 15), where in one-third of fatal accidentsthe child was travelling alone. Of the 102 accident-involvedchildren of the study reported here who were not alone, 17were accompanied by at least one adult (defined as a personaged over 18 years). Again this is a similar finding to that ofthe analysis of data from the fatal accident file (childrenaged 9 to 15), where slightly less than one in five wereaccompanied by an adult at the time of the accident. In thecurrent study, most of those accompanied by an adult wereyounger children. The difference in adult accompaniment

5

between the two age groups is significant (Chi-square test,p<0.05). Sixty-one percent of the older children wereaccompanied at the time of the accident, but with no adultpresent. Most of the older children (56 percent) wereaccompanied by one or two others at the time of theaccident. (This compares with a figure of 63 percent fromthe fatal accident data). Group size did not varysystematically as a function of age group; adolescents wereno more or less likely than younger children to be travellingalone, with one or two friends, or in a larger group at thetime of the accident (see Table 2.3).

The findings presented below are based on the answersgiven by children and their parents. While suchdescriptions are inevitably more subjective than those of,say, police attending the scene of the accident, theinterview format encouraged respondents to provide areasonably factual account.

In many cases respondents acknowledged their (or theirchild’s) responsibility for what happened. When askedwhat had caused the accident, 27 percent of children said itwas due to their own behaviour and 29 percent blamed thedriver of the vehicle that hit them. The rest believed theresponsibility was shared between themselves and thedriver, attributed blame to a third party, or said they didn’tknow what caused the accident.

The overwhelming majority of accidents happenedwhen children were crossing or trying to cross the road, orhad moved onto the road for some reason (e.g., whilebeing chased or to retrieve a ball). The rest (just under 10percent) occurred while the child was on the pavement, orroad verge or had fallen or tripped onto the roadunintentionally (e.g., while running races along thepavement). These proportions are consistent with earlierresearch (Department of Transport, 1997).

Driver errors or violations were clearly or probably thecause of many of the 15 accidents that did not involvecrossing the road. The children were often in areasregarded as ‘safe’, and were hit by vehicles mounting thepavement or passing too close to them at the side of theroad. In addition, 19 ‘crossing-the-road-type’ accidentswere clearly or probably the driver’s fault (e.g., the driverjumped a red light on a pelican crossing). To increase thepower of the analyses, these groups were combined intoone category - ‘Driver at fault’.

A large proportion (39 percent) of children involved inaccidents while crossing the road did not or probably didnot look before stepping into the carriageway. Thisincludes all cases where the child said he or she did notlook, and where circumstances indicate that he or sheprobably failed to look carefully. Often the child was

Table 2.3 Size of group and adult accompaniment byage of child

Number of respondents

Younger Older(6 -10 (11-16 Allyears) years) respondents

Number of companionsAlone 26 21 47With one person 33 19 52With two people 15 14 29Larger group (3-6 people) 16 5 21

Total 90 59 149

Adult companionsAdult present 15 2 17No adult present 49 36 85

Total* 64 38 102*

* Excludes the 47 children who were travelling alone at the time of theaccident.

Table 2.4 Size of group and adult accompaniment bysex of child


AllMale Female respondents

Number of companionsAlone 33 14 47With one person 35 17 52With two people 16 13 29Larger group (with 3-6 people) 9 12 21

Total 93 56 149

Adult companionsAdult present 7 10 17No adult present 53 32 85

Total* 60 42 102*

* Excludes the 47 children who were travelling alone at the time of theaccident.

There were no significant differences between boys andgirls as to whether they were accompanied or alone,accompanied by an adult, or in the size of group in whichthey travelled (see Table 2.4). The analysis of police fatalaccident data found that males were more likely to bealone at the time of the accident (45 percent c.f. 28 percentfor females). The analysis of the data in the study reportedhere did find that males were slightly (although notsignificantly) more likely than females to be alone at thetime of their accident. The failure to reach significancemay be a reflection of the smaller sample size of the non-fatal accident analysis, rather than a real difference inaccompaniment in fatal and non-fatal accidents.

2.5 Types of child pedestrian accidents

To obtain a full description of the accident, each child wasasked a series of questions:

� What were you doing just before the accident happened?

� Were you running or walking when you had the accident?

� Can you describe what happened?

The child and one of his or her parents were asked thefollowing questions:

� What do you think caused the accident?

� What do you think could have helped to stop or preventthe accident?

6

talking, running, or both. Thirteen accidents occurredwhen the child ran onto the road while being chased,chasing someone, or retrieving a ball. In seven cases, thechild saw friends or relatives on the other side of the roadand crossed without looking, and in a further three thechild followed friends or relatives onto the road. Ninechildren reported that they had thought someone else(sibling, parent, friend or traffic warden) had said it wassafe to cross. For the purposes of analysis, this group wasassigned to a second category, ‘No strategy’, in whichchildren neglected to use any road safety strategies whilecrossing the road.

A fifth of the children looked but did not see the vehiclethat hit them. In some of these cases, it seems likely thatthe driver was speeding or driving dangerously, while inothers the child was probably distracted or hurrying, orchose to cross where the visibility was poor (e.g., at acorner or between parked cars). Often the child said thevehicle suddenly ‘appeared’. In a smaller proportion (9percent) of ‘crossing-the-road-type’ accidents the childsaw the vehicle approaching but nevertheless thought he orshe would be able to cross safely. These groups werecombined into a third category, ‘Strategy failed’, in whichchildren tried to cross safely but either failed to see thevehicle or misjudged its speed.

The child’s behaviour in crossing the road could not bedetermined in 15 cases because of insufficient informationon the questionnaire. These cases were included in theinitial analyses of group and child characteristics byaccident type. There were no indications that the frequencyof this type of ‘unclassified’ accident varied according tosex or age group, and so these cases were omitted whenaccident type was later re-coded into the three categoriesdescribed above.

2.5.1 Age, sex and type of accidentTable 2.5 shows the type accident by the age and sex ofthe child.

Relationships between the characteristics of the childand the type of accident in which he or she was involvedwere explored using Chi-square tests. Where these testsindicated that the observed distribution was significantlydifferent from that expected, log-linear analysis was usedfor further investigation.

A hierarchical log-linear analysis was used toinvestigate the relationship between age group andaccident type. The tests showed these variables to besignificantly related (p<0.01), demonstrating that there aresignificant differences in the types of accident experiencedby the two age groups. Adolescents were more likely thanexpected to be involved in accidents where the driver wasat fault, and had fewer than expected accidents in whichthey used no crossing strategy.

Accident type did not vary significantly according togender. Of the 32 accidents in the child’s own street, 26involved younger children.

2.5.2 Group size and type of accidentTo explore whether children travelling in groups ofdifferent sizes had different types of accidents, the accidenttypes described above were entered into a contingencytable with a variable indicating the number of companions(range: zero to more than two). A hierarchical log-linearanalysis indicated that the interaction between accidenttype and number of companions was significant (Chi-square, p<0.01). Accidents in which children did not lookbefore crossing the road were less likely to occur amongchildren travelling alone.

Examination of the contingency table showed severalother possible relationships, but these were not significant.This may have been affected by the low power of thisanalysis: 13 cells in the table had expected frequencies lessthan five. Therefore the variable ‘accident type’ was re-coded into three categories, as described above: 1. Driverat fault; 2. No strategy; and 3. Strategy failed. A secondhierarchical log-linear analysis was performed todetermine whether and where the incidence of these threetypes of accidents differed from expected, according to thesize of the group accompanying the child.

The interaction between accident type and number ofcompanions was significant (Chi-square, p<0.001).Children travelling alone had relatively few accidents inwhich they did not use any road safety strategy whencrossing the road. Children travelling in groups of three(i.e., with two companions) were less likely than childrenin smaller or larger groups to have accidents which wereclearly the driver’s fault. This analysis was repeated usingdata from the older group only, as adolescent behaviour isthe major focus of this study. Again, there was asignificant interaction between group size and accidenttype (Chi-square, p<0.05). Adolescents travelling alonehad different types of accidents from those travelling ingroups. The pattern of results for the older children was thesame as for the whole sample.

2.5.3 Age of companions and type of accidentChildren accompanied by adults had a disproportionatenumber of accidents in which they did not look before

Table 2.5 Accident type by age and sex of child


Driver No StrategyChild at fault strategy failed Allcharacteristics accidents accidents accidents accidents

Sex Male 21 36 29 86Female 13 23 16 52

Total 34 59 45 138*

Age groupYounger (6 -10) 14** 45** 25 84Older (11-16) 20** 14** 20 54

Total 34 59 45 138*

* Excludes 15 cases in which the circumstances of the accident couldnot be determined from available information.

** Observed frequency differs significantly from expected (Chi-squaretest, p<0.01).

7

crossing the road. This may be explained by the fact thatmost of these were younger children, who were moreprone to this type of accident (see Section 2.5.1).

It was hypothesised that the range of ages within thegroup, and particularly the closeness of the accident-involved child’s age to that of his or her companions,might have an influence on the circumstances of the roadaccident. A new variable, mean group age, was created forcases where accident-involved children were travellingwith other children (i.e. they were not alone and no adultwas present). The difference between the child’s age andthe mean group age was also calculated and divided intothree (roughly) equal-sized groups. The first categoryencompassed mean group ages between 8 and 1.5 yearslower than the accident-involved child’s age; the secondranged from 1.5 years lower to the same age as theaccident-involved child; and the third included all caseswhere the group members were, on average, older than theaccident-involved child.

Correlation analysis showed a positive linear relationbetween the age of accident involved children and themean group age (p<0.01). If not alone and not with adults,children tended to be travelling with other children of asimilar age. The police fatal accident data also found thatmany of the children were accompanied by others of thesame age at the time of the accident. In the current studythe mean difference between the ages of accident-involvedchildren and the ages of their companions did not varysignificantly between younger or older children (p>0.05).

Contingency tables were created showing the frequencyof various accident types (both the full accidentdescriptions and three-category versions of this variable)by age difference category. The type of accident did notvary significantly according to the difference between thechild’s age and the average age of his or her companions(Chi-square, p>0.05). That is, accidents in which driverswere at fault, children neglected to look before crossingthe road, and children’s road safety strategies failed wereequally likely to happen regardless of whether the child’scompanions were younger, older or about the same age asthe accident-involved child.

Further analyses were conducted to investigate whetheraccident type was influenced by the average age of thegroup, rather than the difference between this and theaccident-involved child’s age. Mean group age wasdivided into two categories, younger (6 -10 years) andolder (11-16 years), corresponding with the age categoriesfor the accident-involved children. Chi-square testsindicated that the type of accident did not varysignificantly according to the average age of the group.

2.6 Summary

1 Most road accidents involving child pedestrians occuron familiar roads during journeys they make often. Onein five happen in the street directly outside the child’sown home.

2 About 90 percent of child pedestrian accidents involvecrossing the road.

3 About 30 percent of all the accident-involved childrenwere travelling alone at the time of the accident. Thirty-five percent of the older children (11-16) were travellingalone when the accident happened. Sixty-one percent ofthe older children were accompanied at the time of theaccident, but with no adult present. Most of the olderchildren (56 percent) were accompanied by one or twoothers at the time of the accident.

4 Adolescents tend to have different kinds of accidentsthan younger children. They have fewer than expectedaccidents in which they neglect to look before crossingthe road. This age group experience a disproportionatenumber of accidents in which the vehicle driver is atfault. This pattern is reversed for younger children.

5 Adolescents had fewer accidents when alone than whenin groups in which they did not use any road safetystrategy while crossing the road. They were also lesslikely to have an accident in which they failed to lookbefore crossing when alone.

6 Adolescents travelling in groups of three had fewer thanexpected accidents which were clearly the driver’s fault.

7 The average age of the child’s companions, or thedifference between the average age and the child’s agedid not influence the likelihood that a child would beinvolved in a particular type of accident.

8 Where comparisons are possible, analysis of the datafrom interviews with accident involved childrenindicates trends which are broadly similar to those fromanalysis of the data from police fatal accident files. Thissuggests that both fatal and non-fatal accidents areoccurring under similar circumstances.

3 Questionnaire survey

3.1 Method

The questionnaire was designed in conjunction with thatfor the parallel project in the Child Development 3programme of research: Adolescent Attitudes andBehaviour. For the latter project focus groups were held inlocal schools to assist questionnaire design, and a large-scale pilot of the questionnaire was undertaken with 250school pupils. Analysis of the pilot survey identified keyroad safety behaviours of interest for this study. Aquestionnaire for this group behaviour project was draftedwhich asked about exposure as experienced on the journeyto and from school and out and about in the evenings andat weekends (alone and in groups), and about behavioursas identified above (again alone and in groups). Thequestionnaire also asked some questions about attitudes toroad safety (alone and in groups). The first draft of thequestionnaire was piloted in a local school and the pupilscompleting the questionnaire were asked how easy ordifficult the questions were, and if there were anyparticular problems with the questionnaire in general. Thisrevealed the questionnaire to have several wordingproblems, and that it was too complicated for the youngerchildren to complete. The revised draft proved successfulwhen re-piloted. A copy of the questionnaire is given in

8

Appendix A, together with a copy of the instruction sheetsent to schools.

Letters were sent to secondary schools in areas selectedto represent conurbations/large towns, medium towns/suburban and small town/rural areas, and to includeschools with a high proportion of children of ethnicorigins, inviting them to participate in the attitude survey.It was suggested to the schools that the questionnaireswere administered within PSE lessons. Of those willing toparticipate, seven schools were initially selected. The self-completion questionnaires were sent to each of theseschools in early January 2002, and schools were asked toarrange for the questionnaire to be completed by 90 pupilsin each of Year 7 (11-12 year olds), Year 9 (13-14 yearolds) and Year 11 (15-16 year olds). Instructions forteachers administering the questionnaires were also sent tothe schools with the questionnaires. The schools wereasked to return the completed questionnaires by midFebruary. However, the response from these schools wasvery poor (with 2 of the schools failing to return anyquestionnaires), and further schools were contacted, againby letter, in June 2002. A copy of the questionnaire wasincluded with the letters sent in June 2002. Of thosereplying a further 7 schools were selected, andquestionnaires were sent to them in September, to bereturned by the half-term break in October 2002.

The number of questionnaires returned to TRL is givenin Table 3.1, shown by location and year group. In total2411 questionnaires were returned from 12 schools, butnot all were fully completed (hence numbers by year donot always add up to the total number of returnedquestionnaires – missing data also accounts for subsequenttables not totalling correctly).

school were Asian, and a further 8 percent were White/Asian in Birmingham. Of the remaining schools, Readingand Wellingborough returned the highest percentage ofquestionnaires from non-white pupils (25 percent). Thesecame from Black, Asian and mixed White/Black pupils.

Generally, the questionnaires were not completed to astandard that might be expected from adult self-completionquestionnaires. Many questions were not answered,particularly those towards the end of the questionnaire, andthe skips were often not followed correctly. The latterproblem was rectified in the analysis of the data. Themissing responses account for inconsistencies in totals/sample sizes in the tables given in the following sections,and for responses not totalling 100 percent when theywould be expected to do so.

3.2 Exposure: journeys on foot and by bike

3.2.1 The journey to schoolTables 3.3 to 3.9 show details of journeys to school.

Table 3.3 shows that just over one-third of pupils neverwalked or cycled to school in the mornings, but slightlyover half usually walked or cycled at least three days aweek. There was little difference between younger andolder pupils in these respects. However, the number ofchildren walking to school varied with the size of the townin which the school was located (Table 3.4), withconsiderably more children walking to school in the largertowns (p<0.001, Chi-square). There was little differencebetween males and females in the frequency of walking toschool. Slightly more of the non-white children walked toschool, with 60 percent walking 3 to 5 days a week,compared with 53 percent of the white children, but thedifference was not statistically significant, and might havebeen because the non-white children were predominantlyfrom the larger towns. Indeed, there was no statisticallysignificant difference between the frequency of walking/cycling for white and non-white children when only thosechildren from the large towns were considered.

Tables 3.5a and 3.5b show the accompaniment ofchildren on their walk or cycle to school in the morning.Slightly more older children walked/cycled on their ownthan younger children (p<0.001, Chi-square), whileslightly more younger children walked /cycled with anadult (p<0.01, Chi-square). For all age groups about 78

Table 3.1 Number of returned questionnaires by schoolyear

Number of returnedquestionnaires

Year Year YearLocation Type of area 7 9 11 Total

Birmingham Conurbation/large town 88 61 76 226Leicester Conurbation/large town 46 160 22 228Reading Conurbation/large town 67 20 60 147Tuffley, Gloucester Medium town/suburban 92 84 75 252Darlington Medium town/suburban 61 71 0 132Gosport Medium town/suburban 86 99 82 267Chelmsford 1 Medium town/suburban 90 90 34 216Chelmsford 2 Medium town/suburban 86 88 86 262Christchurch Medium town/suburban 56 72 0 128Tiverton Small town/rural 66 19 19 104Compton, Newbury Small town/ rural 62 86 57 205Wellingborough Small town/rural 83 71 90 244

Total 883 920 601 2411

Table 3.2 shows the sex and ethnicity of the questionnairerespondents.

Most of the non-white children were from theBirmingham and Leicester schools where 97 percent and 93percent of children were non-white. Of these, 80 percent atthe Birmingham school, and 82 percent at the Leicester

Table 3.2 Sex and ethnicity of respondents returningquestionnaires

Percent of respondents

SexMale 51Female 49

EthnicityWhite 68Black 3Asian 17Mixed White/Black 3Mixed White/Asian 2Other/no answer 7

9

Table 3.5b Accompaniment (for any part of the journey) when walking / riding to school by age and sex

Year 7 Year 9 Year 11 All respondents

Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female

On own 118 (42%) 88 (34%) 152 (53%) 133 (49%) 119 (64%) 99 (54%) 389 (51%) 320 (45%)With an adult 19 (7%) 27 (10%) 7 (2%) 12 (4%) 4 (2%) 4 (2%) 30 (4%) 43 (6%)With brothers or sisters 67 (24%) 57 (22%) 38 (13%) 49 (18%) 24 (13%) 50 (27%) 129 (17%) 156 (22%)With friends 218 (77%) 204 (79%) 224 (85%) 225 (82%) 133 (71%) 152 (82%) 575 (76%) 581 (81%)

Sample size (Those walking or cycling) 283 259 288 273 187 185 758 717

Totals add up to more than 100% as may walk with brothers and sisters and friends, and/or may walk part of journey alone and part with friends etc

Table 3.4 Frequency of walking or riding a bike toschool by size of town

Conurbation/ Medium Smalllarge town/ town/town suburban rural

Never 151 (26%) 424 (34%) 254 (47%)Less than once a week 30 (5%) 67 (5%) 28 (5%)1-2 days a week 32 (5 %) 51 (4%) 18 (3%)3-5 days a week 379 (64%) 704 (56%) 239 (44%)

Sample size 592 1248 539

Table 3.3 Frequency of walking or riding a bike to school by age


Never 299 (35%) 310 (34%) 216 (36%) 828 (35%)Less than once a week 52 (6%) 53 (6%) 20 (3%) 125 (5%)1-2 days a week 47 (5%) 36 (4%) 18 (3%) 101 (4%)3-5 days a week 469 (54%) 508 (56%) 341 (57%) 1318 (56%)

Sample size 867 908 597 2372

Table 3.5a Accompaniment (for any part of the journey) when walking or riding to school


On own 219 (39%) 308 (52%) 224 (59%) 751 (49%)With an adult 46 (8%) 19 (3%) 9 (2%) 74 (5%)With brothers or sisters 128 (22%) 93 (16%) 75 (20%) 296 (19%)With friends 438 (77%) 474 (79%) 291 (76%) 1203 (78%)

Sample size (Those walking or cycling) 568 597 379 1544


percent of those who walked/cycled to school did so for atleast part of the journey with friends. There were nostatistically significant differences between girls and boysin their accompaniment on their journey to school, butgirls were slightly less likely to walk on their own thanboys (45 percent compared to 51 percent for all agegroups) and more likely to walk with friends (81 percentc.f 76 percent for all age groups). Non-white children weremore likely to walk with an adult than white children (8percent c.f. 4 percent, p<0.001 Chi-square). Those fromlarger towns were slightly more likely to walk on theirown than those from smaller towns (54 percent c.f. 46percent), and those from smaller towns were more likely towalk with friends (81 percent c.f. 73 percent from mediumand large towns).

Tables 3.6 and 3.7 show the number of friends metduring the walk/cycle to school. The questionnaire invitedrespondents to give a range if they wished, and manychose to do so, indicating that the number of friendsaccompanying children to school might vary from day today, or along the journey as friends are ‘picked up’ on theway to school. The ranges given varied considerably (e.g.5-6, and 5-15). The maximum number of friends met upwith was 20. For the purpose of the analyses an averagefigure for group size was taken where a range was given.The number of friends met up with on the journey toschool showed wide variation, but little difference acrossthe different age groups, as shown in Table 3.6. Most metup with between 1 and 4 friends. Older children and girlswere more likely to walk/cycle with just one friend than

10

younger children/boys, but the overall distributions of thenumber of friends met up with by these groups did notdiffer statistically. White children were more likely to meetup with just one friend than non-white children (Chi-square, p<0.001). There was little difference in the numberof friends with which the pupils walked/cycled to schoolwith respect to the size of the town in which the schoolwas located.

Table 3.8 shows the sex of friends met on the way toschool while walking or cycling. Most met up with friendof the same sex. A substantial proportion of the children(about a quarter) met up with others of both sexes. Slightlymore of the non-white children (78 percent) met up withothers of the same sex than white children (72 percent),and fewer non-white met in mixed groups (18 percent c.f.25 percent for non-whites), although differences were notstatistically significant.

Table 3.9 shows the age of friends met up with on theway to school. Unsurprisingly, most said they met up withpupils of the same age as themselves. Younger pupils weremore likely to be accompanied by pupils in school yearsabove them than older pupils, while older pupils weremore likely to be accompanied by pupils younger thanthey were. This again is unsurprising since Year 7 pupilswere the youngest attending the schools in the survey, andYear 11 were generally the oldest. There were nodifferences between males and females in the age offriends met up with on the way to school, nor were theredifferences between white and non-white children.

