Survey findings
The findings presented in this section draw on data collected through pre- and post-training surveys administered to participants of both the in-person Safe System Foundation Course and the online Safe System Principles training course. These surveys explored participants’ backgrounds, prior knowledge, training expectations, perceived knowledge gains, satisfaction with the training, and intentions for future application. Qualitative and quantitative responses were analysed to assess the impact of the training and identify areas for continued support.
In addition to the survey data, one qualitative interview was conducted with a participant who attended the training. While limited in number, this interview offered valuable insight into how the training was experienced in practice, reinforcing and elaborating on survey themes. Reflections from this participant are included throughout the following subsections where relevant, particularly in relation to training delivery, perceived outcomes, and implementation challenges, to complement and contextualise the broader survey findings.
The subsections that follow outline participant demographics, baseline knowledge, post-training outcomes, and anticipated barriers to implementation. They integrate insights from both delivery formats to highlight shared themes, format-specific patterns, and implications for ongoing support.
Participant profile
Table 4-1 presents a breakdown of both planned (pre-survey) and actual (post-survey) attendance across the eight in-person Safe System Foundation Course training sessions, based on survey responses. The pre-training survey captured responses from 81 participants who indicated their intended attendance, while the post-training survey reflects 48 individuals who completed the in-person training.
Overall, responses were well distributed across training dates and locations, with representation from all sessions. The most commonly planned sessions included the 15–16 May Glasgow session (13.2%), 12–13 May Glasgow session (10.9%), and both Aberdeen sessions (27–30 May), each attracting over 10% of pre-survey respondents. Post-training responses showed slightly higher attendance for the 13–14 March Glasgow session (7.0%), with most other sessions ranging between 2.3% and 5.4% of total responses. Notably, Edinburgh sessions (February) were only captured in the post-survey, suggesting those sessions may had already taken place before the pre-survey was circulated.
In addition to the in-person training data, survey responses were also collected from participants of the online Safe System Principles training sessions. While detailed attendance records by date or session were not available for the online format, 113 individuals completed the pre-training survey, and 32 provided post-training responses.
In terms of prior exposure to Safe System principles, only 6 respondents (4.7%) from the in-person pre-training survey indicated that they had attended the online Safe System Principles training delivered in November and December 2024. This suggests that the majority of in-person participants were engaging with the Safe System content for the first time through these face-to-face sessions.
| Training Session | Location | Dates | No. (%) of responses (Pre) | No. (%) of responses (Post) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Session 1 | Edinburgh | 24-25 Feb | not applicable | 7 (5.4%) |
| Session 2 | Edinburgh | 27-28 Feb | not applicable | 6 (4.7%) |
| Session 3 | Glasgow | 10-11 Mar | 13 (10.1%) | 7 (5.4%) |
| Session 4 | Glasgow | 13-14 Mar | 8 (6.2%) | 9 (7.0%) |
| Session 5 | Glasgow | 12-13 May | 14 (10.9%) | 3 (2.3%) |
| Session 6 | Glasgow | 15-16 May | 17 (13.2%) | 3 (2.3%) |
| Session 7 | Aberdeen | 27-28 May | 15 (11.6%) | 6 (4.7%) |
| Session 8 | Aberdeen | 29-30 May | 14 (10.9%) | 7 (5.4%) |
| Total (All sessions) | (All locations) | (All dates) | 81 (100%) | 48 (100%) |
Baseline knowledge and expectations
As part of the pre-training survey, participants were asked to self-assess their existing knowledge of the Safe System approach and to share what they specifically hoped to gain from the training. These questions were designed to capture both baseline familiarity with the topic as well as individual learning objectives, providing insight into perceived knowledge gaps and participant motivation.
Quantitative findings revealed that, while in-person participants rated their knowledge of the Safe System relatively low (Mean = 2.93, SE = 0.266 on a 10-point scale), they nevertheless rated the importance of the Safe System approach for reducing road traffic collisions very highly (Mean = 7.75, SE = 0.244). Online participants showed a similar pattern, rating their baseline knowledge slightly lower (Mean = 2.67, SE = 0.219), while still placing a high value on the Safe System’s role in improving safety (Mean = 7.65, SE = 0.201). This suggests strong recognition of the Safe System’s significance across both formats, even among those with limited prior exposure.
