Traffic education

Following the example of the European LEARN! project [1], we understand traffic education to mean all educational activities that aim to positively influence road user behaviour. These activities mainly focus on:

• Gaining knowledge and understanding of traffic rules and situations;
• Developing and improving skills through training and experience;
• Strengthening and/or changing attitudes and intrinsic motivations towards risk awareness, personal safety and the safety of other road users;
• Providing the tools necessary for a well-informed choice of transport mode.

Here we can distinguish between formal and informal education. By formal traffic education, we mean the education provided in the form of a curriculum or project, usually by a school or training institute. Informal education concerns everyday activities of parents/caregivers to impart knowledge and teach children skills to participate in traffic safely.

Public communication also aims to bring about a change in knowledge, attitude or behaviour (see SWOV fact sheet Public communication). The main difference with traffic education as intended here is the (physical or virtual) interaction with a teacher/instructor, in groups or individually. This interaction is absent, or at least less prominent, in public communication.

Traffic education is relevant to everyone at every life stage. It is relevant to all road users who, in every possible road user role, do not have (sufficient) knowledge, insight, skills and motivation to participate in traffic safely and who are capable of learning. Thus, it is not only meant for children, but also for novice (light) moped riders, novice drivers, older drivers, novice pedelec riders, novice mobility scooterists and so on. This is called lifelong traffic education.

Lifelong traffic education stands for the idea of providing traffic education for every age group and every mode of transport. The goal is to create the conditions for safe road user behaviour in terms of knowledge, ability and willingness. These elements lead to a formal definition of lifelong traffic education: a coherent package (in terms of both age-related development and road users’ mode of transport) of consecutive and continuous activities aimed at internalising change or continuing the desired safe road user behaviour, by creating the necessary conditions for the desired behaviour (of knowledge, ability and willingness)” [2]. There are six age-based target groups within lifelong traffic education:

• age 0 – 4 (early and preschool education)
• age 4 – 12 (primary education)
• age 12 – 16 (secondary education)
• age 16 – ca. 25 (novice drivers)
• age ca. 25 – ca. 60 (driving licence owners)
• age 60 and over (older road users)

The aim of traffic education is to achieve safe road user behaviour and the conditions required for it. These conditions concern knowledge, ability and willingness. The elaboration in educational goals should of course be tailored to the target group and their main road user role.

Defining educational goals is of great importance for defining educational activities and evaluating their effectiveness. There are general goals, main goals and learning goals (see [3]). General goals are very broadly defined to outline the domain of learning. The general goal of traffic education is to achieve safe road user behaviour for the main road user roles of the target group and the necessary conditions in terms of knowledge, ability and willingness. Table 1 provides an example

Main goals subsequently describe what an education activity is meant to achieve, for example, that a child is able to cross the road safely, that a driver recognises the risk of speeding, or that someone has mastered manoeuvring a mobility scooter. Finally, learning goals are very concrete elaborations of the main goals: what does safe crossing look like, what exactly must someone who recognises the risk of speeding do or say, what manoeuvres with a mobility scooter must be mastered in what circumstances. Learning goals should always be ‘SMART’ [3]:

• Specific (addressing a concrete subject);
• Measurable (verifiable whether the goal was met);
• Acceptable (sufficiently motivating to want to learn about the particular subject);
• Realistic (feasible); and
• Time-bound (with a deadline).

Following the GDE matrix (Goals of Driver Education), the goals of traffic education can be organised accordingly, making a distinction by level of traffic participation and aspects of the traffic task [4] [5]. The four levels of traffic participation, the rows of the GDE matrix, are:

1. General level: personal motives and tendencies (e.g., degree of impulsivity, risk acceptance).
2. Strategic level: considerations and decisions prior to travel (e.g., what route to take, what time to leave).
3. Tactical level: interaction in traffic (e.g. whether to give right of way, whether to indicate direction).
4. Operational level: vehicle control/operation (for example, shifting gears in a car and getting on and off a bicycle).