3.2.2 The journey home from schoolTables 3.10 to 3.16 show details of journeys home fromschool.

Table 3.10 shows the frequency of walking/cyclinghome from school is very similar for that for the journey toschool in the morning for each age group, with over halfusually walking/cycling for 3 to 5 days a week, and aroundone-third never walking/cycling. As with journeys toschool, the numbers walking or cycling home from schoolvaried with the size of the town in which the school waslocated (Table 3.11), with more walking/ cycling in thelarger towns (p<0.001, Chi-square). There was littledifference between girls and boys in the frequency ofwalking home from school, but non-white children were

Table 3.7 Number of friends met up with when walkingor riding to school

Number offriends met Male Female White Non-white

1 82 (15%) 113 (19%) 150 (19%) 38 (12%)2 171 (31%) 159 (27%) 235 (30%) 89 (28%)3 136 (25%) 142 (24%) 188 (24%) 84 (26%)4 81 (15%) 75 (13%) 110 (14%) 43 (14%)5 31 (6%) 43 (7%) 52 (6%) 23 (7%)6-7 33 (6%) 31 (5%) 38 (5%) 26 (8%)8-10 9 (2%) 6 (1%) 5 (0.6%) 10 (3%)11-15 1 (0.2%) 7 (1%) 5 (0.65) 3 (1%)16-20 2 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0%) 2 (1%)

Sample size 546 580 784 318(Those meeting friends)

Table 3.8 Sex of friends usually met up with on way to school

Year 7 Year 9 Year 11

Sex of respondent Sex of respondent Sex of respondent

Friends met up with Male Female Male Female Male Female

All male 165 (72%) 4 (2%) 183 (80%) 4 (2%) 92 (67%) 11 (7%)All female 4 (2%) 153 (74%) 3 (1%) 170 (73%) 6 (4%) 106 (70%)Some males some females 58 (25%) 49 (24%) 41 (18%) 57 (25%) 39 (29%) 35 (23%)

Sample size (Those meeting friends) 228 206 229 232 137 152

Table 3.9: Age of friends met up with on way to school


Same school year 407 (93%) 443 (93%) 265 (91%)School year above 147 (34%) 110 (23%) 32 (11%)School year below 37 (8%) 106 (22) 75 (26%)

Sample size (Those meeting friends) 438 464 291

Totals add up to more than 100% as more than one response could begiven.

Table 3.6 Number of friends met up with when walkingor riding to school

Number of Allfriends met Year 7 Year 9 Year 11 respondents

1 65 (15%) 79 (17%) 59 (21%) 203 (17%)2 131 (31%) 129 (28%) 77 (27%) 340 (29%)3 102 (23%) 117 (25%) 66 (23%) 285 (24%)4 60 (14%) 65 (14%) 40 (14%) 165 (14%)5 37 (8%) 24 (5%) 20 (7%) 81 (7%)6-7 24 (6%) 34 (7%) 10 (4%) 68 (6%)8-10 5 (1%) 7 (2%) 5 (2%) 17 (1%)11-15 2 (0.5%) 2 (0.5%) 4 (1%) 8 (0.6%)16-20 1 (0.2%) 2 (0.5%) 0 (0%) 3 (0.2%)


Table 3.10 Frequency of walking or riding a bike homefrom school

AllYear 7 Year 9 Year 11 respondents

Never 271 (32%) 270 (30%) 196 (33%) 738 (32%)Less than once a week 49 (6%) 52 (6%) 24 (4%) 125 (5%)1-2 days a week 45 (5%) 46 (5%) 25 (4%) 117 (5%)3-5 days a week 478 (56%) 517 (58%) 342 (58%) 1337 (57%)

Sample size 843 885 587 2315

11

more likely to walk home than whites children, with 62percent walking 3 to 5 days a week compared with 55percent of white children. Twenty-six percent of non-whitechildren never walked home compared to 34 percent ofwhite children. Again this may be due to the majority ofnon-white children attending school in the larger towns.

Tables 3.12a and 3.12b show that the accompanimentfor children on the way home from school is very similarto that on the way to school in the morning (Table 3.5).The older children were more likely to walk on their own(Chi-square, p<0.001), and less likely to walk with anadult (Chi-square, p<0.001), and more likely to walk withfriends (Chi-square, p<0.001). There was little differencein accompaniment on the way home from school with sizeof town, sex or ethnicity.

Table 3.13 shows number of friends met up with on theway home from school. Again ranges were given by therespondents, and average values used in the analyses. Groupsizes on the way home from school were generally similar tothose on the way to school (Table 3.6), although themaximum group size cited on the way home was 30compared to 20 on the way to school. There was little

Table 3.11 Frequency of walking or riding a bike homefrom school by size of town


Never 127 (22%) 387 (32%) 225 (43%)Less than once a week 32 (5%) 68 (6%) 25 (5%)1-2 days a week 36 (6%) 62 (5%) 19 (4%)3-5 days a week 394 (67%) 692 (56%) 254 (48%)


Table 3.12a Accompaniment (for any part of the journey)when walking or riding home from school



Sample size 572 615 404 1579(Those walking or cycling)

Totals add up to more than 100% as may walk with brothers and sisters andfriends, and/or may walk part of journey alone and part with friends etc.

Table 3.12b Accompaniment (for any part of the journey) when walking / riding home from school by age and sex






Table 3.13 Number of friends met up with whenwalking or riding home from school

Number of Allfriends met Year 7 Year 9 Year 11 respondents

1 57 (14%) 70 (14%) 59 (19%) 186 (15%)2 138 (33%) 125 (25%) 76 (24%) 339 (28%)3 90 (22%) 126 (26%) 80 (25%) 296 (24%)4 54 (13%) 57 (12%) 40 (13%) 151 (12%)5 32 (8%) 51 (10%) 30 (10%) 113 (9%)6-7 29 (7%) 35 (7%) 17 (5%) 81 (7%)8-10 8 (2%) 18 (4%) 13 (4%) 39 (3%)11-15 2 (0.5%) 10 (2%) 0 (0%) 12 (1%)16-20 0 (0%) 1 (0.2%) 1 (0.3%) 2 (0.2%)21-30 0 (0%) 1 (0.2%) 1 (0.3%) 2 (0.2%)


Table 3.14 Number of friends met up with whenwalking or riding home from school


1 85 (14%) 95 (16%) 138 (17%) 34 (10%)2 176 (30%) 152 (26%) 246 (30%) 76 (22%)3 135 (23%) 152 (26%) 202 (25%) 78 (23%)4 79 (13%) 67 (11%) 93 (12%) 47 (14%)5 44 (7%) 63 (11%) 50 (6%) 54 (16%)6-7 45 (8%) 32 (6%) 49 (6%) 26 (8 %)8-10 21 (4%) 16 (3%) 15 (2%) 22 (6%)11-15 6 (1%) 6 (1%) 6 (0.6%) 4 (1%)16-20 0 (0%) 2 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.6%)21-30 2 (0.4%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.1%) 1 (0.3%)


variation in group size with size of town, between boys andgirls, but white children tended to meet up in smaller groupsthan non-white children (Table 3.14), the difference beingstatistically significant at p<0.001 (Chi-square).

Table 3.15 shows the sex of the friends that therespondents met up with on the way home from school.The pattern was very similar to that on the way to school(Table 3.8), but Year 9 and Year 11 girls were more likelyto meet up with a mixed group than all female group onthe way home from school than when going to school inthe mornings. Slightly more of the non-white children (74percent) met up with others of the same sex than whitechildren (63 percent), and fewer non-white met in mixedgroups (23 percent c.f. 32 percent for non-white children).

12

This ethnicity effect is slightly stronger for journeys homefrom school than for journeys to school.

Table 3.16 shows the age of friends met up with on theway home from school to be similar to that for the journey toschool in the morning. There was little difference between thesexes in the age of friends met up with on the way home fromschool, or between white and non-white children.

(Chi-square)). The distribution of evening/weekend tripfrequency also varied with ethnicity, with non-whitechildren less likely to go out 1 or 2 days a week than whitechildren (16 percent c.f. 21 percent), and correspondinglymore likely to go out less than once a week or more thantwice a week.

Tables 3.19a and 3.19b show that that numbers goingout on their own walking or cycling in the evenings orweekends to be not dissimilar, but generally slightly lowerthan numbers either walking/cycling to or from school ontheir own (Tables 3.5 and 3.12). Similarly numbers goingout on foot/cycling with friends in the evenings orweekends were similar, but slightly higher than thosegoing home from school with friends. However, more ofthe children were accompanied walking or cycling byadults and by brothers and sisters in the evenings andweekends than on the journeys to or from school. Therewere wide variations in accompaniment by the size oftown in which the school was located (see Table 3.20),with those in large towns going out more on their own,with an adult, or with siblings, and those from medium/

Table 3.17 Frequency of walking or riding a bike in theevenings or weekends


Never 47 (5%) 43 (5%) 25 (4%) 115 (5%)Less than once a week 82 (9%) 66 (7%) 48 (8%) 196 (8%)1-2 days a week 187 (22%) 168 (19%) 110 (18%) 466 (20%)3-5 days a week 259 (30%) 271 (30%) 181 (30%) 711 (30%)6-7 days a week 288 (33%) 360 (40%) 233 (39%) 882 (37%)

Sample size 863 908 597 2370

Table 3.18 Frequency of walking or riding a bike in theevenings or weekends by size of town


Never 40 (7%) 47 (4%) 29 (5%)Less than once a week 48 (8%) 89 (7%) 59 (11%)1-2 days a week 101 (17%) 237 (19%) 129 (24%)3-5 days a week 178 (30%) 378 (30%) 157 (29%)6-7 days a week 223 (38%) 489 (39%) 171 (31%)


Table 3.19a Accompaniment (for any part of thejourney) when walking or riding in theevenings or weekends by age



Sample size 816 865 572 2255(Those walking or cycling)


3.2.3 Evenings and weekendsTables 3.17 to 3.24 give details of journeys in the eveningsor at weekends.

Table 3.17 shows that almost all of those completing thequestionnaire went out on foot or on a bike at leastoccasionally in the evenings or at weekends, with abouttwo-thirds going out at least 3 days a week. The olderchildren tended to go out more often (6 or 7 days a week)on foot/cycling in the evenings or at weekends than theyounger children. The variations in the frequency of goingout at the weekends by the size of the town was much lessmarked than variations for the journeys to and fromschool, although the children attending schools in thesmaller towns tended to go out slightly less often(p<0.005, Chi-square - see Table 3.18). Boys were alsomore likely to go out 6 or 7 days a week in the evening orweekends (39 percent c.f. 34 percent for girls, p< 0.05

Table 3.16 Age of friends met up with on way homefrom school


Same school year 396 (92%) 472 (94%) 303 (92%)School year above 153 (35%) 107 (21%) 35 (11%)School year below 33 (8%) 101 (20%) 95 (29%)

Sample size (Those meeting friends) 431 503 329

Totals add up to more than 100% as more than one response could be given.

Table 3.15 Sex of friends usually met up with on way home from school





Sample size (Those meeting friends) 228 197 247 238 158 168

13

Table 3.19b Accompaniment (for any part of the journey) walking / riding in the evenings or weekends by age and sex





Totals add up to more than 100% as may walk with brothers and sisters and friends, and/or may walk part of journey alone and part with friends etc.

Table 3.20 Accompaniment (for any part of thejourney) when walking or riding in theevenings or weekends by size of town


On own 268 (49%) 449 (38%) 217 (42%)With an adult 223 (40%) 298 (25%) 163 (31%)With brothers or sisters 256 (46%) 341 (28%) 192 (37%)With friends 397 (72%) 1069 (90%) 428 (80%)

Sample size (Those 550 1193 516walking or cycling)


Table 3.21 Number of friends met up with when walking or riding in the evenings or weekends

Number of friends met Year 7 Year 9 Year 11 All respondents

1 28 (5%) 24 (4%) 13 (3%) 65 (4%)2 142 (23%) 101 (14%) 63 (13%) 306 (17%)3 148 (24%) 154 (22%) 66 (14%) 368 (20%)4 97 (16%) 111 (16%) 76 (16%) 284 (16%)5 72 (12%) 75 (11%) 74 (15%) 222 (12%)6-7 77 (12%) 115 (16%) 81 (17%) 273 (15%)8-10 34 (6%) 71 (10%) 63 (13%) 169 (9%)11-15 14 (2%) 30 (4%) 29 (6%) 73 (4%)16-20 5 (1%) 11 (2%) 10 (2%) 26 (2%)21-30 0 (0%) 9 (1%) 9 (2%) 18 (1%)>30 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 3 (1%) 3 (0.2%)

Sample size (Those meeting friends) 620 704 487 1813

smaller towns going out more with friends. The girls weremore likely to be accompanied by an adult than the boys(40 percent c.f. 21 percent), and they were more likelythan boys to be accompanied by brothers and sisters (42percent c.f. 29 percent) (Chi-square, p<0.001). Non-whitechildren were more likely to be accompanied by an adult(37 percent c.f. 28 percent for white children (p<0.001,Chi-square)), were also more likely to be accompanied bysiblings (44 percent c.f. 32 percent for white children(p<0.001, Chi-square)), and less likely to be accompaniedby friends (73 percent c.f. 88 percent for white children(p<0.001, Chi-square)).

Table 3.21 shows that the number of friends met up withwhen out walking or cycling in the evenings and weekendswas generally greater than for either the journey to school orhome from school (Tables 3.6 and 3.13). Year 9 and Year11 pupils in particular tended to meet in larger groups inthe evenings and weekends with 60 to 70 percent of those

who met friends meeting up with at least 4 friends.Differences between the distributions of the number offriends met up with for the different age groups wasstatistically significant at p<0.001 (Chi-square). Therewere no statistically significant differences in thedistribution of numbers of friends met, either by gender orethnicity, and there was no systematic variation in thenumber of friends met up with by the size of the town inwhich the school was located.

Table 3.22 Number of friends met up with when walkingor riding in the evenings or weekends


1 31 (4%) 33 (5%) 48 (4%) 15 (4%)2 140 (16%) 157 (18%) 239 (18%) 54 (14%)3 163 (18%) 191 (22%) 284 (21%) 67 (18%)4 141 (16%) 136 (16%) 200 (15%) 73 (19%)5 118 (13%) 85 (11%) 158 (12%) 48 (13%)6-7 148 (17%) 114 (13%) 193 (15%) 61 (16%)8-10 93 (10%) 68 (8%) 115 (8%) 41 (11%)11-15 36 (4%) 34 (4%) 54 (4%) 12 (3%)16-20 16 (2%) 8 (1%) 18 (2%) 5 (2%)21-30 3 (0.5%) 14 (1.5%) 17 (2%) 0 (0%)>30 2 (0.2%) 1 (0.1%) 0 (0%) 2 (0.5%)


Table 3.23 shows that groups of friends met up withwhen walking or cycling in the evenings or weekends weremore likely to be a mix of both boys and girls than on thejourneys to and from school (Tables 3.8 and 3.15). Olderchildren, particularly girls, were more likely to meet upwith both sexes. This could mean they met in mixed sex

14

groups, and/or they sometimes met up with others of theopposite sex and sometimes with others of the same sex.White children were more likely to meet up with both sexesthan non-white children (51 percent c.f. 26 percent for boys,and 64 c.f. 38 percent for girls (p<0.001, Chi-square)).

Table 3.24 shows that friends met up with in the eveningsand weekends, although predominantly the same age as the

Table 3.24 Age of friends met up with in evenings orweekends


Same school year 567 (87%) 647 (88%) 453 (89%)School year above 288 (44%) 324 (44%) 217 (43%)School year below 190 (29%) 237 (32%) 173 (34%)

Sample size (Those meeting 651 732 506friends)

Totals add up to more than 100% as more than one response could be given.

Table 3.25 Frequency of behaviours when alone and with friends

Mean frequency rating*

‘On your ‘With your Statisticalown’ friends’ significance

a. Forget to look properly when crossing a road 1.92 2.01 0.000***

b. Run across a road without looking 1.56 1.74 0.000***

c. See a small gap in the traffic and ‘go for it’ when crossing a road 2.14 2.14 1.000

d. Cross at a pedestrian crossing without waiting for a green man 2.07 2.15 0.000***

e. Cross a road less than an hour after drinking alcohol 1.48 1.54 0.000***

f. Not bother walking to a nearby crossing to cross a road 2.23 2.25 0.243

g. Check to make sure the traffic has completely stopped before using a pedestrian crossing 2.66 2.52 0.000***

h. Cross a road between parked cars when there is a safer place to cross nearby 2.12 2.16 0.010**

i. Think you have enough time to cross a road safely, but a car is coming faster than you thought 1.82 1.94 0.000***

j. Look both ways when crossing a road 3.18 2.94 0.000***

k. Keep looking and listening until you are all the way across a road 2.62 2.53 0.000***

l. Make traffic slow down to let you cross a road 2.08 2.09 0.601

m. Get half way across the road then have to either run the rest of the way, or turn back to avoid traffic 2.07 2.09 0.489

n. Walk in the road rather than on the pavement 1.63 1.75 0.000***

o. Climb over barriers that separate the road from the pavement when crossing roads 1.51 1.61 0.000***

p. Hold on to a moving vehicle when on a bike (or skateboard or roller-skates/roller blades) 1.27 1.33 0.000***

q. Ride out into the road on a bike (or skateboard or roller-skates/roller blades) 1.52 1.55 0.020

r. Play chicken by deliberately running out in front of traffic 1.28 1.36 0.000***

s. Cross a road at a place where you can’t see both ways very well 1.92 1.96 0.000***

* Mean value on scale scored Never=1, Sometimes=2, Quite often=3 and Nearly all the time=4.

** Statistically significant at p=0.01 or less (t-test).

*** Statistically significant at p=0.001 or less (t-test).

respondent, were far more likely to include both older andyounger friends than on either the journey to or from school(Tables 3.9 and 3.16). There was little difference betweenthe different age groups, or with gender. However, non-white children were more likely to meet up with childrenolder than themselves (52 percent c.f. 43 percent).

3.3 Behaviour when alone and in groups

The questionnaire presented a series of statements onpossible behaviours related to road safety near to orcrossing a road, and asked the respondent to state howoften he or she did these things when alone and how oftenhe/she did them when with friends. The frequency wasrated by the respondents selecting from the categories‘Never’, ‘Sometimes’, Quite often’ or ‘Nearly all thetime’. The statements and mean frequency ratings aregiven in Table 3.25. (The higher the rating the morefrequently the behaviour is undertaken).

Table 3.23 Sex of friends usually met up with in the evenings or weekends





Sample size 378 327 383 374 255 260

15

Table 3.25 shows that the frequency of undertakingmany of the behaviours listed differed significantly whenalone and when with friends, the difference always beingsuch that the unsafe behaviour was said to be undertakenmore frequently when with friends, or the safe behaviourundertaken more frequently when alone. The greatestdifference between behaviour when alone and with friendswas for ‘look both way when crossing a road’, with morerespondents claiming they did this more often when alone.The frequency of saying that they ran across the roadwithout looking was considerably higher for therespondents when with friends.

Table 3.26 shows the difference in frequency ofbehaviours when alone and with friends for different agegroups, with only those behaviours which alone/with friendsdifferences in frequency were statistically different atp=0.005 or less being listed in the Table. The Table showsthat Year 9 pupils are likely to undertake the most unsafebehaviours more frequently when with friends than eitherthe younger or older pupils. Year 7 pupils were the leastlikely to undertake unsafe behaviours more frequently whenwith friends than the other years. The difference in numberof pupils undertaking the unsafe behaviours more frequentlywhen with friends was also generally greater for the Year 9and Year 11 pupils than for the younger pupils (i.e. thedifference in mean frequency ratings was generally largerfor the older pupils) suggesting the group influence isstronger for the older pupils.

Table 3.27 shows the frequency of performingbehaviours when alone and when in groups separately formale and for female respondents. Again only thosebehaviours where there was a statistically significantdifference between the frequency when alone and when ina group are shown in the Table. There was little difference

between boys and girls in the number of behaviours forwhich there was a significant difference between alone orwith friends. Nor did the alone/with friends differences infrequencies differ between the sexes.

Table 3.28 shows the frequency of performing thevarious behaviours alone and when with friends whogenerally walk/cycle for white and non-white children.Again Table 3.28 shows frequencies for only thosebehaviours which showed a statistically significantdifference (p=0.005 or less) in the frequency when aloneand when with friends. It can be seen that white childrenthought they performed many of the unsafe behavioursmore often when with friends than when alone, than didnon-white children.

Table 3.29 shows the frequency of performing thevarious behaviours alone and when in a group forrespondents who generally walk/cycle in various groupsizes. The group size was based on the number of friendsthe respondent said he/she walked/cycled with on the wayhome from school. Again Table 3.29 shows frequenciesfor only those behaviours which showed a statisticallysignificant difference (p=0.005 or less) in the frequencywhen alone and when with friends.

The number of unsafe behaviours undertaken more oftenwith friends was greatest for those walking/cycling with 1 to2 friends, and decreased as the group size increased. Thedifference between when alone and when with friends wasparticularly high for ‘Look both ways when crossing a road’for those who walked/cycled with 1 to 2 friends. Similarly itwas high for ‘Run across the road without looking’ for thosewho walked with 5 or more friends.