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 present pre-training survey responses from participants of both the in-person and online sessions. Figure 4-1 shows self-rated knowledge of the Safe System approach, while Figure 4-2 illustrates participants’ perceived importance of the approach. The results indicate broadly comparable patterns across both delivery formats.
In addition to these scaled responses, participants were invited to describe in their own words what specific skills or knowledge they hoped to gain from the training. A total of 81 valid open-text responses were provided for the in-person training and analysed thematically. These responses clustered into five core themes, summarised below.
General understanding of the Safe System approach
A substantial number of participants were seeking a foundational understanding of what the Safe System is, why it matters, and how it differs from traditional road safety approaches. Many had limited or no prior exposure to the concept and were looking to build a solid grounding (e.g. “To fully understand the Safe System”).
Practical application and implementation
Participants were highly focused on learning how to put the Safe System into practice, either within their own roles, projects, or organisations. This included a desire for concrete methods, examples, and implementation strategies relevant to local government, engineering, road safety education, and public sector operations (e.g. “I hope to gain a deeper understanding of how to practically apply the Safe System approach within the context of road safety delivery in Scotland”).
Relevance to role and local context
A third major theme related to understanding how the Safe System principles applied specifically to participants’ existing roles, such as engineers, project managers, police officers, and road safety advocates. Many sought clarity on how their work aligned with the wider Safe System vision in Scotland (e.g. “I would like to come away with an overview of what the Safe System approach is in Scotland...and apply the knowledge in my job”).
Desire to influence and share knowledge
Several participants articulated a motivation to secure “knowledge to pass on to colleagues”, advocate for Safe System practices, or support capacity building within their organisations. This included aspirations to influence others, train staff, or initiate change based on what they learned.
Comparative learning and broader perspectives
Some respondents were particularly interested in understanding how the Safe System approach had been implemented internationally, how it relates to global standards, and what Transport Scotland’s national vision entails (e.g. “Better knowledge of Safe Systems and how this has been used globally and what lessons can we learn from this”). This broader systems-level thinking highlights an appetite for comparative learning and a desire to stay aligned with best practice.
Overall, the responses revealed strong participant engagement and curiosity, with a clear emphasis on acquiring both foundational understanding and actionable knowledge. While a small number of respondents sought a general overview or refresher, most articulated well-defined objectives tied to their professional responsibilities and organisational contexts.
While the online responses largely echoed the themes found in the in-person training data, they also revealed a number of distinct nuances. Several participants emphasised the importance of feeling confident in articulating the Safe System approach, not only to support their own understanding, but also to engage effectively with peers, senior leaders, elected members, and the public. This focus on confidence introduces a dimension of self-efficacy that builds on the in-person theme of influencing and sharing knowledge, highlighting the need for training to empower participants as advocates.
Additionally, the online feedback revealed a wider range of entry points, from participants with no prior exposure to the Safe System to those seeking a refresher after years of experience. This diversity underscores the importance of designing flexible, tiered training that accommodates varying levels of familiarity. A further distinction related to the need for support in overcoming implementation barriers, with some participants explicitly calling for the training to address challenges such as feasibility, resource constraints, and real-world application. For example, one participant asked for guidance on “the practicality and practicability of utilising the Safe System approach in real and live situations”.
Collectively, the learning goals expressed across both formats reflect the broad cross-sectoral relevance of the training and suggest growing recognition of the Safe System approach as a framework applicable across roles, from frontline delivery to strategic planning.
Knowledge gains and confidence post-training
Independent-samples t-tests, as detailed in the methods section, were used to assess differences between pre- and post-training responses. Participants’ knowledge and confidence in applying the Safe System approach increased following training across both delivery formats. The in-person Safe System Foundation Course was associated with a particularly large shift in self-rated knowledge. Among in-person participants, mean knowledge ratings rose from 2.93 (SE = 0.266) prior to training to 6.71 (SE = 0.426) afterwards, a statistically significant increase, t(127) = -7.94, p < .001 (two-tailed). This change was associated with a very large effect size (Cohen’s d = -1.45), indicating a strong impact of the training on participants’ understanding of the Safe System approach.