The three aspects of the traffic task, the columns of the GDE matrix, are:

• Knowledge and skills: what you need to know and be able to do in order to participate in traffic safely.
• Risk-increasing factors: the factors that increase crash risk, why this is so and how to avoid such risks.
•  Self-assessment: the extent to which you are able to participate in traffic safely and how to adjust your behavioural choices accordingly (calibration).

The role of the school

School is a logical place to provide traffic education because it offers the opportunity to provide traffic education to all children and to ensure that all children are imparted with the same knowledge, and taught the same skills, attitudes, norms and values, regardless of parents' considerations and (socioeconomic) opportunities [1].

In the Netherlands, traffic is a compulsory part of the primary school curriculum. Together with geography, history, biology, citizenship and political studies, they are part of the subject World orientation/self-orientation. How often and how much time should be spent on the subject of traffic is not fixed. This is left to the discretion of schools [6].

In secondary education, traffic is not a compulsory subject, but (a small) part of two of the 58 educational core goals for lower secondary education [7]:

• In the Human and Nature domain, core goal 35 is: "pupils learn about health and learn to take care of themselves, others and their environment, and how to positively influence their own and others’ safety in various living conditions (residing, learning, working, going out, traffic)."
• In the Human and Society domain, core goal 45 is: "Pupils learn - by experience and in their own environment - to recognise the effects of choices in the areas of work and health, living and recreation, consuming and budgeting, traffic and environment."

Traffic/traffic participation is not included in the so-called attainment targets for upper secondary education.

There are several teaching programmes available for primary and lower secondary education. The Toolkit LifelongTraffic education [8] offers a compact overview of Dutch programmes. Through various filters teachers may search specifically by age group, school type, subject etcetera. The programmes are developed and offered by various agencies, including ANWB, TeamAlert, VeiligheidNL and VVN.

The role of parents/caregivers

Parents also have a role in imparting knowledge and teaching their children road safety skills. This usually does not happen in the form of a programme or project as done at school, but in a more informal way, in everyday life. For example, parents can point out possible hazards to their children during the route from home to school or while driving draw their attention to certain situations or behaviour [9]. Parents/caregivers can also act as models for their children by leading by example. Informal education begins with children who do not yet go to school independently. But also, when children do go to school independently, parents can still have a positive influence on the risk behaviour of their children. Good communication is especially important with somewhat older children (adolescents) [10].

The role of parents/caregivers in 'accompanied driving for novice drivers (in the Netherlands called 2todrive) is also a form of informal traffic education. A parent or other person travels with the novice driver for a certain period of time, so that the novice driver gains driving experience in a relatively protected environment. For more information, see SWOV fact sheet Driver training and driving tests.

Traffic education for (young) adults takes place largely in the form of theoretical and practical driver training for the various means of transport ((light) moped, car, motorcycle – see SWOV fact sheet Driver training and driving tests). Commercial transport requires a specific driving license (C or D) and specific driver training and refresher training, such as the taxi driver training and Code 95 for truck and bus drivers.

There are also several courses (practical and online) for specific target groups. They mainly concern training and information targeting young adults on the one hand and seniors on the other. These types of activities are always voluntary, with the exception of the educational measures for offenders (see the question What is the effect of the educational measures EMG and (L)EMA?).

Team Alert targets secondary school pupils and young adults and has also developed several educational projects. These are offered in schools and have themes such as cyclist traffic risks [11], drink driving [12] and hazard perception [13].

The Dutch road safety organisation VVN offers various (refresher) courses for seniors [14], ], for example to promote road safety knowledge, courses for motorists, for (pedelec) cyclists and for mobility scooter riders (see the question What is the effect of refresher courses for seniors?). The Doortrappen (keep pedalling) programme of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management also targets seniors, with the aim of enabling them to cycle as long and as safely as possible (see the question What is What is the effect of 'Doortrappen'?). The Fietsersbond (Dutch Cyclists’ Union) has its own cycling school which offers courses to children and seniors, and also to new Dutch citizens such as migrants, asylum seekers and expats [15].