Table 3.30 shows the frequency of performing thevarious behaviours alone and when in a group forrespondents who generally walk/cycle in the different size

Table 3.26 Frequency of behaviours all of which differ significantly** when alone and with friends for different agegroups



On With On With On Withown friends own friends own friends

a. Forget to look properly when crossing a road 1.99 2.08 1.91 2.08

b. Run across a road without looking 1.46 1.61 1.61 1.83 1.59 1.80

d. Cross at a pedestrian crossing without waiting for a green man 1.82 1.93

e. Cross a road less than an hour after drinking alcohol 1.45 1.53

g. Check to make sure the traffic has completely stopped before using a pedestrian crossing 2.81 2.67 2.56 2.44 2.57 2.44

i. Think you have enough time to cross a road safely, but a car is coming faster than you thought 1.64 1.74 1.93 2.04 1.95 2.08

j. Look both ways when crossing a road 3.31 3.10 3.07 2.81 3.16 2.89

k. Keep looking and listening until you are all the way across a road 2.50 2.39 2.55 2.45

n. Walk in the road rather than on the pavement 1.53 1.61 1.68 1.78 1.69 1.91

o. Climb over barriers that separate the road from the pavement when crossing roads 1.35 1.42 1.59 1.70 1.64 1.74

p. Hold on to a moving vehicle when on a bike (or skateboard or roller-skates/roller blades) 1.26 1.36 1.32 1.40

r. Play chicken by deliberately running out in front of traffic 1.20 1.27 1.34 1.43 1.29 1.43

s. Cross a road at a place where you can’t see both ways very well 1.96 2.03

* Mean value on scale scored Never=1, Sometimes=2, Quite often=3 and Nearly all the time=4.** Statistically significant at p=0.005 or less (t-test).

16

Table 3.27 Frequency of behaviours all of which differ significantly** when alone and with friends for males andfemales


Males Females

On With On Withown friends own friends


b. Run across a road without looking 1.61 1.78 1.48 1.68


e. Cross a road less than an hour after drinking alcohol 1.50 1.57 1.43 1.50

g. Check to make sure the traffic has completely stopped before using a pedestrian crossing 2.63 2.52 2.69 2.52

i. Think you have enough time to cross a road safely, but a car is coming faster than you thought 1.86 1.97 1.78 1.90

j. Look both ways when crossing a road 3.12 2.89 3.26 3.00

k. Keep looking and listening until you are all the way across a road 2.57 2.49 2.68 2.57

n. Walk in the road rather than on the pavement 1.66 1.80 1.57 1.69

o. Climb over barriers that separate the road from the pavement when crossing roads 1.63 1.74 1.37 1.45


r. Play chicken by deliberately running out in front of traffic 1.36 1.46 1.17 1.25



Table 3.28 Frequency of behaviours all of which differ significantly** when alone and with friends for white andnon-white children


White Non-white

On With On Withown friends own friends

a. Forget to look properly when crossing a road 1.92 2.04

b. Run across a road without looking 1.53 1.73 1.54 1.69


e. Cross a road less than an hour after drinking alcohol 1.51 1.58

g. Check to make sure the traffic has completely stopped before using a pedestrian crossing 2.66 2.52

h. Cross a road between parked cars when there is a safer place to cross nearby 2.04 2.12

i. Think you have enough time to cross a road safely, but a car is coming faster than you thought 1.80 1.95

j. Look both ways when crossing a road 3.20 2.93 3.20 3.00

k. Keep looking and listening until you are all the way across a road 2.59 2.48


o. Climb over barriers that separate the road from the pavement when crossing roads 1.48 1.58

p. Hold on to a moving vehicle when on a bike (or skateboard or roller-skates/roller blades) 1.22 1.29

q. Ride out into the road on a bike (or skateboard or roller skates/roller blades) 1.48 1.53




17

Table 3.29 Frequency of behaviours all of which differ significantly** when alone and with friends by group size***


Walk/cyclesWalk/cycles Walk/cycles with 5 or

with 1-2 friends with 3-4 friends more friends





g. Check to make sure the traffic has completely stopped before using a pedestrian crossing 2.65 2.47

i. Think you have enough time to cross a road safely, but a car is coming faster than you thought 1.83 1.94




o. Climb over barriers that separate the road from the pavement when crossing roads 1.50 1.59

p. Hold on to a moving vehicle when on a bike (or skateboard or roller-skates/roller blades) 1.19 1.29

r. Play chicken by deliberately running out in front of traffic 1.26 1.32 1.32 1.40 1.37 1.52



*** On the way home from school.

Table 3.30 Frequency of behaviours all of which differ significantly** when alone and with friends by size of town


Conurbation/ Medium town/ Small town/large town suburban rural





e. Cross a road less than an hour after drinking alcohol 1.54 1.61 1.55 1.63

g. Check to make sure the traffic has completely stopped before using a pedestrian crossing 2.66 2.52 2.68 2.55 2.61 2.48

h. Cross a road between parked cars when there is a safer place to cross nearby 2.05 2.13

i. Think you have enough time to cross a road safely, but a car is coming faster than you thought 1.87 1.98 1.75 1.92




o. Climb over barriers that separate the road from the pavement when crossing roads 1.47 1.56 1.55 1.64 1.49 1.57



s. Cross a road at a place where you can’t see both ways very well 1.74 1.82



18

towns as classified in Table 3.1. The group size was basedon the number of friends the respondent said he/shewalked/cycled with on the way home from school. AgainTable 3.30 shows frequencies for only those behaviourswhich showed a statistically significant difference(p=0.005 or less) in the frequency when alone and whenwith friends. The difference in behaviour when alone andwith friends is greatest for the medium size towns andsmallest for the conurbations/large towns. There is apossibility that the finding of the lower number ofsignificant differences for alone/with friends could beconfounded with ethnicity, since the schools with a largenumber of non-white pupils were in the large towns.However, when the analysis was repeated for white pupilsonly a similar pattern of significant differences was found.

3.4 Beliefs and opinions

The questionnaire asked a series of questions on therespondents’ beliefs about how safe they were out aroundroads when on their own and when with friends. First theywere asked how ‘risky’ their behaviour was, and they wereasked to give a rating on a 4-point scale from ‘Not at all risky’to ‘Very risky’. The responses are given in Table 3.31 foropinions on behaviour when alone and when with friends.Responses are given for all respondents, and separately forthe different ages, sexes, group size, ethnicity and size of thetown in which the school was located.

Respondents rated their behaviour as more risky whenwith friends, and this was so irrespective of age, gender,group size, ethnicity or size of town, all differences beingstatistically significant at p=0.005 or less. Behaviour whenwith friends was considered slightly more risky by Year 9pupils, males, and those who walked/cycled with 3 ormore friends.

Table 3.32 shows opinions on attention paid to trafficwhen alone and with friends. Respondents were asked togive ratings on a three-point scale from ‘No attention atall’ to ‘A lot of attention’. Again results are shown for thetotal sample, and for different ages, gender, group size,ethnicity and size of town.

Table 3.32 Ratings of attention paid to traffic when aloneand with friends

Mean rating of attention to trafficwhen out around roads*

On your own With friends

Total sample 2.48 2.21**

AgeYear 7 2.56 2.31**Year 9 2.42 2.14**Year 11 2.45 2.18**

SexMale 2.45 2.18**Female 2.53 2.26**

Group size***Never walks/cycles with friends 2.64 2.23Walks/cycles with 1 to 2 friends 2.51 2.26**Walks/cycles with 3 to 4 friends 2.48 2.21**Walks/cycles with 5 or more friends 2.40 2.15**

EthnicityWhites 2.49 2.21**Non-whites 2.48 2.24**

Size of townConurbation/large 2.50 2.23**Medium/suburban 2.47 2.21**Small/rural 2.49 2.21**

* Mean value on scale scored No attention at all=1, Someattention=2, A lot of attention=3

** Difference on own/with friends statistically significant atp=0.005 or less (t-test)

*** Group size on way home from school

In all cases mean ratings suggest the children thoughtthey paid more attention to traffic when they were on theirown than when with friends, and the differences werestatistically significant at p=0.005 or less, except for thosechildren who never walked/cycled with friends. Those whothought their attention to traffic when with friends wasparticularly low were Year 9 and 11 pupils, males, andthose who walked/cycled with 5 or more friends, and non-white children.

The questionnaire asked why pupils did things that wererisky. It asked respondents how much they wanted to dothings that were risky, first to impress friends, and thenbecause it was fun. Ratings were given on a 3 point scale

Table 3.31 Ratings of risky behaviour when alone andwith friends

Mean rating of risky behaviourwhen out around roads*




SexMale 1.80 2.20**Female 1.66 2.04**

Group size***Never walks/cycles with friends 1.86 –Walks/cycles with 1 to 2 1.74 2.10**Walks/cycles with 3 to 4 friends 1.80 2.22**Walks/cycles with 5 or more friends 1.75 2.20**

EthnicityWhites 1.72 2.12**Non-Whites 1.73 2.08**

Size of townConurbation/large 1.73 2.04**Medium/suburban 1.75 2.17**Small/rural 1.73 2.13**

* Mean value on scale scored Not at all risky=1, A little risky=2,Quite risky=3 and Very risky=4.

** Difference on own/with friends statistically significant at p=0.005or less (t-test).

*** Group size on way home from school.

19

from ‘Not a all’ to ‘Very much’. The responses are givenin Table 3.33.

Table 3.33 shows that risky behaviour was undertakenboth to impress friends and because it was fun, the tworating differing significantly for only Year 7 pupils, andfor white pupils. Overall, the wish to undertake riskybehaviour (for whatever reason) was greatest for males andthose who walked/cycled with 5 or more friends, and forYear 9 pupils. In addition, Year 7 pupils and those frommedium size towns rated highly on the wish to impressfriends, while those with 3 to 4 friends and non-whitechildren rated highly on doing things ‘because it is fun’.

3.5 Summary

1 About two-thirds of all respondents usually walked/cycled school, with more than half walking/cycling atleast three days per week. This proportion varied withthe size of the town in which the school was located,with more of the children (about three-quarters)attending schools in large towns usually walking, andabout half walking to school in the smaller towns.Almost 80 percent of those walking/cycling did so for atleast part of the way to school with friends, with thosefrom smaller towns slightly more likely to walk withfriends. Most of these met up with 1 to 4 friends.However, the responses showed the number of friends aparticular respondent might meet up could vary greatly.The older children were more likely to meet up with justone friend. Generally the respondents met with friend ofthe same sex as themselves and the same age asthemselves, but a substantial proportion (about aquarter) met up in mixed sex groups.

2 As on the journey to school, about two-thirds ofrespondents usually walked/cycled home from school,and over half walked/cycled at least three days perweek, but again this varied with the size of town, with a

Table 3.33 Ratings of why risky behaviours areperformed when out around roads

Mean rating of howmuch respondents do things that are risky*

To impress Becausefriends it is fun

Total sample 1.39 1.37

AgeYear 7 1.42 1.33**Year 9 1.41 1.42Year 11 1.32 1.35

SexMale 1.48 1.44Female 1.28 1.28

Group size***Never walks/cycles with friends 1.48 1.26Walks/cycles with 1 to 2 friends 1.37 1.34Walks/cycles with 3 to 4 friends 1.38 1.43Walks/cycles with 5 or more friends 1.46 1.48

EthnicityWhites 1.38 1.33**Non-Whites 1.37 1.43

Size of townConurbation/large 1.35 1.39Medium/suburban 1.42 1.37Small/rural 1.37 1.35

* Mean value on scale scored Not at all =1, A bit=2, Very much=3.


** Difference ‘to impress friend’/’because it is fun’ statisticallysignificant at p=0.005 or less (t-test).

Table 3.34 Ratings of chances of being involved in anaccident in the next year when alone andwith friends

Mean rating of chances of being involved in an accidentwhen out around roads*




SexMale 1.99 2.19**Female 1.79 2.07**

Group size***Never walks/cycles with friends 1.95 1.81Walks/cycles with 1 to 2 friends 1.86 2.09**Walks/cycles with 3 to 4 friends 2.03 2.24**Walks/cycles with 5 or more friends 1.89 2.19**

EthnicityWhites 1.83 2.14**Non-Whites 2.01 2.07

Size of townConurbation/large 2.00 2.07Medium/suburban 1.88 2.19**Small/rural 1.85 2.11**

* Mean value on scale scored Very low=1, Quite low=2, Neither highnor low=3, Quite high=4, and Very high=5.

** Differences on own/with friends statistically significant at p=0.005or less (t-test).


Respondents were also asked what they thought theirchances were of being involved in a road accident in the nextyear, when on their own and when with friends. They wereasked to rate their chances on a 5-point scale from ‘Very low’to ‘Very high’. The responses are given in Table 3.34.

Overall, the children thought there were more likely tohave a road accident when with friends than when alone,the difference being statistically significant (p<0.001).Those giving high ratings for their chances of having anaccident when both alone and with friends were Year 9pupils, males, and those with 3 to 4 friends. Females andYear 7 pupils gave low ratings both when alone and whenwith friends.

20

higher proportion walking/cycling in the larger towns.Again many (80 percent of those walking/cycling) metup with friends. Group sizes on the way home fromschool were similar to those on the way to school in themorning. Again most met with others of the same ageand same sex, although again the older children weremore inclined to meet in mixed sex groups on the wayhome, particularly the girls.

3 Very few (6 percent) of respondents never went out andabout walking/cycling in the evenings or at the weekend,with about two-thirds going out at least 3 days a week.There was little variation in the frequency of walking/cycling with size of town compared to the journey to/from school, although those in the smaller town went outslightly less often than those in larger towns. Whilenumbers going out on their own or with friends in theevening or at the weekend were similar to those walking/cycling to and from school, more went out walking/cycling with adults and/or brothers and sisters in theevening/at the weekend. The girls were more likely to beaccompanied by an adult or brothers and sisters than theboys. The number of friends met up with in the eveningsor at weekends was generally higher than for the journeyto and from school, with the older pupils in particularmeeting in larger groups. Groups in the evening orweekends were more likely to be mixed sexes for theolder age groups (and particularly for girls), and althoughgroups were still predominantly all of the same schoolyear, they were more likely to include older and youngerfriends in the evenings or at weekends.

4 When presented with a list of possible behaviours related toroad safety, respondents said they would perform many ofthe unsafe behaviours more frequently when with friendsthan when alone, or safe behaviours less frequently. Thegreatest difference between behaviour when alone andwhen with friends was ‘look both ways when crossing aroad’, which was said to be done more frequently whenalone. Year 9 pupils claimed to undertake the greatestnumber of unsafe behaviours more frequently when withfriends than when alone than older or younger pupils, andthe difference in frequency of undertaking the specificbehaviours when alone and when with friends wasgenerally larger for the Year 9 and Year 11 pupils,suggesting the group influence in stronger in the olderchildren. There was little difference between the sexes withrespect to undertaking unsafe behaviours when alone andwith friends. Those walking/cycling with 1 to 2 othersperformed the most unsafe behaviours more frequentlywhen with friends, and this decreased as the group sizeincreased. The difference in behaviour when alone andwhen with friends was greatest in the medium size towns.

5 Mean ratings show that respondents thought theirbehaviour to be more risky when with friends(particularly by Year 9 pupils, males and those in largergroups), and claimed to pay less attention to trafficwhen with friends (particularly Year 9 and 11 pupils,males and those who walked with 5 or more friends).Risky behaviour was said to be performed both toimpress friends and because it was fun, and was mostfrequently said to be undertaken by males, Year 9pupils, and those with 5 or more friends.

6 Mean ratings show that respondents thought they weremore likely to have a traffic accident in the next yearwhen with friends than when alone. In particular, Year 9pupils and those who walked/cycled with 3 to 4 friendsthought they were more likely to have an accident in thenext year when with friends than when alone.

4 Video surveys

4.1 Method

Video was used to observe the behaviour of adolescentchildren at or near the kerbside. The aim was to determinehow groups of different size behave, particularly whenapproaching and crossing the road. The observedbehaviour includes the choice of crossing location, thenumber of safety checks made when approaching the road,the mode of crossing (walking/running etc) and position ina group when crossing (i.e. at the front or back of thegroup), and potential distractions such as chatting tofriends, catching up with friends or eating/drinking. Theaim was also to compare behaviour in groups with that ofchildren travelling alone.

Video cameras recorded the behaviour of children ontheir way to school in the morning and leaving school in theafternoon. Locations were chosen close to 4 schools whererelatively large numbers of children crossed busy roads.They were chosen to represent small and large towns and aconurbation, a wide geographical spread and a range ofcrossing types. The video cameras were mounted onlampposts, so the view of the children crossing the road waslimited by the availability of suitably placed lampposts. Thefirst two sites (Bracknell) were used to pilot themethodology. At each of these sites one single cameraposition was used for both the morning and afternoonvideos. However, following the experience in the pilot studyit was decided that the camera should be mounted such thatthe children approached it as they crossed the road, so theirbehaviour and crossing checks could be more easilyobserved. The video locations are briefly described below,and summarised in Table 4.1, and examples of the scenesvideoed are shown in Figures 4.1 to 4.4.

Bracknell:These sites were used as a pilot, to trial the video method,coding form, and analysis method. Two crossing locationswere observed both before and after school. One locationhad a central pedestrian refuge the other had pinch points(Figure 4.1). The crossings were both on a busy roadwithin a housing estate.

Devon (a small town in a rural area)1:The main school entrance was on a fairly busy A road, buta footbridge had been provided for the children to use.There were railings along the road to prevent crossingclose to the nearby junction and directly outside the school

1 The small town has not been named for reasons of confidentiality.

21

Table 4. 1 Location of video survey sites

School location No ofchildren

Crossing Crossing Time observed/location facility of day coded

Bracknell (Medium town)Estate road Central refuge Am 53

Pm 37

Estate road Pinch points Am 52Pm 62

Devon (Small town)‘A’ road Footbridge which was not used Am 79

by children. Some safety railings.

‘A’ road Cross hatching between Pm 40pedestrian refuges

Reading (Large town)Estate road No crossing facility Am 38

Pm 15

‘A’ road No crossing conveniently Am 50placed. Pelican crossing about Pm 51150 yards from footpath toschool entrance

Birmingham (Conurbation)‘A’ road Pelican crossing Am 99

Side road No crossing facility (terracotta Am 46strip painted across junction)

Total 622

Figure 4.1 Bracknell video location – pinch points

Figure 4.2 Devon video site – refuges and cross hatching

Figure 4.3 Reading video site – ‘A’ road with no crossingfacility

Figure 4.4 Birmingham video site – pelican crossingentrance. In the afternoons the crossing was supervised bya teacher who made the children use the bridge. The roadwas videoed in the morning before school when thechildren did not use the bridge. There was also a backentrance to the school onto a footpath which led to an Aroad, and many children used this. At the footpath entrancethe road was wide, with an area of central crosshatching.The cross hatching spanned the distance between two setsof traffic islands some 50 yards apart, one to each side of

the footpath entrance. The area around this footpath entrancewas filmed both before and after school (Figure 4.2).However, in the morning the children started theircrossings over a very long length of road, and very few ofthese were caught on the video, so it was not considered

22

worthwhile to code the data. The after school video wasmore successful as many of the children started to crossthe road very near the end of the footpath.

Reading:The school entrance was on a cul-de-sac, from which thechildren walked either to a main estate road on which theschool bus stops were located, or to a main A road via afootpath (Figure 4.3). Both were videod before and afterschool. There were no crossing facilities conveniently placedfor the children to use either on the estate road or on the mainA road. On the estate road children crossed the road to walkto/from school, after being dropped or before being picked upby car, or to get from or to the school bus. At the A roadmany children crossed the road close to the footpath entranceboth before and after school, although some walked to/from apelican crossing about 150 yards from the footpath entrance.Children using this crossing could be seen in the morningvideo, although rather indistinctly. The afternoon video,which was directed at the footpath entrance did not provide aview of the pelican crossing.

Birmingham:This school had a very high proportion of pupils fromethic backgrounds. There was a pelican crossing directlyoutside the school, which was situated on a busy A road.This was supervised by teachers in the afternoons.Children were videoed using the crossing in the morningbefore school (Figure 4.4). Many children walking alongthe A road to school had to cross a number of side roads,and the children were also videoed crossing one of these,where there was a terracotta coloured strip painted on theroad across the junction. The traffic in and out of the sideroad was relatively low.

The video coding form was designed and tested at thefirst pilot site (Bracknell). After Coding the first 10children the form was redesigned to be more user friendly.Data from the pilot was coded by two coders andreliability checks were made by comparing data from eachcoder for the same 10 children on 9 key variables: age,sex, whether the child was chatting to friends, and the sixpossible safety checks before and during crossing the road.There were some differences between the coders,particularly with respect to age, whether the child waschatting, and whether the child looked before reaching thekerb. The coders differed for three of the ten children onthese variables, but overall the differences between thecoders were not statistically significant (Chi-square).Given the limitations of the availability of suitable sites forvideo cameras, and the indistinct behaviour of some of thechildren being observed, the coding was considered to beas reliable as could reasonably be expected.

For the remaining schools, additional codes were addedto the form to reflect local conditions, and in particular,behaviour at the pelican crossing.

Where there were sufficient children, and observationswere made both before and after school, data forapproximately 50 children were coded. If there were fewerthan 50 children observed on a video recording then all

were coded. If a site was filmed only in the morning orafternoon, then about 100 children were coded, or all werecoded if there were less than 100. Care was taken to ensurethat all members of any one group were coded.

4.2 Characteristics of children and composition ofgroups observed

Table 4.2 shows the percentage of children observed ateach school by age, sex, ethnicity and group size. Ageproved very difficult to judge from the videos, and thechildren have therefore been crudely categorised asyounger and older. Even so, the distribution of age groupssuggests that there was a tendency to code the children asolder than they actually were, particularly in Reading andBirmingham. It can be seen than fewer older children wereobserved at Bracknell. This is because Year 11 pupils werenot attending school during the run up to GCSEs when thepilot video was taken.

Table 4.2 Characteristics of children observed

Percentage of children observed

Birming AllBracknell Devon Reading -ham schools

Age*Younger 74 45 40 39 53Older 23 46 59 57 47

SexMale 42 48 60 43 49Female 54 51 40 57 51

EthnicityWhite 95 99 87 1 73Black/Asian 3 1 12 99 27

Group size: Number of children in group1 16 25 29 36 252 34 34 27 27 313 21 30 21 19 224 14 10 16 8 125 10 0 3 0 46 6 0 4 4 47 0 0 0 3 1Mean group size 2.9 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.5

Sample size 204 119 154 144 622

* It proved difficult to determine the age of children from the videos soonly a very crude grading has been attempted. Even this is likely to beinaccurate.