For online participants, a similar upward trend was observed, with knowledge ratings increasing from a pre-training mean of 2.67 (SE = 0.219) to a post-training mean of 3.75 (SE = 0.604). While this change did not reach statistical significance at the conventional two-tailed threshold (t(39.47) = -1.68, p = .101), the one-tailed p-value was .051, indicating a borderline trend toward improvement in the expected direction. The associated effect size (Cohen’s d = -0.41, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.02) suggests a small to moderate increase in knowledge following the online training. Although the gains were less pronounced than in the in-person format, the results point to meaningful movement in participants’ awareness and familiarity with Safe System principles.
Figure 4-3 shows the mean change in general knowledge rating across both formats (with standard error bars), clearly illustrating the positive shift following training. Figure 4-4 displays the distribution of pre- and post-training knowledge scores for in-person participants, while Figure 4-5 presents the equivalent distribution for online participants, allowing for a direct visual comparison of how perceived knowledge changed within each delivery format.
Two measures of knowledge were used to assess learning outcomes across both in-person and online training formats:
- A single-item general self-assessment, as outlined in Figures 4-3 to 4-5.
- A multi-item composite score based on eight Safe System statements, shown in Figures 4-6 to 4-8.
These eight statements captured participants’ confidence, understanding of Safe System components, awareness of international best practice, and the relevance of the approach to their professional context. Figure 4-6 presents the mean agreement ratings (1 = Strongly disagree to 5 = Strongly agree) for each statement across pre- and post-training surveys for in-person participants. Figure 4-7 provides the equivalent data for online participants.
| Question | Statement |
|---|---|
| 1 | I am confident with explaining the principles of the Safe System |
| 2 | I know how the components of the Safe System relate to each other |
| 3 | I am aware of the different operators that are used to deliver the Safe System |
| 4 | I know about the different safe speeds for survivability in different crash scenarios |
| 5 | I recognise the challenges of implementing the Safe System |
| 6 | I understand how the Safe System is relevant to delivering road safety within Transport Scotland |
| 7 | I am aware of how the Safe System is being successfully applied in other countries |
| 8 | I understand that we can't prevent people from making mistakes |
A composite Safe System knowledge score was calculated by averaging responses to the eight items for each participant. The scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency for both formats:
- In-person: α = .87 (pre), α = .83 (post)
- Online: α = .90 (pre), α = .92 (post)
These values confirm that the items reliably captured a single construct of Safe System knowledge and understanding. Among in-person participants, an independent samples t-test revealed that the composite score increased significantly from 3.19 (SE = 0.081) pre-training to 4.29 (SE = 0.058) post-training (out of a maximum score of 5) (See Figure 4-8). This 1.10-point gain was statistically significant: t(127) = -11.00, p < .001 (two-tailed), and associated with a very large effect size (Cohen’s d = -1.75), confirming the training’s strong impact on perceived knowledge. Among online participants, the composite knowledge score also improved significantly, rising from 2.99 (SE = 0.072) pre-training to 3.93 (SE = 0.124) post-training. This 0.94-point increase was statistically significant: t(143) = -6.23, p < .001 (two-tailed), with a large effect size (Cohen’s d = -1.25, 95% CI: -1.66 to -0.83), indicating that post-training knowledge scores were more than one standard deviation higher than the comparison group.
These results provide strong evidence that both delivery formats were successful in increasing Safe System knowledge, with particularly large gains in confidence and conceptual understanding across both general and specific knowledge items.
Perceptions of the training experience
To explore how participants perceived the training, ten post-training survey items were analysed, covering various aspects of the learning experience. These included views on logistics (e.g. venue and session length), the delivery and quality of training content, and how useful or applicable participants found the material.