Good, i.e. effective, education requires logical cohesion between the road safety problem, current and intended behaviour and the didactic method. Fishers and colleagues [16] distinguish 10 steps or topics that are relevant in assessing the quality of a traffic education programme:

1.     Problem behaviour: is the issue relevant?
2.     Target group: is the target group unambiguously defined?
3.     Learning goals: are the learning goals sufficiently concrete?
4.     Working methods: are the working methods suited to the target group and the learning goals?
5.     Design: is the content correct and the design appropriate?
6.     Intermediate progress: is intermediate learning progress measured?
7.     Manual: is there a manual and is it clear?
8.     Implementation: are the practical aspects of implementation well described?
9.     Process evaluation: is an inventory of users' experiences provided?
10.     Effect measurement: have the effects of the programme been measured (appropriately)?

These steps largely correspond to the handbook of the European project LEARN! for developing and implementing traffic education programmes [17]:

Furthermore, it is important that a programme has clear, concrete main goals and learning goals, that the lesson content matches these one-to-one, and that the didactic methods fit the way children of a certain age learn [3] - see the question What are goals of traffic education? and What didactic principles and working methods are there?. Twisk [18] for example concludes that there is a need for programmes that allow young people to practice in complex traffic situations, but in which additional hazards are reduced as much as possible. In the practice of the school system, however, this is not easy to achieve. Possibly, simulated conditions, for example using simulators or virtual reality could offer a more practical alternative (see the question What didactic principles and teaching formats are there?).

Didactic principles

The following general didactic principles also apply to traffic education [3]:

• The motivation principle: learning is faster and more thoroughly when pupils are intrinsically motivated to learn.
• The integration principle: the material taught must be consistent with the pupil’s existing knowledge. What has been learned must also be applicable in other situations (transfer).
• The visualisation principle: lessons should make maximum use of sensory perception.
• The activation principle: it is important to have pupils actively participate in lessons.
• The repetition principle: repeating the subject matter ensures consolidation, repetition in different contexts is beneficial, as is spaced repetition.
• The differentiation principle: it is important to pay attention to the differences between pupils in interest, learning pace and intellectual base.

Teaching formats

Teaching formats are ways of delivering subject matter to pupils. So, it is not about what is taught, but about how it is taught. Which format is best, depends on what and who you want to teach or train. In traffic education, there is a distinction between, for example [3] theoretical and practical teaching formats, and between group training and individual training.

Theory versus practice
Knowledge about traffic rules can, in principle, be transferred in class. For the actual application of these rules and for learning safe behavioural strategies, practising in real traffic is indispensable for young children, at least in the first years of primary education. They cannot yet translate theoretical knowledge about rules or desired behaviour into actual behaviour in real traffic. As children get older, this becomes easier. Practising remains important, however, but it can increasingly be done in a simulated traffic situation, for example in the schoolyard, or with scale models or virtual reality.

Group training versus individual training
In group education, the subject matter is offered to a group of learners at the same time. This is the case, for example, in schools and adult courses. The size of the group varies greatly. The advantage of group education, besides efficiency, is that the students can learn from each other, for example in discussions or when doing assignments together. Individual education involves a one-to-one relationship between student and teacher. This is usually done for practising very specific skills where mistakes during the learning process can have serious consequences. In such cases it is crucial that the teacher can intervene in time. The best-known example of individual traffic education is practical driver training.

Use of teaching material and (new) media

Traditionally, traffic education uses illustrations with photos and videos, sometimes scale models or traffic situations recreated in the schoolyard. New technologies make it possible to adopt a more interactive and realistic approach on an individual level, for example using virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) techniques. Several studies have shown that children behave more safely after training with VR or AR, or at least when this is also measured with AR or VR [19] [20] [21]. To what extent VR and AR methods also have behavioural effects in real traffic has not/barely been studied [22]. The same is more or less true for serious gaming on a tablet or via VR/AR [23] [24] [25].

Especially for (young) adults, there are also e-learning or online courses (distance learning via Internet or applications) in the field of road safety. Effects of such courses have rarely been studied, but evaluation of an online hazard perception training for novice drivers shows that positive effects are possible [26].