It can be seen that the Birmingham school had a large,ethnic population, while that at Reading had a small, butsignificant ethnic population. Children in Bracknell weremore likely to travel in larger groups, while those inBirmingham were more likely to travel alone. Overall, 25percent of children travelled alone.

Table 4.3 shows group size by age. It must beremembered that it was difficult to code the children byage, so the data may be inaccurate. However the figuressuggest that the older children were more likely to travel insmaller groups and more likely to travel alone thanyounger children.

23

Distribution significantly different by age (Chi-squaretest, p<0.001), and mean group size significantly differentby age (t-test, p<0.001).

Table 4.4 shows the percentage of girls and boys indifferent group sizes. It was impossible to judge the sex ofsome of the children, and these have been excluded fromthe analysis. The table shows that there was a tendency forthe girls to travel in larger groups than the boys, and thatboys were more likely to travel alone.

group, an all female group, or mixed sex group). It can beseen that most of the children were in single sex groups,with the all female groups tending to be larger than the allmale groups. Mixed sex groups tended to be larger thansingle sex groups (even allowing for the fact that there canbe no mixed sex groups of group size =1).

Distribution significantly different by groupcomposition (Chi-square test, p<0.001), and mean groupsize significantly different by group composition (t-test,p<0.001).

Table 4.6 shows that the Black/Asian children weremore likely to be travelling alone, although the findingmay be confounded by location and/or crossing type asmost of the ethnic children were observed in Birmingham.The mean group size, however, did not differ significantlywith ethnicity.

Table 4.3 Group size by age

Percentage of children in group by age

Group size Younger Older

1 22 302 33 293 18 264 14 105 6 26 5 37 2 0Mean group size 2.7 2.3

Sample size 323 283

Table 4.4 Group size by gender

Percentage of childrenin group by sex

Group size Male Female

1 33 182 32 303 19 254 12 135 2 46 1 67 0 2Mean group size 2.2 2.8

Sample size 297 316

Table 4.5 Group size by single/mixed gender

Percentage of children ingroup by group composition

All All Groupmale female containing

Group size group group both sexes

1 38 24 02 36 34 133 17 21 414 8 10 295 2 4 56 0 5 137 0 3 0Mean group size 2.0 2.6 3.7


Table 4.6 Group size by ethnicity

Percentage of children in group by ethnicity

Group size White Black/Asian

1 22 332 33 273 22 214 13 95 5 16 4 47 0 4Mean group size 2.6 2.5

Sample size 447 168

Table 4.7 Group size by time of day (Bracknell andReading only)

Percentage of children ingroup by time of day

Group size Am Pm

1 23 192 31 313 16 274 18 105 5 96 6 47 0 0Mean group size 2.7 2.7

Sample size 193 165

Distribution significantly different by sex (Chi-squaretest, p<0.001), and mean group size significantly differentby sex (t-test, p<0.001).

Table 4.5 gives the percentage of children in each groupsize by the group composition (i.e. whether an all male

Distribution significantly different by ethnicity (Chi-squaretest, p<0.001), but mean group size not significantly differentby ethnicity (t-test).

The investigation of group size by time of day wasrestricted to the schools in Bracknell and Reading, where thesame crossing points were filmed in the morning and theafternoon. The analysis (Table 4.7) shows no significantdifference in group size by time of day, although slightlymore children travelled alone in the morning.

Distribution and mean group size were not statisticallysignificantly different by time of day.

24

Forty-eight of those observed were riding bikes, 24 inReading, 21 in Bracknell, 3 in Devon, but none inBirmingham. Of those observed, 19 were cycling alone,there were 5 pairs of cyclists, 2 groups of 3, and 1 group of4 cyclists. The remaining 11 cyclists were in groups withpedestrians. None of the children were skateboarding orroller-blading.

4.3 Road crossing behaviour by location and crossingtype

4.3.1 General behaviourGeneral road crossing behaviour is summarised in Table 4.8by location and crossing type. Where a crossing facilitywas provided and conveniently located, use of the facilitywas generally quite high. However, it is known fromcorrespondence with teachers that very few, if any,children used the footbridge at the Devon school whenunsupervised by a teacher. Consequently the video waspositioned to observe at-grade crossings rather than use ofthe bridge. On the Reading A road, the pelican crossingpositioned some 150 yards from the footpath to the school(visible in the morning video only) was obviously not wellpositioned for use by some of the children, andconsequently used by only about half of them. Overall, thechildren were more likely to use the crossing facility in theafternoon than in the morning (74 percent in the afternoonscompared to 54 percent in the morning for those crossingsobserved in both the morning and afternoon).

The percentage of children crossing the road at an anglewas high at both the Devon crossings (40 percent and 49percent). Ten percent of the children ran all the way acrossthe road to avoid traffic at the Reading A road crossing.The incidence of starting to run when part way across theroad was high at the crossing in Devon with centralhatching, and at the Reading estate road site. The incidence

of stopping at the centre of the road was quite high for thesites with central refuges (Bracknell – 18 percent, andDevon – 33 percent), but was also high (25 percent) at theReading estate road site where no central facility wasprovided. The incidence of forcing the traffic to slow orstop was high (25 to 45 percent) at several of the crossingsobserved. At the Devon site with the unused footbridge 11percent of the children observed walked in the road outsidethe safety railings. The incidence of crossing close toparked vehicles was high at the Reading estate road site.This was almost inevitable because of the high number ofbuses and cars dropping/picking up pupils.

The children were more likely behave in a mannerwhich could result in conflicts with traffic in theafternoons. They were more likely to run across the road(not due to traffic) (8 percent in afternoon c.f. 1 percent inthe morning), and more likely to run to avoid traffic (7percent in the afternoon c.f. 0 percent in the morning).They were also more likely to force the traffic to slowdown or stop (30 percent in the afternoon c.f. 16 percent inthe morning).

4.3.2 DistractionsTable 4.9 shows the types of distractions to childrencrossing observed on the videos. It can be seen that themost frequent distraction is chatting to friends. This mighthave been under-recorded due to camera position in theBracknell (pilot) videos. Catching up with friends by about10 percent of the children was observed at three of thecrossings. Clearly the vast majority of distractions areoccurring when the children are with others, so distractionsare more fully explored and described in Section 4.5. Nonewere observed smoking, or playing with or kicking a ball.

There were no significant differences in the level ofdistractions between the mornings and afternoons.

Table 4.8 General crossing behaviour by location and crossing facility

Bracknell Devon Reading Birmingham

PelicanHatching visible None

and Unused in am (JunctionCentral Pinch central foot- video surface

Crossing type refuge points refuges bridge only None Pelican painted)

Road type Estate Estate A road A road A road Estate A road Side road

Used crossing facility 76% 82% 95% n/a 50% (am only) n/a 99% 91%

Crossed at angle 23% 17% 40% 49% 18% 8% 1% 9%

Ran across (not due to traffic) 1% 7% 8% 6% 8% 4% 0% 2%

Ran across to avoid traffic 1% 4% 0% 8% 10% 4% 0% 0%

Walked part way then ran 6% 0% 20% 8% 2% 15% 2% 4%

Ran part way then walked 1% 3% 5% 4% 3% 0% 0% 4%

Slowed/stopped at centre refuge/line 18% 3% 33% 10% 14% 25% 0% 4%

Forced traffic to slow down/stop 6% 25% 35% 27% 37% 45% 1% 2%

Crossed between stationary traffic Not coded Not coded 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Walked in road outside railings n/a n/a n/a 11% n/a n/a 2% n/a

Crossed close to parked vehicle n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 32% n/a n/a

Sample size 90 114 40 79 101 53 99 46

25

4.3.3 Safety checksTable 4.10 gives the safety checks made before and duringcrossing by crossing type and location. Some of the pre-crossing checks may be under-estimated at Bracknell(pilot) because of the camera position. Many of thechildren chose to look to check whether it was safe to crossthe road before reaching the kerb, and the percentageactually stopping at the kerb varied greatly from crossingto crossing. Unsurprisingly, more stopped at the kerb at theReading A road crossing (some of these will have been atthe pelican crossing) and at the Birmingham pelicancrossing. None stopped at the kerb at the quiet side road inBirmingham. Generally, at least 70 percent made at least 2safety checks before stepping into the road, and may beregarded as exhibiting ‘safe’ behaviour. Fewer made two

checks before stepping out at the crossing with a centralrefuge, but it could be considered unnecessary to check fortraffic from the left until the central refuge is reached.Fewer checks were made at the Birmingham pelicancrossing, where the children crossed in large numberswhen the lights changed and the traffic had stopped. Moreworrying is that only half made at least two safety checksat the Devon site with the unused footbridge, and only 44percent made at least two safety checks when crossing aquiet side road in Birmingham. Many looked afterstepping out, and these tended to be at the same crossingswhere a high proportion of children looked beforereaching the kerb. Surprisingly few (13 percent) checkedat the centre of the road at the Devon site with central crosshatching, although 33 percent of those observed slowed orstopped there (see Table 4.8).

Table 4.9 Distractions while crossing by location and crossing facility


PelicanHatching None: visible None

and unused in am (JunctionCentral Pinch central foot- video surface



Chatting to others 39%* 33%* 60% 67% 62% 66% 60% 52%

Talking/texting on mobile 0* 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Reading 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Eating/drinking 2% 4% 0% 0% 5% 0% 2% 0%

Catching up with friends 3% 3% 0% 10% 12% 9% 2% 0%

Being dropped off by car 1% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Being picked up by car 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 0%

Sample size 90 114 40 79 101 53 99 46

* In the pilot at Bracknell the cameras were not well placed to determine whether or not the children were chatting.

Table 4.10 Safety checks by location and crossing facility


PelicanHatching None: visible None

and unused in am (JunctionCentral Pinch central foot- video surface



Looked before reaching kerb 57%* 61%* 80% 70% 83% 91% 69% 63%

Stopped at kerb 12% 31% 30% 23% 61% 30% 58% 0%

Looked left at kerb 10%* 75%* 8% 51% 52% 26% 46% 15%

Looked right at kerb 50%* 55%* 82% 31% 63% 75% 31% 50%

Percent safe (at least two safety checks 30% 77% 72% 53% 72% 87% 50% 44%before stepping out)

Looked left after stepping out 42% 27% 88% 65% 83% 68% 47% 43%

Looked right after stepping out 26% 13% 68% 70% 39% 64% 15% 39%

Looked at centre of road 58% 2% 13% 25% 8% 9% 32% 26%

Sample size 90 114 40 79 101 53 99 46

* In the pilot at Bracknell the cameras were not well placed to determine whether or not the children were looking before they crossed the road.

26

There were no significant differences in the totalnumber of safety checks made before stepping out into theroad in the morning or in the afternoon.

4.4 Child characteristics and road crossing behaviour

Table 4.11 shows the road crossing behaviour by childcharacteristics (age, sex and ethnicity). However, it mustbe remembered that the Black/ Asian children were almostall observed at the Birmingham pelican crossing, so theresults are confounded with location/crossing type.

More of the younger and female pupils used thecrossing facilities that were available. The younger pupilsand males were more likely to cross the road at an anglerather than walk straight across the road. The olderchildren were more likely to slow or stop at the centre ofthe road or at a central refuge, and more likely to force thetraffic to slow down or stop (although the latter was notstatistically significant). The younger pupils and boys weremore likely to walk in the road outside the railings.

Table 4.12 shows that the older children and girls weremore likely to be distracted by chatting to others.

Table 4.13 shows the older pupils performed slightly moresafety checks overall and might be considered more safe thanthe younger children. This is mainly because they were morelikely than younger children to look before reaching the kerband look again after stepping out into the road. Similarly theboys were slightly more safe than the girls, since again theywere more likely to look before reaching the kerb, and morelikely to look right after stepping into the road. However, theyounger children were more likely the look again at thecentral refuge/centre of the road (although more olderchildren actually stopped - Table 4.11).

No significant differences were found between youngerand older pupils, or between males and females in their useof and behaviour at the pelican crossing in Birmingham.

4.5 Group characteristics and road crossing behaviourTable 4.14 shows road crossing behaviours for each groupsize. Those in larger groups (5 or more) were more likely

Table 4.12 Distractions while crossing by child characteristics

Age Sex Ethnicity

Younger Older Male Female White Black/Asian1

Chatting to others 47% 60%*** 47% 60%*** 51% 60%

Talking/texting on mobile 0.5% 0% 0% 0.5% 0.5% 0%

Reading 0% 0.5% 0% 0.5% 0% 0.5%

Eating/drinking 3% 1% 3% 2% 3% 1%

Catching up with friends 7% 5% 5% 6% 7% 2%

Being dropped off by car 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1%

Being picked up by car 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 1%

Sample size 323 283 297 316 447 168

*** Significant at p<0.001 (Chi-square test).

Table 4.11 General crossing behaviour and child characteristics

Age Sex Ethnicity


Used crossing facility 69% 62%** 58% 71%*** 55% 92%***

Crossed at angle 25% 15%** 26% 15%** 26% 4%***

Ran across (not due to traffic) 7% 2% 6% 3% 5% 3%

Ran across to avoid traffic 5% 3% 4% 4% 5% 1%**

Walked part way then ran 5% 6% 5% 5% 6% 4%

Ran part way then walked 2% 2% 2% 3% 2% 1%

Slowed/stopped at centre refuge/line 7% 14%** 13% 9% 14% 4%***

Forced traffic to slow down/stop 18% 24% 22% 21% 27% 5%***

Crossed between stationary traffic 1% 1% 1% 2% 0% 2%

Walked in road outside railings2 13% 0%*** 14% 1%*** 13% 2%**

Crossed close to parked vehicle3 66% 28% 36% 25% 33% 25%

Sample size 323 283 297 316 447 168

1 The vast majority of Black/Asian pupils were observed at the pelican crossing at Birmingham. Ethnicity comparisons are therefore confoundedwith crossing type.

2 For crossings in Devon (unused road-bridge crossing) and Birmingham (pelican). Total sample size = 178.3 For Reading estate road crossing. Sample size = 53.

** Significant at p<0.01 (Chi-square test).


27

to use the crossing facility, and were more likely to forcethe traffic to slow down or stop (with the exception ofthose at the pelican crossing in Birmingham) than thosetravelling alone or in small groups. Those walking alone orin a small group (up to 3) were more likely to cross theroad at an angle rather than walk straight across, to stop atthe centre of the road or at the central refuge, walk outsiderailings and to cross close to parked vehicles. All thoseobserved walking between stationary vehicles were alone.Generally, the arguably more dangerous behaviours wereundertaken when alone or in small groups. Once thechildren have forced the traffic to stop (or the drivers havestopped voluntarily) and they flood across the road in largegroups the situation could be considered relatively safe.

Participation in the behaviours given in Table 4.14 wasnot dependent on the position (front, middle or back) ofthe group. Fewer of those in all male groups (56 percent)

used a crossing facility than those in all female groups (67percent) or those in mixed sex groups (81 percent). Morein all male groups (27 percent) crossed the road at an anglethan those in all female groups (17 percent) or those inmixed sex groups (9 percent). Those in all male groupswere more likely to stop at the centre of the road or at thecentral reserve (15 percent), than those in female or mixedgroups (10 and 7 percent respectively). Those in mixed sexgroups were more likely to force the traffic to slow or stop(31 percent), than all male groups (21 percent) or allfemale groups (18 percent). None in mixed sex groupscrossed the road close to parked cars, and only one groupcomprising a girl and a boy walked in the road outside thesafety railings. It would appear than behaviour is generallymore safe when groups contain both sexes, possibly thepresence of members of the opposite sex being a goodinfluence on road safety behaviour.

Table 4.14 General crossing behaviour by group size

Percent of children in group size

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All groups

Used crossing facility 66 67 60 55 80 75 100 64

Crossed at angle 23 25 18 13 0 4 0 19

Ran across (not due to traffic) 2 3 9 9 4 0 0 5

Ran across to avoid traffic 5 4 4 0 12 0 0 4

Walked part way then ran 6 6 6 1 12 0 0 5

Ran part way then walked 2 3 4 1 0 0 0 2

Slowed/stopped at centre refuge/line 14 17 7 5 8 0 0 11

Forced traffic to slow down/stop 15 19 24 24 40 38 0 21

Crossed between stationary traffic 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Walked in road outside railings1 2 8 13 0 0 0 0 6

Crossed close to parked vehicle2 60 57 0 0 0 0 0 32

Sample size 159 192 138 76 25 24 7 621

1 For crossings in Devon (unused road-bridge crossing) and Birmingham(pelican). Total sample size = 178.2 For Reading estate road crossing. Sample size = 53.

Table 4.13 Safety checks by child characteristics

Age Sex Ethnicity


Looked before reaching kerb 64% 78%*** 74% 67%* 71% 69%

Stopped at kerb 32% 36% 33% 36% 31% 41%***

Looked left at kerb 41% 41% 43% 40% 41% 38%

Looked right at kerb 50% 52% 54% 50% 57% 37%***

Percent safe (at least two safety checks before 53% 67% 65% 55%* 63% 49%**stepping out)

Looked left after stepping out 45% 64%*** 55% 53% 56% 49%

Looked right after stepping out 28% 45%*** 41% 33%* 41% 24%***

Looked at centre of road 26% 17%** 20% 22% 21% 26%

Sample size 323 283 297 316 447 168

1 The vast majority of Black/Asian pupils were observed at the pelican crossing at Birmingham. Ethnicity comparisons are therefore confoundedwith crossing type/location.

* Significant at p< 0.05 (Chi-square test).

** Significant at p<0.01 (Chi-square test).


28

Table 4.15 shows the distractions by group size. Therewere few, if any, relationships between distractions andgroup size, although chatting was slightly more prevalentamong groups of 2 or 3. The extent of distractions weregenerally not dependent upon the position of the childwithin the group (front, middle or back), althoughunsurprisingly those in the middle or at the rear of thegroup were possibly distracted as they were trying to catchup (2 percent at the front, 8 percent in the middle and 11percent at the rear were trying to catch up with friends)Those in all male groups tended to be chatting to friendsless (45 percent) than those in all female groups (57percent), or in mixed sex groups (69 percent).

Those chatting were more likely to stop at the kerb thanthose who were not (40 percent c.f. 27 percent). This maybe because when distracted by chatting earlier road safetytraining is automatically adopted, rather than because aconscious action to stop is taken. They were also morelikely to look right after stepping out (42 percent c.f. 30percent). However, there was no significant differencebetween those chatting and others in the total number ofchecks before stepping out. Those potentially distracted bycatching up with friends did not differ significantly fromothers in the number of safety checks they made.

None of the behaviours listed in Table 4.14 wereaffected by whether the children were chatting or not.Those catching up with friends were more likely to forcethe traffic to slow down or stop than those who were not(44 percent c.f. 20 percent).

Table 4.16 shows there was little variation in safetychecks with group size, although more of those travellingalone looked before reaching the kerb, and few checks weremade by the one group of 7 observed at the pelican crossing.

Generally, those at the front of the group were mostlikely to make safety checks, and those in the middle leastlikely to make checks before stepping out (63 percent atthe front, 52 percent in the middle and 56 percent at therear made safety checks). The group composition had littleimpact on the safety checks made, although those in mixedsex groups were more likely to look left at the kerb (57percent) than those in all male (39 percent) or all femalegroups (37 percent).

4.6 Summary

1 Overall, 75 percent of the children were travelling ingroups, although this varied from school to school from64 percent to 86 percent. Groups of up to 7 children wereobserved, and the mean group size was 2.5 children. Theolder children and boys were more likely to travel alonethan the younger children and girls. The majority ofgroups were single sex. The mixed sex groups tended tobe slightly larger than the single sex groups.

2 Those travelling in larger groups were more likely to usethe crossing facility if available, and were more likely toforce the traffic to slow down or stop to let them crossthe road. Those in smaller groups or alone were more

Table 4.15 Distractions while crossing by group size


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All groups

Chatting to others - 73 73 63 68 41 100 53

Talking/texting on mobile 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.5

Reading 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.5

Eating/drinking 1 3 5 0 0 0 0 2

Catching up with friends 1 5 10 0 16 17 0 5

Being dropped off by car 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1

Being picked up by car 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0.5

Sample size 159 192 138 76 25 24 7 621

Table 4.16 Safety checks by group size


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 All groups

Looked before reaching kerb 80 68 72 59 52 79 29 70

Stopped at kerb 30 31 38 41 4 67 29 43

Looked left at kerb 38 36 43 46 56 58 0 41

Looked right at kerb 53 62 36 54 52 46 0 51

Percent safe (at least two safety checks 64 56 57 64 60 79 0 60before stepping out)

Looked left after stepping out 58 52 44 71 60 50 0 54

Looked right after stepping out 38 42 32 38 4 42 14 36

Looked at centre of road 22 20 22 25 20 8 86 22

Sample size 159 192 138 76 25 24 7 621

29

likely to cross the road at an angle rather than walkstraight across, to stop at the centre of the road, to walkoutside safety railings and to cross close to parked cars.

3 The behaviour in groups observed varied slightlydepending on whether the groups were all male, allfemale or mixed sex. Those in all male groups wereleast likely to use a crossing facility if available, whilethose in mixed sex groups were most likely. All malegroups were most likely to stop at the central refuge orcentre of the road, while mixed sex groups were mostlikely to force the traffic to stop or slow down.

4 There was little variation in the number of safetychecks made before and during crossing with groupsize. Those at the front of the group were most likelyto make safety checks while those in the middle of thegroup were least likely.

5 The most frequently observed potentially distractingbehaviour was chatting to friends, with about two-thirdsobserved chatting at several of the locations. Theincidence of chatting was highest amongst the olderchildren and girls. The extent of chatting was least in allmale groups and highest in mixed sex groups. It wasalso highest when the group size was two or three.

6 Those chatting were more likely to stop at the kerb thanthose who were not, and were more likely to look rightafter stepping out, although there was no differencebetween those who were chatting and those who werenot in the total number of checks made before steppinginto the road. Similarly, those potentially distracted bytrying to catch up with friends did not differsignificantly from others in the number of safety checksthey made. They were, however, more likely than othersto force the traffic to slow down or stop.