To support interpretation, the ten items were grouped into three conceptually aligned categories:
Logistics satisfaction
(2 items for in-person: venue appropriateness and session length; 1 item for online: session length only)
Content delivery and quality
(5 items: content organisation, structure, pace, instructional quality, and overall satisfaction)
Learning outcomes and application
(3 items: usefulness of learning, ability to apply knowledge, and likelihood to recommend)
Each multi-item grouping showed strong internal consistency, confirming reliability in measurement:
- In-person: Content delivery α = .93; Learning outcomes α = .90; Logistics α = .71
- Online: Content delivery α = .97; Learning outcomes α = .96
Participants attending the in-person training rated all three dimensions positively, with content delivery and quality scoring slightly higher (Mean = 4.47, SE = 0.081) than logistics satisfaction (Mean = 4.32, SE = 0.09), t(47) = –3.14, p = .003 (two-tailed). No significant differences emerged between logistics and learning outcomes or between content delivery and learning outcomes, indicating generally high and consistent satisfaction across categories.
Participants of the online training reported a similarly positive experience overall, though mean scores were slightly lower than those of the in-person cohort. For the online group, content delivery and quality (Mean = 4.06, SE = 0.191) was rated significantly more positively than learning outcomes and application (Mean = 3.72, SE = 0.230), t(31) = 2.579, p = .015 (two-tailed). In contrast to the in-person findings, where no significant differences emerged between these categories, this suggests slightly greater variation in perceived value across domains in the online format. While a composite score for venue-related logistics was not calculated for the online training, the session length item was analysed independently and included in the t-test comparisons. No significant differences emerged between ratings of session length and either content delivery or learning outcomes.
These findings suggest that both formats were generally well-received. Participants consistently appreciated the structure and clarity of the content and found the material relevant to their roles. While in-person delivery was rated slightly higher overall, online participants also expressed satisfaction, with indications that content engagement and applicability could be further enhanced through tailored examples and follow-up support (explored further in Section 4.2.6). Figure 4.9 presents average scores for each training format across the three thematic groupings, illustrating participant satisfaction with logistics (based on one item for online participants), content delivery and quality, and learning outcomes and application.
The in-person training attendee who was interviewed described the sessions as “engaging” and praised the trainers for making a complex and potentially dry topic accessible and stimulating. They valued the chance to step back from daily tasks to reflect on strategic road safety issues and reported that while there were no dramatic ‘lightbulb’ moments, the training validated and sharpened their existing approach. Although minor logistical issues were mentioned (e.g. venue access and refreshments), overall satisfaction was high, especially in terms of cross-sector dialogue and facilitated reflection. They also suggested that a condensed one-day format might suit senior professionals or those with limited time.
Perceptions of the Safe System and road safety post-training
Participants from both the in-person and online training formats were invited to reflect on whether and how the training had influenced their perceptions of road safety and the Safe System approach. Responses spanned a wide range of professional roles and levels of prior familiarity with Safe System concepts. Despite these varied starting points, participants commonly described meaningful shifts in mindset, deeper appreciation for systems thinking, and increased clarity around how their roles contribute to road safety. In addition to these shared outcomes, several format-specific experiences and challenges also emerged.
Common positive outcomes
Across both in-person and online formats, the majority of participants reported a shift in their thinking following the training. Many described gaining a broader and more integrated understanding of the Safe System model, moving beyond isolated interventions to a systems-level appreciation of how road safety is achieved. The training helped participants see how different elements, engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and policy, should be combined to create safer roads.
One in-person participant noted:
“It has given me insight into all the different elements that need to be combined to provide a truly systemic approach.”
Similarly, online respondents described being “much better informed”, having “a greater understanding”, or becoming “more aware of road safety” with one stating:
“I understand more about the Safe System approach and how it aims to make the roads safer.”
Several participants, particularly those newer to the field, reported that the training helped clarify previously vague concepts and provided a practical framework to better understand how their own roles contribute to road safety. Some stated they would now look to incorporate Safe System principles into future project work or advocate for systemic change in their organisations. For example:
“I will look at the information contained in the sources that were cited throughout the presentation and look to implement them in my designs going forward.” (Online participant)
Both groups also noted a mindset shift from working in professional silos toward recognising shared responsibility. One in-person participant reflected:
“I now appreciate that we should no longer view our respective roles in isolation. The course emphasised and made clear that we have to have a joined-up approach to road safety.”
Additionally, participants across formats expressed support for the Safe System as a national framework. One online participant said:
“This training is required to get a consistent approach nationally…it will get everyone thinking about this in road safety decision making going forward.”
