Discussion

The Phase 2 programme has been widely recognised by stakeholders and participants as a significant step forward in building Safe System capacity across Scotland. Evaluation data show that the initiative was delivered with a high degree of professionalism, agility, and responsiveness, with strong collaboration between Transport Scotland and Agilysis contributing to its success.

The two-day Safe System Foundation training emerged as a cornerstone of the programme. It enabled a diverse range of participants, from engineers to enforcement officers, to engage in structured learning and dialogue. Feedback highlighted the value of the scenario-based exercises in moving delegates from traditional paradigms to systems thinking. These ‘lightbulb moments’ were consistently associated with increases in perceived knowledge, confidence, and motivation to apply Safe System principles in practice.

The mixed-cohort approach enhanced cross-sectoral engagement, breaking down silos and reinforcing shared responsibility, a central tenet of the Safe System model. Importantly, the complementary online Safe System Principles training successfully extended access to participants unable or not in the position to attend in-person sessions. This format provided a flexible entry point for professionals across Scotland and captured a similarly diverse audience, including those with little to no prior exposure to the Safe System.

Findings from stakeholder interviews, including the delivery contractor Agilysis and Transport Scotland representatives, further reinforce the programme’s success in achieving both reach and relevance. Interviewees highlighted the importance of collaborative development and the adaptability shown in delivering both in-person and online formats, particularly in meeting the needs of different audiences. They also emphasised the strategic alignment of the programme with national goals and the value of investing in capacity building across sectors.

Evaluation findings from both in-person and online formats confirm meaningful gains in knowledge and confidence. While effect sizes were larger among in-person participants, online participants also demonstrated significant improvement in their self-rated understanding and in their composite knowledge scores. This suggests that even compressed or remotely delivered training can foster key learning outcomes, particularly when designed with structured content and strong evidence-based teaching foundation.

Both in-person and online participants emphasised the value of practical application, relevance to role, and the importance of being able to communicate Safe System principles to others. The online format also surfaced additional considerations around self-efficacy in advocacy and the need for training that accommodates varying levels of prior knowledge.

The delivery format, pacing, and facilitation style were praised across both interview and survey responses, with participants citing both the content and its presentation as highly effective. While some respondents recommended a lighter version for time-pressed senior leaders, the two-day structure was generally seen as essential for deeper reflection and culture change. The stakeholder interviewee who attended training described the experience as engaging and reflective, praising the opportunity to step away from day-to-day responsibilities to focus on strategy. While they did not report major new revelations, they appreciated the affirmation of their existing practices and the opportunity for peer discussion.

Similarly, online respondents noted that the shorter format was accessible and informative, but some desired additional depth or follow-up opportunities. This interest in continued engagement was echoed in open-text survey responses and confirmed through interview feedback, suggesting appetite for peer networks, ongoing learning opportunities, or refresher modules to maintain momentum.

Notably, the development of the Safe System Manual represents a critical legacy component. The manual offers a tailored and accessible reference for ongoing practice, allowing practitioners to revisit training content and explore further application. Stakeholders interviewed for the evaluation strongly endorsed the manual’s potential to embed and extend learning, highlighting its importance in supporting long-term cultural change and reinforcing Safe System thinking within professional communities. As suggested by both in-person and online respondents, such a resource is necessary to support continued learning and practical implementation. Its availability may also help address calls for further materials and role-specific guidance.

Despite these successes, several challenges to implementation remain. Survey responses pointed to financial and resource limitations, competing operational pressures, and limited organisational or political buy-in as significant barriers. While the training sparked enthusiasm and intent, the capacity to act on this varies across contexts.

The evaluation also surfaces a need to better engage senior managers and political leaders, who are critical to embedding the Safe System at a strategic level. Suggestions for lighter-touch training or targeted briefings reflect this need and offer a potential next step in expanding Safe System literacy.

As with all evaluations, certain limitations should be acknowledged. While more than 500 individuals participated in training, the survey responses represent only a proportion of this group, introducing the potential for self-selection bias. In addition, because the surveys were anonymous and responses could not be matched across pre- and post-training, the data were analysed as independent samples. This limited the ability to assess individual-level learning progression over time. Lastly, the evaluation was conducted shortly after the delivery of training sessions, meaning that findings largely reflect short-term outcomes such as satisfaction and knowledge gain. Longer-term impacts, such as shifts in practice or policy, were beyond the scope of this evaluation and could not be assessed within the project’s timescale.

These limitations have been considered in analysis and interpretation. Overall, the evidence supports the conclusion that Phase 2 has meaningfully advanced Safe System understanding, built capacity across sectors, and laid the foundation for long-term culture change. With continued support, targeted adaptation, and strategic investment, the initiative has the potential to drive sustained systems-based road safety improvement across Scotland.