7 There were no significant differences between themorning and the afternoon in group size, in the level ofdistraction due to chatting, or the number of safetychecks made before stepping into the road. However,the children were more likely to use the crossing facilityif available in the afternoon, but were also more likely torun across the road, and to force the traffic to slow orstop in the afternoon.

5 Focus groups

5.1 Method

Focus groups were held at four schools between July andOctober 2002. Schools across the UK were contacted byletter and invited to participate. Of those agreeing, schoolswere chosen to give a reasonable geographic spread,represent a conurbation (Birmingham), large town(Reading), medium town (Gosport) and small town (inDevon), and to represent ethnic minorities (Birmingham).The focus groups took place during the schools’ PSElessons, with teachers volunteering pupils from the class toattend the groups. Two focus groups were held in eachschool, with eight pupils in each group. They were eachheld in a quiet room and were led by TRL staff memberstrained in running focus groups (and experienced in

working with adolescents) using the topic guide given inAppendix C. The discussions were tape-recorded. Eachgroup leader was assisted by a second TRL staff member,who took notes and assisted with setting up and runningthe tape-recorder.

Generally the groups were of single sex with pupilsfrom a single school year, with TRL staff of the same sexrunning the group. It was felt it would be less intimidatingfor the pupils if the TRL group leaders were of the samesex as the pupils attending the group, and that pupils mightrespond more naturally and honestly. At one school,however, mixed sex groups (4 boys and 4 girls) were heldwith each of two year groups (Year 7 and Year 9). Detailsof the focus groups held are given in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Composition of focus groups

Group 1 Group 2

Devon Year 7 boys Year 7 girlsBirmingham Year 9 boys Year 9 girlsGosport Year 11 boys Year 11 girlsReading Year 7 boys and girls Year 9 boys and girls

5.2 The journey to/from school

The pupils travelled to school by a variety of modes: walk;car; bus; cycle. However the proportion travelling by eachmode varied from school to school, and this appeared to bea function of the location and local facilities, rather thanany variation by age. Almost all pupils in the Birminghamgroups walked to school; few in the Gosport groupstravelled by bus; none in the Devon group cycled to/fromschool. Most travelled to and from school by the samemode of transport. Pupils in Reading reported that the busdropped them a long way from the school, and they had tocross two roads after being dropped.

Most of those walking to school did so with friends inquite small groups (1 to 3 friends), although some reportedlarger groups (5 or 6 friends, and occasionally up to 8 or10). Some in smaller groups joined up with more friendsalong the way to school. Pupils in Reading (Year 7) saidthey were more likely to walk home from school than toschool with friends, and Birmingham girls (Year 9) saidthat when going home from school groups tended to belarger. The Birmingham boys said they were more likely tobe on their own or with parents on the way to school, butmore likely to be with friends on the way home, and taketheir time over the journey.

Most had to cross main roads on the way to/from school.In Devon there was a bridge across the main road, and ateacher supervised after school to ensure the pupils usedthe bridge. At Birmingham there was a Pelican crossingoutside the school, and a teacher attended to supervise thepupils. Some pupils had to cross busy roads further fromthe schools which did not have crossing facilities.

Those cycling to/from school cycled on the pavements oron the road. Some cycled on their own while others cycledwith friends; one said he cycled with his sister on thefootpath. Two pupils (Reading Year 7) reported riding homefrom school in a large group of 10 or 12 on the footpath.

30

After school behaviour varied. The Year 7 pupils inDevon generally went straight home from school, althoughthey might stop at the local garage to buy sweets on theway. They might then go out again in the evenings afterdoing homework (or skip homework). Those inBirmingham (Year 9) tended to go out straight from school– go to the park to ‘chill out’, play on swings, hide andseek, chat, or go to friends’ homes. This was usually ingroups of both sexes. Year 9 boys (Birmingham) said theysometimes kicked a football around on the way home fromschool, and that the ball might go onto the road.

5.3 Other activities (evenings/weekends).

Evening/weekend activities reported by Devon Year 7 boyswere going to the skateboard park, going to the park to playfootball, and riding bikes around the roads (usually withfriends). The Devon Year 7 girls reported going to the park,field, and woods to hang around, chat and play football, orgo into town to window shop. This would generally be ingangs of 5 or 6, but may be up to 10, all from the same yeargroup, but generally groups of both sexes.

Activities reported by Birmingham Year 9 boysincluded playing football in the car park and streets, goingto the park, and starting fires then running off. The girlsreported hanging around the local shops (not in the towncentre), and visiting friends’ homes (outside or inside),playing ‘hide and seek’ or ‘dodge ball’ either in the parks,or in cul-de-sac or one-way streets.

The Gosport Year 11 boys reported skateboarding on theroads, playing football, going out and walking about withfriends, playing rugby and football in the park, or going intotown by bus. Gosport Year 11 girls said they went shopping,and went out or just ‘hung around’ with friends.

Reading Year 7 pupils reported playing or ‘hanging out’on the green, school fields and park, playing footballaround the garages where there are not many cars,skateboarding in the park, and playing ‘kerby’ (see below)on quiet roads.

5.4 Road safety behaviour when alone

Devon Year 7 boys thought they were less distracted whenon their own than with friends, and usually looked beforecrossing the road, although they could forget to looksometimes if they were thinking about other things (e.g.what has just happened at school). One mentioned thatwhen walking home alone ‘you can hear whether it’s safeto cross and don’t have to look. You can hear cars that arevery quiet’. Most of the Year 7 girls in Devon did not goout on their own, and thought it was a bit ‘scary’ whenthey did. Generally they thought they were more cautiouswhen alone, particularly about crossing the road, and saidthey would look more before crossing than if with friends.However, when on their own they might talk on theirmobile phones, or listen to a Walkman, and notconcentrate on their surroundings.

One Year 9 boy (Birmingham) believed he took morerisks when alone, while others in his group thought it madelittle difference with respect to road safety whether aloneor with friends. The Birmingham Year 9 girls said they

were more self conscious and more concerned about whatmight happen to them when alone. Most said they weremore careful about looking both ways before crossingwhen alone.

Year 11 boys (Gosport) felt they behaved more safelywhen alone because they were not distracted by theirfriends, they thought more about what they were doing,and because it was no fun to do stupid things on your own– ‘It’s just stupid’. Most reported using crossings or trafficlights to cross the road more often when alone than whenwith friends, but were unaware of the reason why. Onesaid ‘I don’t know why, I just do’. Gosport Year 11 girlsthought they took more care concerning road safety whenthey were alone.

Reading Year 7 pupils believed they were generallysafer when they were alone. They reported being moresensible when on their own, and always keeping aware.However, it was thought there was more danger of beinghit by a car when alone (presumably due to a feeling ofsafety in numbers when with friends).

Reading Year 9 pupils said they would walk faster andpay more attention when alone ‘When you are on yourown you just want to get where you are going before itgets dark – you might get mugged or attacked’.

5.5 Road safety behaviour when with parents

Road safety behaviour when with parents was generallythought to be good by most of the pupils in the groups, andthey were generally sensible, quieter, more mature, and ontheir best behaviour. This was because when with parentsthere was nothing to distract them, or that parents would‘moan’ or ‘have a go at you’ if behaviour was not safe.Parents were thought to be more patient, and pupils thoughthat parents were anxious that their children should not gethurt. Pupils reported using crossings, and lookingthoroughly each way before crossing when with parents.The Devon Year 7 girls said they behaved like ‘littleangels’ when they were with their parents. A Gosport boy(Year 11) commented ‘if you act stupid with parents youlook stupid – it’s not cool’. However, some reported relyingon their parents – ‘If out with Mum and Dad I rely on them,and if they cross the road I follow them. If out on my ownI’ll think for myself’ (Reading Year 7). Another said he justfollowed ‘like a sheep’ when with his parents (Devon Year7). Similar behaviour was also reported by a Year 11 boy(Gosport). One Reading Year 9 pupil said ‘I wouldn’t actany different – my Mum knows what I’m like’.

By Year 9 (Birmingham) the pupils thought parentswere more concerned about personal safety (‘strangerdanger’) of their children than road safety, rarelymentioning road safety, and no longer ‘watching out’ forthem. The pupils also thought that parents were also morelikely to express concern if their children are out on theirown than with friends at this age.

5.6 Road safety behaviour when with older/youngerpeople

When with older friends and/or brothers one Year 7 boy(Devon) thought he would be more unsafe, not necessarily

31

because of doing dangerous things intentionally, butbecause of taking less care when trying to keep up. Onesaid that with older friends ‘I don’t take as much care’(Reading Year 7), presumably because he felt the oldermembers of the group would take care for him. One(Reading Year 9) said he would try to look tough whenwalking with older brothers/sisters.

Others thought they behaved more sensibly with olderbrothers and sisters, as they might ‘grass you up’ to parents(Birmingham Year 9 girls). Views of the Reading Year 7pupils concerning the influence of older people werevaried. Some felt that older people would ‘look out’ foryou, while others felt the older pupils were a bad influenceand were always ‘messing around or being stupid on theroads and all that’. Others felt that older pupils would be adistraction.

When with younger brothers or sisters the participantsfelt they behaved more sensibly, as they felt they had totake responsibility for them. This was generally the casefor all groups. Comments included ‘I have to hold mybrother’s hand’, ‘I don’t let them cross the road unless Isay’, ‘If you’re with someone that’s really younger thanyou they don’t know what the highway code is, so youhave to be more responsible’.

5.7 General road safety behaviour when with friends

It was generally agreed that behaviour was less safe whenwith friends for a number of reasons:

i Being distracted by friends: e.g. ‘When you are in themiddle of a conversation you sometimes don’t realisethere is a road there and you just cross without thinkingand sometimes a car comes’ (Devon Year 7 boy).‘When you are out in a group you are having so muchfun that you don’t realise what you do, just run out infront of a car’ (Gosport Year 11 girl).

ii Following the crowd: if in a big group they just followothers assuming someone else will have checked tomake sure it is safe to cross the road. ‘Your mates willpull you back if something is coming’. ‘There isprobably one sensible one out of us’ (Devon Year 7boys). ‘There are more eyes and ears’ (Year 11 boyGosport). ‘You have more people to look out for youwhen you are in a group’ (Gosport Year 11 girl).

iii Following the most popular member of the group: thiswould be regardless of whether or not it is safe‘Whoever’s popular decides what to do’ (BirminghamYear 9 boy).

iv Trying to impress friends: friends might ‘take themicky’ (Devon Year 7 Boys and Gosport Year 11boys), or ‘It’s not cool to follow the Green CrossCode’. (Devon Year 7 boy) ‘You need to prove you aretough’. ‘If others think they can cross the road youhave to show that you can cross too’. ‘You would getleft out of the group if you don’t show you can lookafter yourself’ (Devon Year 7 girls). ‘You don’t wantto be sensible with all your mates….you want to becool and that’ (Year 7 Reading). However, some of thegirls (Birmingham Year 9) held a different view,saying they would not do things simply to impress their

friends – ‘your friends accept you as you are, you can’tkeep up an act for ever’. These girls felt that boys andsome (other) girls might act in ways that were unsafe toimpress friends.

v Feeling grown up when with a group of friends (DevonYear 7 girls).

vi Feeling more excited when walking home with yourmates (Birmingham Year 9 boys), or feeling morerelaxed when with friends (Birmingham Year 9 girls).The Birmingham girls thought the Birmingham boyswere more ‘hyper’ and just ran across the road. ‘Theyare boys!’

vii Safety in numbers: the pupils believed they were saferwhen in a group of people than when alone, and thelarger the group the safer they felt. Consequentlyindividuals might take less care than when alone. ‘Thecars have to stop for that many people’ (Devon Year 7boys). ‘You kind of feel safer with a bigger group’(Birmingham Year 9 boys). ‘You think it’s not going tobe me. One of them will get hurt’ (Reading Year 7).

viii Playing games/dares in the road with friends (seefollowing section).

There was a feeling in one group (Year 7 Reading) thatthe size of the group was important in determiningbehaviour. It was suggested that people talk more in largergroups, the implication being that they are therefore moredistracted from road safety matters. They also believed thatthey were most sensible and safest when with just onefriend. One suggested you have to be responsible whenwith just one friend as if anything happened to you thefriend might be blamed when it was not his fault. Otherssuggested they would ‘look out’ for their ‘mates’. One saidhe trusted his friend to tell him when cars were coming.

5.8 Games and dares

Many of the pupils participated, or knew of others thatparticipated in games or dares played with groups offriends in and around roads. Many of these were obviouslyplayed to impress friends, or to maintain a position in the‘gang’. The influence of peer pressure to undertake suchactivities, most of which are potentially dangerous, andsome very dangerous, is obvious.

i Football: The pupils reported playing football in the roadas it was too far to go to the park, or too muddy in thepark (Year 7 boys). Birmingham Year 9 boys playedfootball in the road so their trainers did not get muddy. Itwas also thought to be safer in the road as there weregangs in the park (Birmingham Year 9 boys). Otherssimply walk along the path ‘controlling’ a football,which would sometimes go into the road. One said afriend had been nearly hit by a car when retrieving a ballfrom the road (Birmingham Year 9 boy). Year 11Gosport boys reported that ‘When you are on the way tothe park, or when you are out and have a ball with you,you just kick it to each other for something to do’. Theseboys also mentioned that they sometimes walked alongthe pavements, one each side of the road, and kicked theball to each other across the road.

32

ii ‘Kerby’ or ‘Kerb ball’ and other ball games: Throwinga ball against a wall close to the road - the ball oftengoes into the road (Devon Year 7 boys) . Throwing aball or another object into the road and having tododge the traffic to retrieve it (Devon Year 7 girls).One person stands on the pavement on one side of theroad, while another person stands on the pavement onthe other side of the of the road; the aim is to throw theball and bounce it off the opposite kerb so it comesback and is caught by the thrower (Year 11 boysGosport). Reading Year 9 reported playing ‘tennis’ inthe road, kicking a tennis ball.

iii Skateboarding: Riding a skateboard off the pavementinto the road, jumping into the road (Devon Year 7boys). Riding a skateboard uncontrolled downhill(Devon Year 7 girls), or simply riding skateboardswithout paying attention to the traffic (BirminghamYear 9 girls thought the boys did this). Skateboardingin the road as the pavements are too bumpy (Year 11boys, Gosport).

iv Chicken/squit chicken: Different versions of this gamewere reported. One involved running across the roadjust before a car comes along. Another involved juststanding in the middle of the road. A third involvedrunning into the middle of the road and then lyingdown. Taking dares to do various ‘dangerous’ thingswith traffic was also mentioned (although ‘dares’ cantake a less dangerous form).

Chicken/squit chicken was reported to be carried outby children of any age, although Devon Year 7 girlssuggested other girls played it – not them. It wasmentioned that the game is played only when withfriends, not alone. Reasons for playing chickenincluded getting an adrenaline rush, feeling socialpressure, others thinking you are ‘cool and brave’, notwanting to get called ‘chicken’, trying to impresspeople, and to avoid ‘getting beaten up’ or labelled as‘the wimpiest’. All Gosport Year 11 boys reportedplaying chicken at least once, all thought it wasdangerous, but thought they themselves would not gethurt playing it.

The Year 11 boys reported playing ‘chicken’ morenow than when they were younger since they could beseen more easily by car drivers, were less afraid ofgetting into trouble now, and because they didn’treally know how to play the games when they wereyounger. The Year 11 boys said they would not playchicken in front of girls, as the girls would not beimpressed.

v Bike games : A variant of chicken when riding a bikewas mentioned. The child brakes very hard whenriding in front of a car. Participants thought this was areally ‘stupid’ thing to do, but it was done for similarreasons as outlined above. Again this behaviour is onewhich is done when with friends.

Another bike game was to go too fast down hill withno brakes. One participant reported doing this with hisbrother. He reported doing so because his regular bikewas broken so he used another with no brakes (Devon

Year 7 boy). This was also mentioned by Year 9Reading pupils.

Having bike races with friends was also mentioned(Devon Year 7 boys).

Year 11 boys reported doing ‘wheelies’ and stuntswhile riding bikes on most roads apart from very busyroads. Reading Year 7 pupils referred to ‘doing nohands’ when riding bikes, but two of the groupreported having near accidents with cars whenattempting this.

vi Throwing things at cars: Year 9 girls Birminghamreported that others did this. Putting metal rods in theroad to make cars stop - Year 11 girls reported that the12-13 year old boys did this. Reading Year 9 said theywould throw stones at cars.

vii Running races in the road: Reported by Year 7Reading, who said they had ‘little marathons’ aroundthe area. This would involve running on both roadsand paths. Sometimes they would get on the path if acar was coming, or sometimes simply shout ‘car’ ifthey saw a car coming.

viii Holding on to moving cars: This was reported by Year11 boys to be done when riding bikes or skating. Oneboy stated that he did this holding on to his mother’scar.

ix Walking down the middle of the road: A Year 7 boyDevon (not attending the focus group) was reported todo this. The group thought the reason was that hewanted to be seen as being ‘hard’. Similarly, it wasreported that some don’t use the traffic islands whencrossing to appear ‘hard’. Year 9 Reading reportedwalking across the road very slowly thinking ‘Whyshould I stop? The car can stop.’

x Forty-Forty or Hide-and-seek: This was mentioned byReading Year 9 and might be played on quiet roads.

5.9 The effect of age on road safety behaviour

The older pupils (Gosport Year 11) were questioned abouthow their behaviour differed from when they wereyounger.

The pupils reported going out much less often whenthey were younger, and that they were more likely to goout in the afternoon when younger, but in the eveningwhen older.

The pupils suggested that their behaviour was less safenow as they played ‘chicken’ more often (boys), but somebelieved they were generally more safe, since ‘whencrossing a road we’re bigger now, so if we are about to getrun over we can get out of the way faster’. The pupilsadmitted they never used the Green Cross Code now, forfear of having the ‘micky’ taken, or that if they did use it,it was just automatic. Some thought they were less safenow, as road safety was now second nature, but half thetime it was just forgotten (Year 11 girls)

One clear difference with age for the boys was inbehaviour when in the presence of girls. The older boys feltthey were more careful/sensible when with girls. Theythought girls would not be impressed by them playing

33

‘chicken’ or by them crossing the road in a stupid way.They suggested that girls only influenced them if they werethe ‘ones you fancy’ or are ‘your actual bird’. The oldergirls also commented that the boys behaved more sensiblewhen in female company. The boys reported not beinginfluenced by what girls thought when they were younger.

The older girls reported that their behaviour hadchanged as they had grown up. When younger they saidthey would do ‘anything and everything’, showing off toimpress and get friends. One said ‘When you’re a kid andyou are out with friends you think you’re invincible,nothing can hurt me.’ The girls also suggested that roadsafety campaigns (adverts/posters etc) had more influenceon them now they were older. When they were youngerthey tended to think ‘That wouldn’t happen’, butexperience of friends/others around the school beinginvolved in accidents had made them aware of the realdangers so ‘You know it can happen’.

The older boys admitted to walking round the roadsdrinking alcohol. This was always done with friends.

The influence of the ‘gang’ appeared to be strongestamong the youngest pupils, particularly the girls (Devon),who felt they had to behave in a way so as not to be seen asweak to ensure they would not be thrown out of the gang.

5.10 Cycling

In addition to the bike games mentioned above, behaviourwhen cycling was influenced by the presence of otherswhen cycling in a group. Year 7 girls (Devon) reported notusing cycle helmets when cycling in a group as this wasnot ‘cool’. Similarly they would not wear helmets whencycling alone, since they might be seen by friends, so peerpressure is clearly still important even when alone. Othergroups also said they would not wear helmets, somesuggesting they were too expensive, but on furtherquestioning it was clear that the pupils would not wear thehelmets even if they were given them, for fashion reasons.

Many cycled on the pavements whether alone or whenwith friends. Gosport Year 11 boys reported not signallingwhen turning on a bike, saying ‘it’s not cool anymore’.Again, the implication is that they would not wish to beseen doing this by friends even when cycling alone.

Gosport girls Year 11 said they were safer on cyclepaths than on the road, and felt they might not need towear cycle helmets if on cycle paths. They suggested thatsome like to show off weaving through traffic, riding threeabreast and speeding when on the roads. They said that 13-15 year olds did this.

5.11 Summary

1 The participants generally felt that their behaviour onthe roads was safer when alone than with friends for anumber of reasons: they were distracted by friends; theytended to just follow the crowd or the most populargroup member; they tried to impress friends by ‘hard’behaviour, or by playing games or dares; feeling grownup (over- confident) when with friends; feeling moreexcited when with friends; and feeling a sense of safetyin numbers. Some felt they behaved more sensibly and

felt safest (perhaps mistakenly) when with just onefriend.

2 When with parents or older people, the participantsgenerally behaved more sensibly, as they felt they wouldbe reprimanded if they did not. A minority, however,said they simply followed like sheep when with parentsor older brothers and sisters and did not think forthemselves.

3 When with younger brothers and sisters the participantsfelt they had to and did behave very sensibly with regardto road safety, since they had to take responsibility foryounger members of the group, who may not be familiarwith the Green Cross Code.

4 When with friends many of the participants admitted toplaying games or performing dares in and around theroad, most of which were dangerous, many being verydangerous. These were generally played to impressfriends, or to avoid getting ‘kicked out’ of the ‘gang’.The younger pupils thought they were invincible, andthe older pupils, while perhaps being aware of thedanger, thought they themselves would not get hurt.Games included football and other ball games,‘chicken’, skateboarding and bike games and holding onto moving cars when on bikes or skating.

5 The older boys tended to behave sensibly in the presenceof girls, but said that girls would not have influenced theirbehaviour when younger. The older girls said the recentroad safety campaigns were more likely to be meaningfulto them now that they were older.

6 It appears that most children are aware that theirbehaviour on the roads is less safe when they are withfriends, but they do have a sense of safety in numbers.They are also aware that some of their behaviour is verydangerous, but there is a belief that they themselves willnot get hurt. Much of the dangerous behaviour is toimpress friends and to appear ‘hard’ or look ‘cool’. Suchfeelings are very strong, and clearly stronger than the fearof being hurt. Road safety is not seen as ‘cool’ and theeffectiveness of publicity campaigns might need toportray it with a ‘cool’ image if they are to be successful.