Format-specific challenges and needs
While feedback from both groups was largely positive, several challenges and needs were identified that were format-specific.
For the in-person training, a small number of participants reported limited shifts in perception, typically because they were already well-versed in the Safe System model. Even so, they valued the training for consolidating understanding, staying informed about cross-sector developments, and exchanging ideas with others. These participants tended to see the experience as one of professional reflection and reaffirmation rather than transformation.
In contrast, online training participants more frequently reported difficulties with the delivery format. A few found the session hard to follow or commented on its length and density:
“The training was well delivered but not what I was expecting at all. It was far too long. I couldn’t keep my concentration, three hours and 77 slides is just too much to take in.”
Others described a gap between the clarity of the theory and the challenge of applying it in practice:
“I have a good understanding of the principles but I have no idea how to apply them to my work.”
One participant expressed disappointment in the lack of focus on long-term trends and vulnerable road users. Such comments highlight that while comprehension was achieved in many cases, the online format sometimes lacked opportunities for deeper engagement, contextualisation, or role-relevant translation of learning.
Practical implications for future training design
These findings suggest that Safe System training, across both in-person and online formats, effectively supports systems thinking and raises awareness among a wide range of professionals. However, several adaptations could enhance its effectiveness, particularly in supporting deeper engagement and practical application of learning.
For online delivery, breaking the content into shorter, modular sessions could help sustain concentration and engagement throughout the training. Incorporating more interactive elements and real-world case studies may also support the practical application of Safe System principles. In addition, offering supplementary resources (such as the soon to be released Safe Systems Manual) or follow-up sessions tailored to specific professional roles could assist participants in translating theoretical understanding into their day-to-day work.
In-person training, by contrast, is well placed to continue to prioritise cross-sector dialogue, which was valued for helping participants appreciate the interconnected nature of road safety. To further benefit those already familiar with the Safe System model, integrating structured reflection activities could further deepen learning and prompt professional self-reflection.
Across both training formats, there is likely to be value in offering further applied examples that reflect the distinct needs of different professional groups, such as designers, enforcement officers, educators, and policy-makers. Furthermore, several participants highlighted the importance of reinforcing national consistency in Safe System application, suggesting that the training should continue to be embedded within the broader policy landscape.
Overall, while the training was described as effective in shaping participant perceptions and encouraging a systems-based approach to road safety, future refinements to content delivery and support, particularly for the online format, will help ensure that Safe System principles are understood and put into practice across diverse roles and settings.
Planned changes in practice following training
Participants from both in-person and online training sessions were asked to reflect on any specific changes they planned to make in their work as a result of the Safe System training. Their responses revealed a diverse range of intended actions, reflecting different professional roles, levels of seniority, and organisational contexts. Despite this diversity, a number of common themes emerged, alongside some format-specific nuances.
In addition to qualitative reflections, quantitative data indicate that participants felt confident in applying their learning. Among in-person attendees, the average agreement score for the statement “I will be able to apply the knowledge I learned” was 4.23 out of 5 (SE = 0.09), with over 93% rating this statement as 4 or 5. For online participants, the average score was slightly lower at 3.81 (SE = 0.208), with 75% scoring 4 or 5. These findings suggest that both training formats supported participants in developing the confidence needed to begin embedding Safe System thinking into their professional practice.
Shared themes across training formats
Across both formats, participants commonly reported an intention to integrate Safe System principles more systematically into their everyday roles. For in-person attendees, this often involved incorporating Safe System thinking into route action plans, infrastructure projects, construction consents, and committee reporting. Online respondents also referenced intentions to apply the approach within planning processes, housing developments, and communications work. One in-person participant reflected:
“As someone who comes from a traditional road safety background, I'm going to try and adopt a more systems-based approach”, while an online respondent similarly noted that they would be, “thinking about [the] Safe System more within my design work”.
Collaboration and cross-sector working also emerged as a strong theme. Participants in both groups described the importance of moving away from siloed working to engage more meaningfully with colleagues from different professional disciplines, including engineers, local authorities, enforcement, and education teams. One online participant shared that the training: “Reinforced the need to work with even more organisations to secure safer roads for all”. This echoed in-person respondents’ emphasis on developing shared responsibility through strengthened partnerships.