7 It appears that with recent abductions of young childrenreported in the press, parents of adolescent children arestressing the danger from ‘strangers’ at the expense ofthe potential danger from road traffic.

6 Literature review

A literature review was undertaken as part of the project toinvestigate two research questions:

� Are young adolescent pedestrians at higher risk of aroad traffic accident when in a peer group?

� How does being in a group influence young adolescentpedestrian behaviour?

6.1 Method

Literature searches were undertaken using a number ofpublications databases including ITRD (an international

34

transport research database), Medline (a database ofmedical publications), Psychinfo (a database ofpsychology publications), ERIC (a database of educationpublications), Sociological abstracts database and ASSIA(a database of social science publications). The libraries ofthe National Foundation for Education Research and theChild Accident Prevention Trust were also searched.

The following search strategies were used to identifyrelevant publications:

1 Pedestrian* AND Adolescen* OR Child* ANDBehavio* AND Group.

2 Pedestrian* AND Adolescen* OR Child* ANDBehavio* AND Peer* OR Friend* OR Accompan*.

3 Adolescen* OR Child* AND Behavio* AND Health ORRisk OR Sensation.

4 Adolescen* OR Child* AND Accident* OR Injur*.

6.2 Risk

Risk can be estimated by dividing the number of accidentsby a measure of exposure (Stephenson et al., 2001) (seealso Section 7). No previous studies were found whichexamined the risk as such of adolescent pedestrians in agroup so the literature was reviewed to examine separatelythe following questions:

� What proportion of young adolescent pedestrians areinvolved in an accident whilst accompanied by their peers?

� What proportion of young adolescents’ pedestrianexposure is spent accompanied by their peers?

6.2.1 Accident studiesInformation on the accompaniment of pedestrians at thetime of a road traffic accident is not available in STATS 19.However, a number of accident studies have soughtinformation on accompaniment through interview with thechild or analysis of police accident records. Both approacheshave limitations: interview studies tend to be biased towardsaccidents involving less seriously injured children; theanalysis of police accident reports relies on the policehaving consistently recorded details of accompaniment. It isalso estimated that around 15 percent of pedestrian accidentsgo unreported to the police (James, 1991).

An early study which described the accompaniment ofaccident involved children was the Hampshire ChildPedestrian Accident Study (Grayson, 1975a). This studyincluded data obtained from 117 10-14 year old children.Details of accompaniment were obtained from the child orother witnesses by the police officer investigating theaccident, either at the scene or during subsequentenquiries. Grayson found that 54 percent of children aged10-14 were alone at the time of the accident, whilst 42percent were accompanied by their peers. More recently,Ward et al. (1994) reported that a quarter of the 160 childpedestrians aged 10-15 had been accompanied by otherchildren at the time of the accident. Ward et al. used policeaccident files to code accompaniment. Nearly three-quarters of the child pedestrians had been alone at the timeof the accident (72 percent). These findings were based onaccidents occurring in a single area (Northampton) so maynot be representative if behaviour varies between areas.

Table 6.1 Accompaniment of young adolescentpedestrians involved in a road traffic accident

Accompaniment

% %Age Sample % with with an

Study group size alone peers adult

Grayson (1975a) 10-14 117 54 42 4Lawson (1990) 10-14 75 33.3 60 6.7Ward et al. (1994) 10-15 160 72 25 3Christie (1995) 11-16 61 34 62 3Sentinella et al. (2004) 9-15 194 27 64 9

Other studies have found a higher proportion of accidentinvolved children accompanied by their friends. Basedupon interviews with child pedestrians, Lawson (1990)reported that two-thirds of the accident involved childrenaged 10-14 had been accompanied, the majority by otherchildren (60 percent). A similar proportion was found byChristie (1995) in her study of accident involved childpedestrians. Christie reported that just over half (54percent) of the children aged 11-16 were accompanied bytheir friends at the time of the accident and 8 percent werewith their siblings. A third (34 percent) of the childrenaged 11-16 had been alone and 3 percent had been with anadult. The findings of both these studies were based upon asmall sample of accident involved children aged 10-14 or11-16 so may not be representative.

Many of the studies examining accompaniment have beenconcerned with whether or not the child was with an adult atthe time of the accident and have focused upon youngerchildren (Wills et al., 1997; Roberts, 1995; Routledge et al.,1974, Sandels, 1975). Other accident studies of childpedestrians have not reported accompaniment by age(Carsten et al., 1989; MVA Consultancy, 1989). The latterstudy of child pedestrians in Scotland aged 3-14 foundsimilar patterns of accompaniment for boys and girls,average over the age range studied.

Few studies have detailed the size and composition ofpeer groups accompanying child pedestrians involved in anaccident. A recent study of police fatal accident recordsindicated that 57 percent of child pedestrians aged 9 –15were accompanied by their peers at the time of the accident,the majority of whom were with one or two friends of thesame sex (Sentinella et al., 2004). Carsten et al. (1989)found that most child pedestrians (aged 13 or under, livingin an urban area) were with their friends at the time of theaccident (53 percent) and were rarely in groups of more than2 or 3. Similarly, Lawson (1990) reported that most of theaccident involved children interviewed had been in a groupof 2-4 people. Ward et al. (1994) found that of the quarter ofchildren who had been accompanied by other children at thetime of the accident 11 percent were with one other child,and 14 percent were with more than one other child. Table6.1 illustrates the variations in accompaniment reported inthe studies described above.

A number of studies have shown that older childpedestrians are increasingly likely to be killed or seriouslyinjured on main roads further away from home (Ward et al.,1994; Carole Miller Research, 1998; Lawson, 1990;TRRL, 1990; Carsten et al. 1989; LAAU, 2002).

35

6.2.2 ExposureA recent exposure study of child pedestrians living in GreatBritain, France and the Netherlands found that Britishchildren aged 12-15 were more likely to be accompanied byother children near roads than their peers in France or theNetherlands (Stephenson et al., 2001). Table 6.2 shows thatthe difference was greater for girls: girls aged 12-15 inBritain were twice as likely as girls in France or theNetherlands to be accompanied by children under 16.

However, Hillman’s study did not indicate how muchtravel the children undertook with their peers.

The National Travel Survey (NTS) collects data onaccompaniment but it is not usually reported. The 1992/94NTS included details of the number of companions in atravel party for people of different ages, but did notindicate the age(s) of the accompanying person(s) or reportthe results by travel mode (DoT, 1995).

6.3 Behaviour

Data on pedestrian behaviour has been collected fromobservation studies in the natural or simulatedenvironment, and from self-reported activity in surveysand focus groups. This section reviews a number of studiesto examine how being in a group of peers may influenceyoung adolescent pedestrian behaviour.

6.3.1 Observation studiesThe findings of observation studies are contradictoryconcerning the relative safety of children’s behaviourwhen in a peer group and when alone. In some respects thebehaviour was ‘safer’ because children in a group wereless likely to run across the road, and were more visible todriver (Grayson, 1975b; MVA Consultancy, 1989;Ovstedal and Ryeng, 2000). However, the same studieshighlighted that the child’s road crossing behaviour wasless safe: accompanied children made far fewer headmovements before the kerb or whilst crossing the roadthan those who were alone. They were also less likely towait at the kerb than children observed crossing alone. Thevideo studies for this current report found childrentravelling alone were more likely to look before reachingthe kerb than those travelling with others, but were nomore likely to stop at the kerb (see Section 4.5). Clayton etal. (1991) reported that children aged 10-14 adopt a moreflexible strategy to crossing the road based upon theprevailing circumstances. They will only look for traffic ifthey can hear it or stop and wait if they can see a car.Instead of ‘Stop, Look, Listen’, their strategy was ‘Listen,Look, Stop’.

The observation study carried out by MVA in Scotlandalso suggested that children in a child group were ‘lessaware’ than those alone (MVA Consultancy, 1989). Thebehaviour of boys who were with other children was lesssafe than that of girls in a group (MVA Consultancy,1989). Ovstedal and Ryeng (2000) observed childrenwalking in a group of children changed tempo anddirection more often than children accompanied by anadult. Drivers also paid greater respect to a group with anadult, than groups of children or children alone.

Pedestrians crossing the road in a group may adopt rolesaccording to their position in the group. An Americanstudy of adult pedestrians identified four different roles:newcomer, frontliners and backfielders and the lonepedestrian (Wagner, 1981). Backfielders trusted frontlinersto decide when it was safe to cross the road. Jennings et al.(1977) also suggested that looking behaviours areundertaken by the first few pedestrians who start to crossthe roads, and those following look less at the road andmore at other pedestrians. These roles are adopted by

Table 6.2 Proportion of time spent accompanied nearroads for children aged 12-15

Britain The Netherlands France

% exposure time Male Female Male Female Male Female

Alone 41 30 48 53 41 41With others all under 16 42 64 31 34 42 32With at least one 16+ 16 6 19 13 18 27

Source: Stephenson et al. (2001)

In an exposure study of pedestrian activity inNorthampton, Ward et al. (1994) found that the level ofadult accompaniment for children aged 10-15 was about27 percent on local distributors and residential roads,increasing to 40 percent on primary and districtdistributors. The amount of time children of this age spentwith their peers walking alongside or crossing roads wasnot given by Ward et al..

Observation studies of child pedestrians have reportedthat most children cross roads in a group (Grayson, 1975b;MVA Consultancy, 1989). The study conducted byGrayson used locations outside schools so the observationswere limited to the school journey. (This is also the casefor the video surveys reported in Section 4 of this report).The MVA study observed children in a number oflocations but did not report the results by age group.

Hanging out with friends is one of most popular leisureactivities for children aged 11-14 (CAPT, 2002). The studyof the lifestyles of 2000 young people living in Gatesheadindicated that leisure time was spent in friends’ homes,shops and shopping centres, parks, streets or local cafes.The street was one of few places young people could meetaway from adult supervision. Findings from focus groupscarried out with 14-16 year olds by Campbell Keegan Ltd(unpublished) indicated that around the ages of 13 and 14adolescents were ‘hanging around’ in the street becausethey had ‘nowhere to go’ ; boys aged tended to playfootball in the street, whilst girls window shopped. As theygot older the adolescents had more money so could pay togo to venues. Ghate and Daniels (1997) found youngpeople from lower socio-economic groups are less likely togo to clubs.

Young adolescents are increasingly given licence totravel independently from the time they transfer tosecondary school (Hillman et al., 1990). Restrictions toindependent mobility appear to be lifted by age 14:

‘It is at this age that children usually prefer thecompany of their peers for social and recreationalactivities and have the parental licence to travel ontheir own.’ (Hillman et al., 1990).

36

groups of strangers who cross the road together. No similarstudies of child pedestrians were found that had examinedthe different roles adopted within a child group whencrossing the road. Nor is it known whether childreninvolved in an accident when in a group were ‘leaders’ or‘followers’. It is likely that children adopt similarbehaviours to those observed of adults. Grayson (1975b)indicated that the observed behaviour of secondary schoolpupils crossing the road was more like that of adults thanthat of younger children. The video surveys of this currentstudy found that children at the front of the group weremost likely to make safety checks, while those in themiddle of the group were least likely (see Section 4.5).

6.3.2 Road crossing skillsCrossing the road safely is a complex cognitive task thatrequires a number of skills. The two important skillsneeded to cross the road safely are switching attentionand the ability to ignore potentially distracting eventsoutside the current focus of attention (concentration). AsLewis et al. explain:

‘If a child approaches the road talking to a friend,they need to switch their attention away from theconversation and towards the road situation and,conversely, once they are focused it is importantthat they are not distracted by any furtherconversation’ (Lewis et al., 1999).

These skills are clearly relevant to the behaviour ofchildren in groups.

In a study of younger children aged 5-10, Lewis et al.(1999) studied switching attention using a computer game,and concentration by observing effects on children’sperformance during a difficult computer task when adistracting event occurred. The study showed thatswitching attention and concentration were distinct skills,with no correlation between them. Both skills were relatedto crossing behaviour. The ability to switch attentionimproved with age, but variations in concentration skillappeared to be a function of individual differences incognitive style rather than age. Children who were betterable to concentrate or became more reflective in theirperformance, instead of impulsive, crossed the road moresafely. Distraction has been identified as a contributoryfactor in child pedestrian accident studies (e.g. Tight et al.,1996; Sentinella et al.,2004).

Generally, it is assumed that road crossing skills havedeveloped by age 11 to 12 to adult levels. Whitebread andNeilson (1999) concluded from their study that themajority of older children (aged 11) had acquired thenecessary skill to cross the road safely. This suggests thatit is the failure of adolescents to employ these skills thatdetermines their accident involvement. Conversely, Tolmieet al. (2002) have said that there is considerable room forimprovement in children aged 11, and suggest their skillsare likely to continue to develop as they get older.

6.3.3 Risky pedestrian behaviourAs children reach their teenage years they experience newactivities and often take risks (Arnett, 1992; Jessor, 1998;

Gullone et al., 2000). Studies involving teenagers inScotland have highlighted that young people regularlyparticipate in risky pedestrian behaviour (System Three,1993; System Three, 1998). The latter qualitative study ofyoung teenagers identified two types of risky pedestrianbehaviour: common risk and extreme risk. The firstincluded running across the road, crossing when the ‘greenman’ was flashing, walking between parked cars andqueuing traffic. The second included playing games in theroad and holding on the back of vehicles when rollerblading. Although common risk acts are less likely toresult in an accident than extreme risk acts, they accountfor the majority of road pedestrian casualties because ofthe high numbers of children engaging in such activities(System Three, 1998).

A recent survey of 3183 11-14 year olds carried out byBrake for Road Safety Week showed that two-thirds (69percent) of young people had crossed the road while talkingto friends or when the red man was showing and over three-quarters (78 percent) had played on the road (Brake, 2002).Fewer children admitted to taking part in higher riskactivities: less than a quarter of the young people said theyhad been pushed into the road for a laugh, 12 percentadmitted pushing a friend into the road and 10 percent hadplayed chicken. The survey did not question the youngpeople about how often they carried out the behaviour.

Elliott and Baughan (2003) studied the behaviour ofadolescent pedestrians aged 11-16 and identified threetypes of behaviour from 43 behaviour items: ‘unsafe roadcrossing practices’, ‘dangerous playing in the road’ and‘planned protective behaviour’. ‘Unsafe road crossingpractices’ included behaviours such as not using a nearbypedestrian crossing and crossing the road against the ‘redman’. More ‘extreme risk’ behaviours, such as playing‘chicken’, fell into the ‘dangerous playing in the road’factor. ‘Planned protective behaviour’ included wearing acycle helmet. Analysis of variance showed that teenagersaged 13-14 engaged in ‘dangerous playing in the road’more often than 11-12 or 15-16 year olds. Adolescentsincreasingly engaged in ‘unsafe road crossing practices’ asthey got older. Girls carried out more safe road behavioursthan boys.

A number of qualitative studies have suggested thatthere are two types of risk taking: one that is oftensubconscious, happening in a relatively automatic way andanother that is a pre-conceived calculated act (Campbelland Keegan, unpublished; Firth and Goffey, 1981). For theformer, the participant does not necessarily set out tobehave dangerously. As Firth and Goffey explain one typeof risks is:

‘…those spur of the moment decisions influenced bymood (for example, being in a hurry, preoccupationwith other problems, anger or general lack ofconcentration)…’ (Firth and Goffey, 1981).

Activities such as playing ‘chicken’ and other more‘extreme risk behaviours’ were more organised, deliberateacts. Focus group participants suggested that playing‘chicken’ between the ages of 12-13 was a ‘rite of passage’towards independence (Campbell Keegan Ltd,

37

unpublished). Extreme behaviours were carried out whenadolescents were ‘hanging out’ with their friends.Members of the ‘gang’ would dare each other to take risk:peer pressure and excitement motivated the adolescent’sinvolvement. They wanted to get respect from peers and toappear ‘cool’ in front of their friends (System Three, 1998;Campbell Keegan Ltd, unpublished). Taking risksprovided stimulus to relieve boredom. The focus groups ofthe current study as reported in Section 5 revealed similarbehaviour to that reported above.

Half the young people surveyed in the CAPT study of11-14 year olds living in a relatively deprived area ofGateshead, took risks or dares when out with their friends.A minority (6 percent) constantly took risks with theirfriends including running across roads, sitting on railwaytracks, lighting fires and standing on bridge parapets(CAPT, 2002).

Pavis and Cunningham-Burley (1999) conducted anethnographic study of young people hanging around on thestreets during the evening in a Scottish town. It examinedthe role of alcohol, illicit drug use and smoking withinstreet culture. Young people spent the majority of theirevenings in single sex groups, ranging in size from two tothree to larger groups. They congregated in locations nearshops with late opening hours from which they could buyfood, alcohol and cigarettes. The locations were also nearjunctions of quite major roads. Most of the young peoplewere between 14 and 17 years old, although younger orolder adolescents would sometimes join the group. Theadvantage of hanging around in the street compared toother leisure activities available to them was that it wasunsupervised, ‘adult-free’ space. They created their ownleisure and didn’t want to participate in organised activitiesas one participant explained:

‘…we don’t need organisation, we like to have agame of football or smoke tarry [cannabis] thatdoesn’t need organising it just happens’ (Pavis andCunningham-Burley, 1999).

Young people were attracted to the feeling that althoughmost of the time on the street was boring and largelyrepetitive something unplanned and exciting could happenat anytime. The study indicated that smoking bound thegroup together, whilst planning how to get alcohol ordrugs provided much of the material that made time onstreet exciting. Although risky pedestrian behaviours werenot examined in this study, the findings suggest that youngpeople hanging out on the street were sensation seeking.

Sensation seeking has been related to injuries (Thuen,1994) and anti-social behaviour (West et al., 1999; Thuenand Bendixen, 1996; Junger, 1994). The study carried outby West et al. (1999) indicated that problem behaviourincreased from adolescence, and was associated withincreased risk taking, which was reflected in pedestrianaccident rates. Young people who are regularly truant fromschool experience more accidents and injuries (CAPT, 2002).West et al. (1999) found that impulsiveness, anger, dangerseeking were all negatively associated with responsiblesocial values and that social values fell after the age of 12,indicating adolescents (up to the age of 15) accepted lower

values of responsibility and respect for others than childrenaged 7 to 12.

Thornton et al. (1999) studied children’s perceptions ofresponsibility. Based upon a survey of 276 adolescents aged11-15, they found that boys behaved less responsibly andreported more risky mistakes, angry gestures and deliberateviolations than girls. Acceptance of personal responsibilityfor safety on the roads was not related to age.

Gender differences were also reported in a study ofsensation seeking in adolescence (Waylen and McKenna,2002). The study indicated that sensation seeking washigher among boys and was linked to risk taking activities(e.g. racing, cycling fast).

Young people in the Scottish study of teenagers’ roadsafety (System Three, 1998) appeared to be aware of thetypes of behaviour and situations which were the most likelyto result in accidents, and these were the same situations/behaviours that they themselves were engaging in. However,they did not see themselves, as individuals, as beingparticularly at risk, but felt that teenagers were the highest riskgroup. Road safety knowledge among the teenagers was high,but application of the knowledge was low.

6.3.4 Risk-taking and peer pressureSocialisation (via friends, family and the community) isimportant in the development of risky attitudes andbehaviour (Arnett, 1992; Jessor, 1998): risk-taking is oftena ‘social activity’ (Waylen and McKenna, 2002).

Norman and Evans (unpublished) investigated the roadcrossing behaviour of adolescents. They studied threescenarios in their Theory of Planned Behaviour study:crossing a busy road on the way home from school;crossing the road behind a bus; and crossing from behind aparked car. Half of the students were presented with ascenario in which they were alone and half were presentedwith a scenario in which they were with friends.Correspondence with the author indicated that there wereno significant differences in the findings betweenscenarios. However, the study did find that the views offriends had the strongest impact on normative beliefsrelated to intentions to cross a busy road dangerously orcross behind a bus (Evans (1999) cited in Evans andNorman, 2002). This suggests that adolescents wereinfluenced by what they believed their friends thoughtabout the behaviour. Intentions were also related to beliefsthat it was easier to cross in that particular way, and thatthe children would get home quicker.

In a study of adult pedestrian behaviour, Evans andNorman (1998) found that the scenario which included thepresence of other people waiting at a crossing had animportant role in determining whether pedestrians wouldcross against the ‘red man’ at a pelican crossing. Adultpedestrians were less likely to cross if others were waiting.Earlier studies have observed similar pedestrian behaviour(Dannick, 1973). If during adolescence, young peoplehave little regard for adults’ opinions they may not beinfluenced in the same way.

Strong relationships have been found between healthrisk behaviours (smoking, drinking, drug taking andunprotected sex) and believing that the prevalence is high

38

in one’s peer group (e.g. Dean, 1990; Thombs and Beck,1994; Goddard, 1996). Adolescents who engage in healthrisk-behaviour also tend to have friends who do the samebehaviours (e.g. Prinstein et al., 2001, La Greca et al.,2001; Eiser et al., 1991; Hawkins et al., 1992). Childrenform into groups that possess common goals and aims andrules of conduct (Hetherington and Parke, 1993). Boystend to have more disruptive, rebellious friendships duringadolescence whilst girls have more supportive friendships(Ghate and Daniels, 1997; Campbell and Keegan,unpublished). Teenagers are very attached to their friends,who often act as a family replacement, the group is ‘allimportant’. Most teenagers, especially boys, do things ingangs. Risk taking gives young men kudos (Enion, 1997;Campbell Keegan Ltd, unpublished).

Firth and Goffey (1981) cited peer group pressure as themain instigator of risk behaviours in a study of teenagersand road safety. Male focus group participants explainedthat participation in risky behaviour was ‘inevitable’: takingrisks increased their status in the group in relation to otherpeers and the opposite sex. Girls were more cautious andless likely to be influenced by group pressures than boys.

Friends travelling in a car with young drivers have beenshown to influence driver behaviour (Rolls and Ingham,1992 and Waylen and McKenna, 2000) and led torestrictions for novice drivers in some countries withgraduated driver licensing (Baughan and Simpson, 2002).Rolls and Ingham (1992) found young male drivers tendedto adopt different driving styles depending on the type ofpassenger: their driving was less safe when driving withfriends and positively affected by the presence of parents ora girlfriends/spouse. The study of driver speed undertakenby Waylen and McKenna, (2000) found young malesdrivers drove faster in the presence of young malepassengers and slower with a female passenger than whendriving alone. The speed of young female drivers was notaffected by the presence of a female passenger, but theydrove faster with a male passenger. Driving is dissimilar topedestrian behaviour in that the role of passenger and driverare distinct. However, the studies suggest that there could bevariation in the risk between mixed and single sex groups,or between young adolescent pedestrians walking with agirl/boyfriend or a sibling, and those walking with a friend.

There was some evidence from Scottish focus groupsthat the young people behaved less responsibly when inthe company of friends (System Three, 1998). The authorssuggest that, rather than reflecting peer pressure, thisseemed to be the result of a sense of safety in numbers.Many participants felt confident that a car would not runinto a group of pedestrians. However, wanting to appear‘cool’ in front of their friends would suggest a certaindegree of peer pressure.

Other studies have also indicated that simply being in agroup makes young people feel much safer (Enion, 1997;CAPT, 2002; Pavis and Cunningham-Burley, 1999). Manyyoung people had concerns about their personal safety, andbeing in a group offered protection. It is not clear whetherthis feeling of safety varies with the number of people inthe group.

6.4 Summary of literature review

1 Young adolescence is a time when children areincreasingly given licence to travel without an adult.Exposure and observation studies have indicated thatyoung people spend a high proportion of their time nearroads with their friends and this is reflected in accidentstatistics. However, without comparable data, andbecause of the variations in accompaniment at the timeof the accident reported in different studies, it is notclear from the literature whether accompaniment byfriends increases the risk for child pedestrians.

2 Being in a group offers a feeling of protection: youngpeople feel safer in a group and this may affect theirbehaviour so they take more risks (intentionally orunintentionally). Observation studies indicated thatgroups of children were safer because they were morevisible than lone children, although this is likely to bedependent on group size. Individually, however, theirpedestrian behaviour was less safe when they were in agroup of children.

3 Young adolescents cared about what their friendsthought about their behaviour and friends wereinfluential in determining whether types of behaviourwere ‘socially acceptable’. Extreme risk behaviours,which were more deliberate acts, were subject to peerpressure and tend to be carried out to appear ‘cool’ infront of friends or as a dare. Studies of other health-riskbehaviours suggest that groups who participate in riskbehaviours are likely to have similar beliefs. Riskbehaviours appeared to be part of ‘street culture’ foryoung people who were hanging out on the street. Dareswould relieve the boredom and provide stimulus.

4 Other, more common risk behaviours such as crossingagainst the ‘red man’ or not using a nearby crossingwere unplanned and spontaneous. The context in whichthese behaviours are undertaken could potentially makethem more dangerous, so being distracted throughchatting or hurrying to catch up with a friend mayincrease the risk. It may be that these behaviours requiregreater skill than adolescents have. Adolescents areconfident about their abilities to cross the road so couldunderestimate their level of skill or the danger fromtraffic. Alternatively, or in addition, they may simplyfail to implement the knowledge/skill they possess.

7 Risk

7.1 Exposure and accidents

In order to target road safety policy for adolescents it isuseful to know the relative risk when alone and whenaccompanied, and more specifically to know of anyvariations in risk with age and sex. In this section, the datafrom this and other studies has been used to estimate risk.It must be remembered, however, that the data on exposurefrom this study (the questionnaire data) was collectedprimarily to understand and interpret behaviours ratherthan specifically to estimate risk, and has someshortcomings when used in this way.

39

Risk can be defined as:

Risk = Number of accidents / Exposure

(Stephenson, Bly, and Dix, 2001)

Data on exposure for child pedestrians were obtainedfrom two sources in addition to that from the questionnairedata reported in Section 3: Stephenson, Bly, and Dix(2001), and Ward et al. (1994). The former based theirestimates on interviews with 1000 children aged 5 to 15years in 4 Census enumeration districts within each of 25wards throughout Great Britain. Exposure was measured interms of the total time spent walking per day and thenumber of roads crossed per day. They found that totaltime exposure varied according to age. It rose steadilyfrom around 18 minutes per day at age 5 to a peak of 34minutes per day at age 10, and then levelled off at 25-30minutes per day between 11 and 15 years of age.

Ward et al. (1994) conducted interviews with 400households in Northampton. Exposure was defined as themean number of metres walked per day. Ward et al. foundthat among children age 5-15 years males walk furtherthan females, with an exposure ratio of 3:2. The study alsoestimated risk for various age categories and found that theaccident risk for adolescents age 10-15 was higher for girlsthan for boys (273 c.f. 167 per 100 million kilometreswalked). The Ward study did not give details ofaccompaniment.

The analysis of risk in this section has used exposure datafrom the more extensive study by Stephenson et al. and theexposure as measured in the questionnaire survey of thiscurrent study. The data are summarised in Table 7.1. It canbe seen there are wide variations in estimated exposurefrom the two data sources, particularly with respect tofemales accompanied by an adults or adults.

The table shows considerable similarities for the males,but agreement between the data sources for the females ispoor.

Table 7.3 gives risk estimated using data on non-fatalaccidents (from Christie 1995), on accident data from theanalysis of the police fatal database (pedestrians only)(Sentinella et al. 2004) and exposure data from Stephensonet al. for children aged 12 to 15.

Table 7.1 Exposure (percent of walking time) of childpedestrians* by accompaniment

Data source Stephenson et al. TRL Questionnaire(Age 12-15)** (Age 11-16)***

Males Females Males Female

Alone 41% 30% 31% 26%With other children 42% 64% 57% 52%With adult**** 16% 6% 12% 22%

* The TRL questionnaire asked about accompaniment when outwalking or cycling.

** These numbers from Stephenson et al. were averaged over the ageranges given.

*** It has been assumed that journeys with adults were wholejourneys, and those on own /with friends were part journeys andfigures have been adjusted accordingly.

**** Defined by Stephenson et al. as 16 or over.

Table 7.2 Child pedestrian accidents by accompaniment

Data source Christie (1995) Sentinella et al.(Age 12-15) (2004) (Age 11-15)

Non-fatal accidents Fatal accidents

Males Females Males Female

Alone 30% 31% 34% 19%With other children 65% 64% 62% 73%With adult 4% 25% 4% 8%Sample size 23 16 74 52

Table 7.3 Pedestrian accident risk by accompanimentusing non-fatal and fatal accident data(children age 12-15)

Males Females

Alone% of time walking* 41 30% of accidents (non-fatal) 30 31% of accidents (fatal) 34 19Risk computed from non-fatal accident data 0.73 1.01Risk computed from fatal accident data 0.83 0.63

With friends/other children% of time walking* 42 64% of accidents (non-fatal) 65 43% of accidents (fatal) 62 73Risk computed from non-fatal accident data 1.5 0.67Risk computed from fatal accident data 1.5 1.1

With adult% of time walking* 16 6% of accidents (non-fatal) 4 25% of accidents (fatal) 4 8Risk computed from non-fatal accident data 0.25 4.1Risk computed from fatal accident data 0.25 1.3

Sample size: non-fatal accidents 23 16Sample size: fatal accidents 74 52

* From Stephenson et al. (2001).

Data on accidents is also available from two sources:that used in the analysis of accident involved children(Section 2 of this report) and from the analysis of thepolice fatal accident data (Sentinella et al., 2004). Thelatter has a larger sample size and data is available for bothpedestrians and cyclists. The data (pedestrians only) aresummarised in Table 7.2.

Table 7.3 suggests the risk to boys when travelling withfriends is greater than that for girls, but the fatal accidentdata (with its larger sample size) indicates a smallerdifference than the non-fatal data. The fatal accident data(probably the more reliable because of the larger samplesize) suggests the risk to girls travelling alone is lower thanthe risk to boys. Both the fatal and the non-fatal datasuggest the risk to girls when travelling with an adult isalso high (although again the figure from the non-fatal datais based on a very small sample size).

Table 7.4 shows the risk calculated from TRLquestionnaire exposure data and corresponding accident datafrom the police fatal accident database (Sentinella et al., 2004).

40

This data, unlike, that in the previous table, also includescyclists.

The data again suggest that boys are at more risk thangirls when alone. It also indicates the risk for girls isgreater when with friends than when alone (which isconsistent with risk assessed using fatal accidents inTable 7.3). However Table 7.4 indicates the risk for boyswhen with friends is less than for girls, and less than whenalone. These latter results do not agree with thosecomputed in Table 7.3.

Table 7.5 gives information similar to that in Table 7.4,but categorised by age.

The data in Table 7.5 suggest that the risk is higherwhen alone than when with friends for the youngerchildren (Year 7) and older children (Year 11), but for midage range (Year 9) but there is little difference betweenrisk alone and with friends. The risk when accompanied byan adult decreases with age. Analysis by gender and ageindicates that the accident risk to boys when with friendsdecreases with age, while that to girls increases. However,there is insufficient accident data to place any certainty onthis finding.

The police fatal accident database analysis (Sentinellaet al. 2004) gives details of the causes of the accidents andthe frequency with which they were a cause/contributoryfactor in the accident. The questionnaire survey asked howoften a number of behaviours were undertaken when aloneand when with friends (Section 3.3). Some of thesebehaviours corresponded to those which were causes offatal accidents. Table 7.6 lists these behaviours/causes ofaccidents, and gives the percentage of all pedestrian/cycleaccidents for which the behaviour was cited as a cause, andthe frequency with which the questionnaire respondentclaimed to undertake these behaviours alone and whenwith friends.

The table shows that the safe behaviour ‘Look bothways when crossing’ was reportedly undertaken muchmore frequently when alone than when with friends, andfailure to look both ways was responsible for a highproportion of the fatal accidents reported (22 percent).Similarly running across the road without looking wasreportedly undertaken more frequently when with friends,and was the reported cause of 38 percent of accidents.More extreme risk behaviours (playing chicken, holdingonto moving vehicles) were also reportedly undertakenmore frequently with friends than when alone (althoughthe difference in frequency alone/with friends wassmaller), but were the reported cause of very fewaccidents. However, the reported frequency of undertakingthese behaviours was relatively high. This suggests that thechildren might be exaggerating the reported frequency ofparticipating in these activities and/or these activities arenot identified as such or reported as such to the police.

7.2 Summary

1 Generally, the estimates of risk from the various sourcesof data show inconsistencies, and it is difficult to drawfirm conclusions regarding the relative risk toadolescents when alone and when with friends.Comparisons using different data give differingestimates of the relative risk. This is probably due toinconsistencies in the sources of data used (e.g.Stephenson et al. categorised those over 16 as adults, yetfor the older children those over 16 could be friends),and problems in measuring and defining exposure.However, the estimates do suggest that boys are more atrisk when alone than girls, and that the risk to girls isgreater when with friends than when alone. They alsosuggest that the 13-14 year old adolescents are more atrisk than the younger or older children when withfriends.

Table 7.4 Pedestrian/cyclist accident risk computedfrom exposure data from questionnaire surveyand fatal accident data by sex (age 11-15)

Males Females

Alone% walking/cycling home from school 46 44% walking/ cycling evenings/weekends 44 40% fatal accident 43 22Risk* 0.95 0.53

With friends/other children% walking/cycling home from school 79 80% walking/ cycling evenings/weekends 84 83% fatal accident 51 67Risk* 0.63 0.83

With adult% walking/cycling home from school 3 5% walking/ cycling evenings/weekends 21 40% fatal accident 5 11Risk* 0.20 0.24

* Computed assuming equal exposure on school trips and duringevening/weekends.

Table 7.5 Pedestrian/cyclist accident risk computedfrom exposure data from questionnairesurvey and fatal accident data by age

Age 11-12 Age 13-14 Age 15**

Alone% walking/cycling home from school 40 48 51% walking/ cycling evenings/weekends 36 41 48% fatal accident 36 33 44Risk* 0.95 0.74 0.89

With friends/other children% walking/cycling home from school 75 82 81% walking/ cycling evenings/weekends 80 84 88% fatal accident 52 60 56Risk* 0.67 0.72 0.66

With adult% walking/cycling home from school 8 2 2% walking/ cycling evenings/weekends 37 28 23% fatal accident 12 6 0Risk* 0.26 0.40 0.00

Sample size for accident data 85 96 43

* Computed assuming equal exposure on school trips and duringevening/weekends.

** Age 11-12 based on Year 7 responses, age 13-14 based on Year 9responses, age 15 based on Year 11 responses.

41

2 Common behaviours resulting in a high proportion ofthe total accidents reported in the police fatal accidentdatabase are reportedly undertaken more frequentlywhen with friends.

8 Summary

8.1 Exposure

The questionnaire survey suggested that about two-thirdsof pupils walked or cycled to/from school, with over halfwalking/cycling at least 3 times a week. This varied withthe size of the town, with more pupils walking to/fromschool in the larger towns (about three-quarters). Both thequestionnaire and pilot video surveys suggested that a highproportion of children walked to and from school ingroups: the questionnaire suggested 80 percent walked to/from school with friends for some part of the journey,while the video suggested 75 percent overall. In thequestionnaire survey about half the respondents said theywalked at least part of their journey alone, while in thevideo surveys (which were sited fairly close to schoolentrances) observed 25 percent walking alone. Both thequestionnaire and the video surveys suggested that thechildren in the larger towns were more likely to walk alonethan those from the smaller towns.

In the video surveys around 30 percent of children wereobserved in pairs, while the questionnaire surveysuggested that group sizes were generally higher than this,with fewer than 20 percent overall walking/cycling to/fromschool in pairs. The discrepancy may be due to the smallersample size and fewer locations in the video surveys,difficulty in defining a group in the video surveys, or apossible tendency to exaggerate, or report maximumnumbers rather than average numbers in the questionnairesurvey. Those attending the focus groups said theygenerally walked in small groups with 1 to 3 friends.

The questionnaire survey suggested that the olderchildren and boys were more likely to walk alone or withjust one friend than the younger children and girls. Thiswas also found in the video surveys. Both thequestionnaire and video surveys found that the majority ofgroups were single sex, and the questionnaire surveysuggested that most children walking/cycling in groups doso with children of the same age as themselves. Thequestionnaire survey suggested that the older childrenwere more inclined to meet in mixed sex groups, and thevideo suggested that the mixed sex groups were slightlylarger. Neither the questionnaire survey nor the videosurveys found any difference in group size on the journeyto school in the morning compared with the journey homein the afternoon, although the focus groups suggested thatgroups in the afternoon were often larger.

The questionnaire survey also gave information aboutjourneys out and about walking/cycling in the evenings/atweekends. Very few said they never went out walking/cycling at weekends, and more respondents (particularlygirls) were accompanied by adults and/or brothers andsisters than on the journey to/from school. The number offriends met up with was generally higher than for thejourney to/from school, particularly for boys and for theolder children. The friends met up with in the evenings/weekends were more likely to be of both sexes and toinclude both older and younger children.

The literature review found little data on actual levels ofexposure in groups, although observation studies suggestedmost children crossed the road in groups, and hanging outwith friends was cited as being one of the most popularleisure activities for children aged 11-14. The study byStephenson et al. (2001), used in the analysis of risk reportedin Section 7 of this report, found that the proportion of timespent near roads for children age 12-15 with others all under16 was 42 percent for males and 64 percent for females.

Table 7.6 Accidents resulting from specific behaviours and frequency* of participating in these behaviours aloneand with friends

Difference in frequency

Accident % of all fatal Frequency Frequency withBehaviour (as specified in questionnaire) classification accidents alone with friends friends/alone

Run across road without looking. Run into road. 38 1.56 1.74 0.18

(Fail to) look both ways when crossing roads.** Fail to look both ways. 22 0.82 1.06 0.24

Think you have enough time to cross safely but a car is Misjudge gap or speed. 8 1.82 1.94 0.12coming faster than you thought.

Climb over the barriers that separate the road from the Climb over barrier. 0.6 1.51 1.61 0.08pavement when crossing roads.

Cross at a pedestrian crossing without waiting for green man. Cross against the lights. 6 2.07 2.15 0.06

Play chicken by deliberately running out in front of traffic. Chicken. 0.6 1.28 1.36 0.10

Hold onto a moving vehicle when on a bike (or skateboard or Being towed. 0.7 1.27 1.33 0.08roller skates/ roller blades).

* As rated in the questionnaire survey. Mean value on scale where 1= never and 4=nearly all the time.

** The questionnaire actually stated ‘Look both ways when crossing roads’. The mean frequency scores above are adjusted by subtracting themeasured values from 4.

42

8.2 Opinions

The questionnaire survey compared opinions of childrenon their own road safety behaviour when alone and whenwith friends. Mean ratings show that children generallythought their behaviour was more risky, and that they paidless attention to traffic when with friends than when alone.Behaviour was thought to be more risky with friendsparticularly by Year 9 pupils, males and those in largergroups, while Year 9 and 11, males and those with 5 ormore friends claimed to pay less attention to traffic whenwith friends. Overall, the children thought they were morelikely to have an accident in the next year when withfriends than when alone. In particular Year 9 pupils, andthose who walked/cycled with 3 to 4 friends thought theywere most likely to have an accident when with friends.

The focus group participants generally felt theirbehaviour on the roads was safer when they were alonethan when with friends. They felt this was because theywere distracted or excited when with friends, tried toimpress friends, felt ‘grown-up’ when they were withfriends, or just followed the crowd or felt a sense of safetyin numbers (and so did not look out for themselves) whenwith friends. Some felt their behaviour was more sensibleand that they were safest when with just one friend.

The focus groups suggested that the children were awarethat their road safety behaviour and involvement in gamesand dares, particularly when with friends, was potentiallydangerous, but there was a feeling that they themselveswould not get hurt. The younger children in particularbelieved that they were invincible.

The literature review supported the findings of thecurrent study on adolescents’ opinions on their road safetybehaviour.

8.3 Behaviour

The questionnaire survey presented a list of possiblebehaviours and the respondents were asked how often thebehaviours were undertaken, first alone, then when withfriends. Many of the unsafe behaviours were said to beperformed more frequently when with friends than whenalone, or the safe behaviours less frequently. Failure tolook both ways before crossing a road was said to occurmore frequently when with friends than when alone,particularly for those who walked with just one or twofriends. Generally Year 9 pupils and those walking withfewer friends performed more unsafe behaviours morefrequently when alone than when with friends.

The video survey showed that those travelling in largergroups were more likely to use the crossing facility ifavailable, and were more likely to force the traffic to slowdown or stop to let them cross the road. There was littlevariation in the number of safety checks made before andduring crossing with group size. Those at the front of thegroup were most likely to make safety checks while thosein the middle of the group were least likely.

The behaviour in groups observed on the video varieddepending on whether the groups were all male, all femaleor mixed sex. Those in all male groups were least likely touse a crossing facility if available, while those in mixed

sex groups were most likely. All male groups were mostlikely to stop at the central refuge or centre of the road,while mixed sex groups were most likely to force thetraffic to stop or slow down.

The potentially distracting behaviour most frequentlyobserved by the video was chatting to friends, with abouttwo-thirds observed chatting at several of the videolocations. The incidence of chatting was highest amongstthe older children and girls. The extent of chatting wasleast in all male groups and highest in mixed sex groups. Itwas also highest when the group size was two or three.Those chatting were more likely to stop at the kerb thanthose who were not, and were more likely to look rightafter stepping out, although there was no differencebetween those who were chatting and those who were notin the total number of checks made before stepping intothe road. Similarly, those potentially distracted by trying tocatch up with friends did not differ significantly fromothers in the number of safety checks they made. Theywere, however, more likely than others to force the trafficto slow down or stop.

There were no significant differences observed by videobetween the morning and afternoon in the level ofdistraction due to chatting, or the number of safety checksmade before stepping into the road. However, the childrenwere more likely to use the crossing facility if available inthe afternoon, but were also more likely to run across theroad, and to force the traffic to slow or stop in theafternoon.

Those in the focus groups said their behaviour was moresensible when with parents, and when with youngerbrothers and sisters (for whom they felt a sense ofresponsibility). The older boys said they behaved moresensibly when in the presence of girls. This is reflected toan extent in the behaviour observed on the videos asmentioned above.

Many of the children in the focus groups admitted toplaying games or performing dares in and around roads,most of which were potentially very dangerous. Thesewere generally undertaken to impress friends or to avoidgetting ‘kicked out’ of the ‘gang’.

The literature review is largely supportive of thefindings of the current study regarding adolescentbehaviour in groups. The literature defines two types ofbehaviour on the roads which is unsafe which is termed‘common risk’ (e.g. running across the road) and ‘extremerisk’ (e.g. playing chicken). The literature suggests that thelatter is more influenced by peer pressure than the former,although the current study also found that ‘common risk’was undertaken more frequently in groups. ‘Common risk’is perceived as normal behaviour. The literature alsosuggested that boys’ behaviour was less safe, and that theywere more influenced by peer pressure in sensationseeking activities than girls. The literature indicated that‘common risk’ behaviours were undertaken much morefrequently than ‘extreme risk’ behaviours, andconsequently resulted in more accidents than ‘extremerisk’ behaviours. Extreme risk was found in the literatureto be undertaken most frequently by children aged 13-14,while common risk behaviour increased with age.

43

8.4 Accidents

Analysis of a survey of accident involved children showedthe majority of accidents occurred on familiar roads, with90 percent of accidents occurring when crossing the road.Adolescents had fewer accidents than younger children inwhich they neglected to look before crossing. Whentravelling alone, adolescents had relatively few accidentsin which they failed to use any road safety strategy, andthey were less likely to have an accident in which theyfailed to look before crossing the road. When in groups ofthree they had more accidents which were not the fault ofthe driver.

Sixty-five percent of the adolescent children werewalking with others at the time of their accident: sixty-onepercent were accompanied by friends/siblings but with noadult present. Most of the older children who wereaccompanied at the time of the accident were with one ortwo others.