Many respondents across formats also identified opportunities to advocate for Safe System thinking and influence others. In-person attendees often referred to efforts to embed Safe System language in strategic documentation or influence senior colleagues, while online participants described plans to share slides with peers, incorporate training content into their own sessions, or raise awareness within their teams. One participant noted, “I will share the slides with colleagues and encourage developers to think about the environment they seek to create”.
Finally, reflection and personal learning featured prominently. Several respondents said that although they might not be in a position to implement changes immediately, the training had expanded their awareness, prompted self-reflection, and equipped them to ask better questions or challenge existing assumptions (e.g. “I think the training will make me ask different questions when considering designs, and broaden my perspective”).
Format-specific reflections
While common themes were evident, the nature and depth of planned actions sometimes differed by training format. In-person participants tended to articulate more specific and concrete implementation plans. These included proactive changes to project design processes, earlier integration of safety considerations in planning cycles, and greater use of tools like the Cultural Maturity Playbook. Several participants described intentions to initiate or contribute to strategic policy discussions within their organisations, or to reframe committee papers using Safe System language.
In contrast, many online participants described being at an earlier stage in their learning journey, often expressing intentions to further explore Safe System concepts or build confidence before advocating for change. This included reviewing cited resources, deepening their understanding of key statistics, or using course content to inform future communication with the public or elected officials. One respondent wrote:
“I do not plan to make any specific changes to my current work practices, but I feel more empowered to make recommendations based on the information gained.”
A small number of online participants reported that the training had limited relevance to their current role or expressed uncertainty about how to apply the content. Others offered constructive critique, suggesting that greater alignment with Scottish policy, such as the road user hierarchy, would enhance future training relevance. For example, one participant noted:
“The tutors need to focus on the Scottish roads hierarchy and the order we consider road users in…[there was] too much focus on high-speed multi-lane roads.”
These reflections highlight the need for differentiated content or additional guidance based on professional role, level of experience, and regional context.
Summary and implications
Overall, the training generated a broad spectrum of intended changes in practice, ranging from concrete implementation plans to more strategic or reflective shifts in mindset. Participants across both formats reported a stronger understanding of how Safe System principles relate to their work and expressed a commitment to applying this thinking more deliberately, whether through individual actions, team processes, or wider organisational influence.
While in-person participants were more likely to report detailed implementation intentions, likely due to the immersive nature of the two-day format, online participants also demonstrated meaningful shifts in perspective and a readiness to engage further with the approach. The majority of in-person participants (83.3%) expressed a desire for additional support, such as follow-up resources or peer networks. Among online participants, a similar pattern was observed, with 62.5% indicating that they would benefit from additional resources or follow-up sessions. This reinforces the finding that participants across both formats are keen to continue their learning, particularly through materials that support the practical application of Safe System principles in their day-to-day work.
Together, these findings underscore the value of both training formats in promoting Safe System thinking, while also highlighting opportunities to deepen impact. Tailored follow-up support aligned to specific roles, provision of additional implementation resources, and mechanisms to foster continued cross-sector engagement will be important for embedding these principles into everyday practice. The forthcoming Safe System Manual is expected to be a key enabler in this process, offering a central resource to support ongoing application and learning.
Barriers to implementing knowledge gained from training
Participants across both the in-person and online formats were invited to identify barriers they anticipated in applying the Safe System principles within their roles. While a minority reported no foreseeable obstacles, the majority described a variety of challenges. These clustered into five overarching themes, shared across formats, with some format-specific reflections also emerging.
Financial and resource constraints
The most frequently reported barrier across both training formats was limited financial and staffing resource. Local authority participants in particular noted budgetary pressures, with several referencing a growing reliance on external funding schemes (e.g. the Road Safety Improvement Fund) and concerns about inequitable distribution across the road network:
“Budgets are very tight.”
“Funding is insufficient to make significant engineering improvements.”
“Local Authority budgets [are] constantly being reduced…if [the Scottish Government] are serious about achieving the targets, [they need to] maintain and increase funding to all 32 local authorities fairly.”
Staffing capacity was also a concern, especially in teams under pressure from public demands and statutory duties:
“A lot of our time is spent dealing with customer complaints, FOI requests, and the tidal wave of communications from the public - it is therefore difficult to be proactive.”