Where comparisons are possible, analysis of the datafrom interviews with accident involved children indicatestrends which are broadly similar to those from analysis ofthe data from police fatal accident files. This wouldsuggest that both fatal and non-fatal accidents areoccurring under similar circumstances. However, the otherliterature shows different studies have given widelyvarying numbers (from 25 to 60 percent) for accidentsoccurring in the presence of peers, so results are by nomeans conclusive. Differences in peer accompaniment atthe time of the accident may be due to differences in theage groups and ethnic mix of the samples studied, differinglocations and small sample sizes of some of the studies,and possible variations in accompaniment over time, ordifferences in the reporting of accompaniment.

8.5 Risk

Because of the nature of children’s journeys on foot or bybike (they may start the journey on their own and thenmeet up with friends at various points along the way, orsplit up on the return journey) the questionnaire askedabout accompaniment on any part of their journeys.Therefore figures for the relative exposure alone and withfriends cannot be computed accurately from the data (andwere not collected specifically with the intention of usingthem to estimate risk), but indications are that overallexposure with others in groups is high: probably of theorder of two-thirds of the total time spent walking orcycling is with friends/siblings but with no adult present.The videos observing children close to school entrancesindicate that 75 percent of children were accompanied byother children. This higher figure is to be expected, and isprobably an over estimate of overall exposure with others.

The accident data indicates that 61 percent ofadolescents’ accidents occurred when they accompaniedby friends/siblings. This would suggest that the accidentrisk to adolescents is similar when they are alone and whenthey are in groups. The high number of accidentsinvolving adolescent children when in groups with otherchildren may simply be a reflection of the greater exposurewhen in groups.

Fifty-six percent of adolescent accidents in the sampleoccurred when with one or two others. The video observed53 percent of children walking with one or two others, whilethe questionnaire survey gave a figure of 21 percent in theevenings/weekends rising to 46 percent walking to schoolwith one or two friends. It is possible, therefore, that the riskis slightly greater when with only a few friends than whenalone or in larger groups, particularly since many of theaccidents in the sample occurred on journeys which werenot to or from school, when exposure in this size group isgenerally lower. The focus groups indicated that somechildren believed they behaved more sensibly and weresafer when with just one other friend. The data suggest thatthis belief is unfounded, and the mistaken belief couldincrease the danger to children in pairs.

Data from the literature on accidents and exposure wereused together with data on exposure from the questionnairesurvey to estimate the relative risk when alone, withfriends and when with an adult. Estimates using thevarious data sources gave differing results, probablybecause of inconsistencies in the data, and the largenumber of assumption that were required for the estimatesto be made. The estimates did however suggest that boysare more at risk than girls when they were alone, and girlsare more at risk when they are in a group than when theyare alone. The analysis also showed that 13-14 year oldswere more at risk than older or younger adolescents whenin groups.

On a more general note, the risk for adolescent children ofbeing involved in a road accident is far greater than the riskfrom ‘stranger danger’. However, abductions of youngchildren attract much wider media attention than roadaccidents, and there appears to be a tendency now for parentsto emphasise ‘stranger danger’ to children, and pay less orlittle attention to warnings of the dangers from road traffic.

8.6 Limitations of the study methods

This study has used several different research methods toattempt to determine and understand the road safetybehaviour of adolescent children in groups – bothsubjective and objective – and each has associatedlimitations with regard to the accuracy and reliability ofthe data collected. The analysis of accident involvedchildren, the questionnaire study, and the focus groups allrelied on self-reported behaviour and the accuracy of thismight be questioned, particularly since the behaviour wasreported by children (although parents were also involvedin the accident questionnaires). However, across a numberof social behaviours, research has shown that significantand reasonably strong relationships can be found betweenself-reported and more objectively measured behaviourvariables (Aberg et al. 1997). Self-reported behaviour isalso widely recognised as a valuable methodology in socialresearch (e.g. Corbett, 2001) and there is little reason toassume that adolescent road users do not have enoughinsight into their own behaviour to enable them to givereasonably accurate assessments via self-report.

A further limitation of the analysis of accident involvedchildren was the small sample size. However, the data has

44

been complemented by the parallel study on the analysis ofpolice reports of fatal road accidents (Sentinella et al.2004), and where appropriate results have been comparedand found to be reasonably consistent.

The video surveys provided a more objective view ofadolescent behaviour in groups, although this method isitself not without problems. To provide observations of areasonable number of children, the video cameras werelocated close to schools, where behaviour might differ fromthat elsewhere. Finding suitable locations for the videocameras and providing coverage of a reasonable length ofroad where the children might cross inevitably meant thatsome children were observed at some distance.Consequently it was difficult to be certain that their identityand behaviour was correctly coded. Where appropriate andpossible, more than one camera was used to observe thesame stretch of road to give closer views of the children.The videos were all taken during the summer when lightingand weather was good, to ensure the accuracy of theobservations was maximised. However, the erratic andindistinct behaviour of the children observed inevitably ledto some degree of subjectivity of the video coding.

The reasonably consistent picture of adolescentbehaviour in groups which emerges from each of theresearch methods used provides a degree of confidence inthe results of each individual study method, although eachmethod has its limitations as discussed above.

9 General conclusions

Generally the risk of being involved in a road accident foradolescent children would appear from this study to becomparable when alone and when with friends or siblings.The apparently higher incidence of accidents when ingroups is likely to be due to a higher level of exposure ingroups. Estimates of risk from data available in theliterature and this study suggest that the risk is higher forgirls when in groups than when alone, and that the agerange 13-14 are more at risk than older and youngerchildren when in groups.

The children completing the interview survey andparticipating in the focus groups stated that their behaviourwas less safe when with friends, and the focus groupsrevealed a number of reasons why this was the case,including wishing to impress friends and feeling of safetyin numbers. Given that their reported behaviour is less safewhen in groups, yet the accident risk computed from thisstudy does not vary much when alone and when in groups,it may be that the ‘safety in numbers’ is indeedcompensating for the poorer road safety behaviour whenwith friends. Given also that the children perceive thattheir behaviour is more risky when in groups, there wouldappear to be scope to persuade them to be more carefulwhen in groups to capitalise on any ‘safety in numbers’effect and reduce the overall number of road accidents.

Those whose reported behaviour was especially less safewhen with friends were Year 9 pupils and males. It ispossible that the younger pupils are more likely to adhereto their road safety education, following the Green Cross

Code, while the older pupils (Year 11) are beginning to actmore like adults and, in particular, wish to appear to besensible in front of the opposite sex. It is perhaps the midsecondary school age range children who most want toappear ‘cool’ and to impress friends by their bravado, andwho are likely to think road safety is for ‘kids’. Indeed, theliterature suggested that it was this age group who weremost likely to take part in ‘extreme risk’ behaviours.Campaigns to improve the road safety might best be aimedat this mid age range, particularly males, but need toconvey that avoiding unnecessary risk is ‘cool’, and thatgood road sense in boys is likely to impress girls.

Both exposure and accident risk appear to be high whengroups sizes are fairly small (i.e. with one to three friends),and more risky behaviour is undertaken and the level ofdistraction due to chatting is high for those who generallytravel in such small groups. However, some childrenbelieve their behaviour is more sensible, and that they aresafer when with just one friend. Again, campaigns couldbe targeted at children in these vulnerable group sizes, whoindeed may be less protected from the motorist by ‘safetyin numbers’.

It appears that children are well aware of the danger andthe risks of a road accident, but fail to act upon theirknowledge, and think that the accidents will happen tosomeone else and not themselves. The younger children inparticular felt they were invincible. Campaignsemphasising ‘it could be you’ might be considered.However, children seem to readily take responsibility forchildren younger than themselves, so perhaps they couldbe encouraged also to take responsibility and ‘look out for’their friends – ‘it could be your best friend’. This wouldseem to be particularly important when with one or twofriends, and the importance of looking both ways beforecrossing needs to be stressed: both accidents and reportedbehaviour suggested that looking before crossing wasmore often neglected in groups of this size.

There would also appear to be a need to emphasise thepotential danger of road traffic to parents of adolescents,so they may play a stronger role in encouraging sensibleroad safety behaviour in children in this age group.Publicity surrounding abductions of young children hasmeant that there is a tendency for parents now to stress‘stranger danger’ at the expense of danger from roadtraffic, despite the much higher risk of an injury or afatality from a road traffic accident.

The focus groups both in this study and reviewed in theliterature study appear to be particularly effective indetermining attitudes to road safety among adolescents.They could provide a useful tool in determining the likelyeffectiveness of ideas for future road safety campaigns andeducation.

10 Acknowledgements

The work described in this report was carried out in theSafety Group of TRL Limited. The authors are grateful toDavid Lynam who carried out the quality review andauditing of this report.

45

11 References

Aberg L, Larsen L, Glad A and Beilinsson L (1997).Observed vehicle speed and drivers’ perceived speed ofothers. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46,287-302.

Arnett J (1992). Reckless behaviour in adolescence: adevelopmental perspective. Developmental Review, 12,339-373.

Baughan C and Simpson H (2002). Graduated driverlicensing – a review of some current systems. TRL ReportTRL529. Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

Brake (2002). Survey of inner city children. Brake,Huddersfield.

Carsten O M J, Tight M R, Southwell M T and Plows B(1989). Urban road accidents: Why do they happen?Basingstoke: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.

Campbell Keegan Ltd. (2000). Child road safety: Focuson 14-16 year olds. Campaign development. Qualitativeresearch presentation summary prepared for COI andDETR. July 2000. (Unpublished)

Child Accident Prevention Trust (2002). Takingchances: the lifestyles and leisure risk of young people.Summary report. London: CAPT

Carole Miller Research (1998). The older childpedestrian casualty. Development Department ResearchProgramme. Research Findings No 54. Edinburgh: TheStationery Office.

Christie N (1995). The high risk child pedestrian: socio-economic and environmental factors in their accidents.Project Report PR117. Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

Corbett C (2001). Explanations for ‘understating’ in self-reported speeding behaviour. Transportation Research PartF, 4, 133-150.

Clayton A B, Platt C V, Butler G and Lee C (1991). Thedevelopment and evaluation of educational materialsdesigned to reduce 10-14 year old pedestrian casualties.Contractor Report CR225. Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

Dannick L I (1973). Influence of an anonymous strangeron routine decisions to act or not to act: an experiment inconformity. Sociological Quarterly, 14: 127-134.

Dean A (1990). Culture and community: drink and softdrugs in Hebridean youth culture. Sociological Review, 38,517-563.

Department of Transport (1995). National Travel Survey1992/94. London: The Stationery Office.

Department of Transport (1997). Road Accidents GreatBritain: 1997. London: The Stationery Office.

Dunbar G, Lewis V and Hill R (1999). Control processesand road crossing skills .The Psychologist, vo1. 2, no. 8,August 1999.

Einon D (1997). Child behaviour, London: Viking.

Eiser J R, Morgan M, Gammage P and Brooks N(1991). Adolescent health behaviour and similarity-attraction: Friends share smoking habits (really), but muchelse besides. British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 30,no. 4, pp. 339-348.

Elliott M A and Baughan C J (2003). Adolescent roaduser behaviour: A survey of 11-16 year olds. TRL ReportTRL561. Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

Elliott M A (2004). The attitudes and behaviour ofadolescent road users: An application of the theory ofplanned behaviour. TRL Report TRL601. Crowthorne:TRL Limited.

Evans D and Norman P (1998). Understandingpedestrians’ road crossing decisions: an application of thetheory of planned behaviour. Health Education Research,13, 481-9

Evans D (1999).Understanding and changing road safetyawareness in adolescents. Thesis submitted for the awardof Doctor of Philosophy. University of Wales, Swansea.

Evans D and Norman P (2002). Improving pedestrianroad safety among adolescents: An application of thetheory of planned behaviour, in D Rutter and L Quine(Eds). Changing Health Behaviour: Intervention andresearch with social cognition models. Buckingham,England: Open University Press.

Firth D and Goffey L (1981). What do teenagers thinkabout road safety? Traffic Education, 6, 4: 23-25.

Ghate D and Daniels A (1997). Talking about mygeneration: a survey of 8-15 year olds growing up in the1990s. NSPCC Policy, Practice, Research Series. London:NSPCC.

Goddard E (1996). Teenage drinking in 1994. London:The Stationery Office.

Grayson G B (1975a). The Hampshire child pedestrianaccident study. Laboratory Report LR688. Crowthorne:TRL Limited.

Grayson G B (1975b). Observations of pedestrians at foursites. Laboratory Report LR670. Crowthorne: TRL Limited.

46

Gullone E, Moore S, Moss S and Boyd C (2000). Theadolescent risk-taking questionnaire: developmental andpsychometric evaluation. Journal of Adolescent Research,vol. 15, no. 2: pp. 231-250.

Hawkins J D, Catalano R F, and Miller J Y(1992). Riskand protective factors for alcohol and other drug problemsin adolescence and early adulthood. PsychologicalBulletin, 112: 64-105.

Hetherington E M and Parke R D (1993). Childpsychology: a contemporary viewpoint, 4th Edition. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Hillman M, Adams J and Whitelegg J (1990). One falsemove: a study of children’s independent mobility. London:Policy Studies Institute.

James H (1991). Under-reporting of road traffic accidents.Traffic Engineering and Control, December 1991.

Jennings R D, Burki M A and Onstine B W (1977).Behavioral observations and the pedestrian accident.Journal of Safety Research, 9: 26-33.

Jessor R (1998). New perspectives on adolescent riskbehaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Junger M (1994). Accidents and crime. In T Hirschi andM Gottfredson (Eds.). The generality of deviance. NewBrunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

La Greca A M, Prinstein M J and Fetter M D (2001).Adolescent peer crowd affiliation: Linkages with health-risk behaviours and close friendships. Journal of PediatricPsychology, 26, 3, 131-143

London Accident Analysis Unit (2002). Teenagepedestrian casualties in Greater London 2000. Paperproduced by London Accident Analysis Unit, Transportfor London.

Lawson S D (1990). Accidents to young pedestrians:distributions, circumstances, consequences and scope forcountermeasures. Basingstoke: AA Foundation for RoadSafety Research.

Lewis V, Dunbar G and Hill R (1999). Children’sknowledge of danger, attentional skills and child/parentcommunication: Relationship with behaviour on the road.Road Safety Research Report No. 10. London: Departmentof the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

MVA Consultancy (1989). Must do better: A study ofchild pedestrian accidents and road crossing behaviour inScotland. Scottish Office Central Research Unit papers,Edinburgh: The Scottish Office.

Norman P and Evans D (1996). Children’s road crossingbehaviour: Applying the theory of planned behaviour.Report of seminar on child development and road safetyresearch 20-21 May 1996, University of Warwick,Radcliffe House, Coventry. Road Safety Division:Department of Transport. (Unpublished)

Ovstedal L and Ryeng E O (2000). Children’s Behaviourin Traffic - What can we learn? Proceedings of Seminar Cof the European Transport Conference 2000, 11-13September 2000, Cambridge, UK: 75-86

Pavis S and Cunningham-Burley S (1999). Male youthstreet culture: Understanding the context of health relatedbehaviours. Health Education Research, 14, 5, 583-596

Prinstein M J, Boergers J and Spirito A (2001).Adolescents and their friends health risk behaviour:Factors that alter or add to peer influence. Journal ofPediatric Psychology, 26, 5: 287-298.

Roberts I (1995). Adult accompaniment and the risk ofpedestrian injury on the school-home journey. InjuryPrevention, 1, 4: 242-4

Rolls G W P and Ingham R (1992). ‘Safe’ and ‘unsafe’ –a comparative study of younger male drivers. Basingstoke:AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.

Routledge D A, Repetto-Wright R and Howarth C I(1974). The exposure of young children to accident risk aspedestrians. Ergonimcs, 17, 4, 457-480.

Sandels S (1975). Children in traffic. London: Paul Elek.

Sentinella J and Keigan M (2004). Child and youngadolescent’s road deaths: An analysis of police fatalaccident files. TRL Report TRL605. Crowthorne: TRLLimited.

Stephenson C, Bly P and Dix M (2001). Comparativestudy of European child pedestrian exposure andaccidents, Final report. Woking: MVA

System Three (1993). Evaluation of ‘Cars Kills’ -Terminator Advertising - 1st Wave 1993. Report preparedfor the Scottish Office Research Unit. Edinburgh: SystemThree.

System Three (1998). The young teenager and roadsafety: A qualitative study. The Scottish Office CentralResearch Unit. Edinburgh: The Stationery Office.

Thombs D and Beck K (1994). The social context of fouradolescent drinking patterns. Health Education Research,9: 13-22.

47

Thornton S, Andree K, Rodgers N and Pearson A(1999). Becoming a responsible pedestrian. Road SafetyResearch Report No. 9. London: Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions.

Thuen F (1994). Injury-related behaviours and sensationseeking: An empirical study of group of 14 year oldNorwegian school children. Health Education Research, 9,4, 465-472

Thuen F and Bendixen M (1996). The relationshipbetween antisocial behaviour and injury-related behaviouramong young Norwegian adolescents, Health EducationResearch, 11 (1): 51-56

Tight M R (1984). Accidents to child pedestrians inselected areas of five towns and cities. Paper presented toUniversity Transport Study Groups Conference atLoughborough, January 1984. (Unpublished)

Tight M R, Carsten O M J, Kirby H R, Southwell M Tand Leake G R (1996). A review of road safety researchon children as pedestrians: how far can we go towardsimproving their safety. IATSS Research, 20: 69-74.

Tolmie J A, Thomson J, Foot H, Whelan K, Sarvary Pand Morrison S (2002). Development and valuation of acomputer-based pedestrian training resource for childrenaged 5-11 years. Road Safety Research Report No. 27.London: Department for Transport, Local Government andthe Regions.

Transport and Road Research Laboratory (1990).Children should be seen and not hurt: children and roadtraffic accidents. London: Texaco.

Wagner J (1981). Crossing streets: Reflections on urbanpedestrian behaviour. Man-Environment Systems, 11,1-sup-2, 57-61.

Ward H, Cave J, Morrison A, Allsop R, Evans A,Kuiper C and Willumsen L (1994). Pedestrian activityand accident risk. Basingstoke: AA Foundation for RoadSafety Research.

Waylen A E and McKenna F P (2000). Is passengerpresence associated with more or less risk taking? In: G BGrayson, (Ed). Behavioural Research in Road Safety X.London: Department for Transport, Local Government andthe Regions.

Waylen A and McKenna F (2002). Cradle attitudes –grave consequences. The development of genderdifferences in risky attitudes and behaviour in road use.Basingstoke: AA Foundation for Road Safety Research.

West R, Train H, Junger M, West A and Pickering A(1999). Accidents and problem behaviour. Road SafetyResearch Report No. 7. London: Department of theEnvironment, Transport and the Regions.

Whitebread D and Neilson K (1999). Cognitive andmetacognitive processes underlying the development ofchildren’s pedestrian skills. Road Research Report No. 6.London: Department of Transport.

Wills K E, Tanz R R, Christoffel K K, Schofer J L,Lavigne J V, Donovan M and Kalangis K (1997).Supervision in childhood injury cases: a reliable taxonomy.Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 133-137.

48

Appendix A: Instructions to teachers and questionnaire

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

Appendix B: Video coding form

57

58

Appendix C: Focus group topic guide

59

60

61

62

Abstract

In Britain, the number of children killed or seriously injured as pedestrians peaks in the first few years of secondaryschool. Previous studies have shown that adolescents are more likely to be travelling in a same age group thanyounger children, and that 54 percent of child pedestrians aged 11-16 involved in an accident reported that theywere with their friends at the time; a higher percentage than that reported by younger casualties. This project aimedto determine whether adolescents in groups behave differently with regard to attention paid to road safety than whenthey are on their own, and to determine in what ways behaviour differs and why. The research programme includedanalysis of child accident data, a questionnaire survey and focus groups with school children, video surveys of childpedestrians, and a review of relevant literature.

This study has shown that around two-thirds of adolescent accidents occur while they are walking or cycling ingroups, but this largely reflects the fact that similar proportions of their walking and cycling is done in groups.However, there are differences in attitudes and activities among boys and girls at different ages, which do impact ontheir road safety related behaviour. The age range 13-14 are more at risk than older or younger children when ingroups. Individually adolescents behave less safely when in groups, but they are aware of this and it does not generallyresult in more accidents as the behaviour of the group as a whole, and perhaps their visibility to motorists, tends tomitigate this. The exception to this appears to be boys aged 13-14, who tend toward more ‘planned’ risky behaviour.

Both exposure and accidents appear to be high for small groups (i.e. with one to three friends), and more riskybehaviour is undertaken and the level of distraction due to chatting is high for those in such small groups. However,some children believe their behaviour is more sensible, and that they are safer when with just one friend.

For girls, group activity becomes increasingly important through adolescence, and there is some evidence that therisk to girls is higher when they are with friends than when they are alone. For boys, mid-adolescence risky behaviourtrying to impress peers gives way to a tendency to more trips being made alone or in pairs by the age 15-16.

Related publications

TRL605 Child and young adolescent’s road deaths: An analysis of police fatal accident files by J Sentinella andM Keigan. 2004 (In preparation)

TRL601 The attitudes and behaviour of adloescent road users: An application of the theory of planned behaviourby M A Elliott. 2004 (price £50, code L)

TRL561 Adolescent road user behaviour: a survey of 11-16 year olds by M A Elliott and C J Baughan.2003 (price £20, code A)

TRL529 Graduated driver licensing - a review of some current systems by C Baughan and H Simpson.2002 (price £20, code A)

PR117 The high risk child pedestrian: socio-economic and environmental factors in their accidentsby N Christie. 1995 (price £35, code H)

LR688 The Hampshire child pedestrian accident study by G B Grayson. 1975 (price £20)

LR670 Observations of pedestrians at four sites by G B Grayson. 1975 (price £20)

Prices current at April 2004

For further details of these and all other TRL publications, telephone Publication Sales on 01344 770783, or visitTRL on the Internet at www.trl.co.uk.

Documents

Road safety behaviour of adolescent children in groups · 5.4 Road safety behaviour when alone 30 5.5 Road safety behaviour when with parents 30 5.6 Road safety behaviour when with