“Lack of funding requiring redundancies, loss of knowledge, momentum and opportunities to embed Safe System considerations.”
Both groups recognised that resource limitations restrict the ability to move from theoretical alignment with Safe System principles to tangible, proactive change.
Leadership support and organisational culture
Participants frequently cited internal organisational dynamics as a barrier, including challenges securing buy-in from senior leaders and aligning wider teams to Safe System thinking (e.g. “People thinking they know better”). This was particularly emphasised by in-person participants but also echoed by online attendees:
“Getting and keeping traction with senior management to ensure that Safe System is embedded in our practices [is challenging].”
“[I will] push for integration of the Safe System within the Council - has extending this course to developers or planners been considered?”
One online participant noted that staff are often not empowered to lead on design solutions, and are instead constrained by having to assess against pre-existing standards:
“We are not encouraged to lead design solutions. Our role is to assess the information presented based on local and national standards.”
The in-person training interviewee also reinforced the importance of leadership engagement, recommending shorter or hybrid training models to support senior-level attendance and foster broader organisational traction.
Policy, standards and governance limitations
Numerous responses, particularly from those in technical or engineering roles, highlighted concerns that existing design standards, policy frameworks, and legislative contexts conflict with Safe System implementation. Participants noted that current standards can constrain innovation or introduce liability risks when professionals seek to adopt more progressive approaches:
“Road maintenance is based on indicators like cracking and integrity, not risk.”
“Some of the methods promoted are contrary to current standards…sticking our necks out to make changes could create liability issues.”
“Safe Systems approach vs Highway Standards…Highway Standards approach every time due to reluctance of teams to recognise safe systems developed and proven outside UK.”
Others raised concerns about the lack of national legislative backing or political support, suggesting that top-down endorsement is essential for widespread change:
“This feels very much like a bottom-up approach…If a fundamental change is to happen it needs to be fully endorsed at a national level.”
In the online training, some frustration was also expressed about the perceived disconnect between course content and national planning policy (e.g. National Planning Framework 4), with participants noting that this made it difficult to reconcile theory with local implementation frameworks.
Translating theory into role-specific practice
A recurring theme, especially among online participants, was the challenge of applying Safe System principles within specific roles. Some participants found the training highly theoretical and struggled to identify relevant actions they could take within operational or constrained roles such as maintenance engineering, development planning, or construction consents:
“Most of our work is like-for-like maintenance and repair…there is little I can change following this course.”
“There was very little practical guidance on how to make the trunk road safer…most of the principles were outside my control.”
“This training needs to be better targeted…rather than just being seen as a low-cost CPD event.”
Others, however, described how the training would help them shift their questions or broaden their perspective in design work, even if immediate actions were limited.
This suggests that while the training was effective in raising awareness, further tailoring or role-specific resources may be needed to support practical implementation across diverse professional contexts. The forthcoming Safe System Manual, developed as part of this project, is expected to play a key role in meeting this need by offering practical guidance and case study examples that can help bridge the gap between theory and application across a range of professional settings.
Public perception and external pressures
Some participants reported concern about how Safe System principles would be perceived by the public, particularly in relation to speed management or proactive safety measures:
“The public will expect action at points they identify, rather than looking at the bigger picture.”
Several also pointed to external pressures, such as political decision-making or community expectations, that can conflict with data-led or systems-based approaches. These insights reinforce the importance of wider communication, engagement, and policy alignment to support the cultural shift required for Safe System implementation.
Overall, across both in-person and online cohorts, participants expressed motivation to apply Safe System principles but acknowledged a range of barriers to doing so. The most consistent themes included limited financial and staffing resources, lack of leadership support, restrictive design standards and policy environments, and difficulty applying theory in practice.
While these challenges were common across formats, online participants more frequently emphasised practical applicability and role relevance, while in-person participants focused more on organisational culture and leadership engagement.
These findings point to a need for continued support that goes beyond awareness-raising by providing targeted tools, practical examples, and structured follow-up tailored to professional roles and local delivery contexts. Supporting leaders, aligning standards, and building a permissive policy environment will also be critical for enabling systemic change.