Not much, and certainly not much methodologically sound, research has been done on the effects of traffic education. So, we do not know the effect of most traffic education programmes. The research that has been done concerns, for the most part, primary and secondary school programmes. This allows us to conclude that some traffic education projects can lead to (small) changes in behaviour and increased knowledge. In a few cases, however, traffic education can also lead to an undesired effect. For most traffic education programmes, the effect on crash involvement is unknown. Two types of traffic education for which a positive effect on crash risk was found are a general resilience training (see the question What is the effect of general resilience training?) and hazard perception training (see the question How useful is hazard perception as part of driver training and driving tests? In the SWOV fact sheet Driver training and driving tests).

Many educational programmes are not evaluated or are only evaluated at the process level. Studies that do look at effects are often too small in scale to draw conclusions. Also, many of the evaluation studies are methodologically inadequate. An older but large-scale meta-analysis [27] reviewed 674 evaluation studies, of which only 15 were found to meet methodological requirements. Often a proper control group was missing and allocation to the experimental group or the control group was not blind and random. However, proper evaluation of (traffic) education programmes is very important as it forms the (empirical) basis for further improvement (see the question How can traffic education be further improved?). In addition, proper evaluation is important since traffic education programmes differ from one another enormously. If a programme works for a specific target group, specific learning goals and a certain teaching method, this does not automatically imply that it will work equally well for another target group, other learning goals and another teaching method.

The effect of traffic education is almost never measured in terms of crashes or crash risk. This is also virtually impossible because crashes are ultimately very rare events. Effects of traffic education are generally measured in terms of behaviour, sometimes observed behaviour, often self-reported behaviour. In addition, knowledge and attitudes are also considered. It is not known to what extent these effect measurements are good predictors of crash risk.

The aforementioned meta-analysis [27] concluded that some programmes teaching children how to cross the road safely may improve behaviour. They may also improve knowledge, but all in all the authors concluded that (pg. 4): "There is no reliable evidence supporting the effectiveness of pedestrian education for preventing injuries in children and inconsistent evidence that it might improve their behaviour, attitudes, and knowledge."

The results of a later Dutch study reviewing a total of eleven different education programmes for primary and secondary schools [28] [29], confirm this general conclusion. They showed that some reviewed projects had, at most, a small effect on self-reported behaviour, but could not determine whether this was associated with actually safer behaviour or crashes.

However, traffic education is also not a matter of ‘doesn't help, doesn't hurt’; projects that are not properly designed may also have an adverse effect [30] [31].

The lack of unequivocal evidence for the effectiveness of traffic education does not mean that it should be abolished. Even if traffic education apparently does not immediately lead or hardly leads to safer behaviour, everyone will at least need to know the most important traffic rules and have some basic skills in order to participate in traffic safely.

Little (proper) research has been done on the effects of primary school traffic education. The research that has been done concludes that some traffic education projects can lead to (small) changes in behaviour and increased knowledge. The effect on crash involvement is unknown. For more information, see the question What is the road safety effect of traffic education?.

The road safety effect of the primary school traffic test, organised by the Dutch road safety organisation VVN, is unknown.

The VVN traffic test is the conclusion of a continuous road safety curriculum in primary education [32] and tests the learning goals defined for group 7 and 8. It consists of a theory test and a practical cycling test for pupils in group 7 or 8 of primary school. The theory test consists of 25 multiple-choice questions about situations in their roles as pedestrians, cyclists and passengers. For the practical test, pupils cycle a pre-set route and volunteers assess whether the pupils are demonstrating safe conduct using a checklist. For more information, see examen.vvn.nl.

The road safety effect of the aforementioned road safety curriculum with the concluding traffic test has not been studied. However, the Dutch educational assessment organisation Cito does analyse the validity of the theory questions every year and an external agency investigates (bi)annually) what pupils think about the VVN traffic test and the practice tools and how they could be improved [8].

There is no information on the effectiveness of mobility scooter courses and training.

There are various courses for mobility scooter users, including those provided by mobility scooter suppliers, occupational therapists and safety organisations (especially VVN). For more information, see SWOV fact sheet Mobility scooters, enclosed disability vehicles and microcars. However, to our knowledge, the effectiveness of the courses has never been assessed.

In the Netherlands, there are several road safety refresher courses for seniors; often organised by VVN, sometimes in cooperation with provinces or municipalities. Other parties also offer refresher courses, such as the ANWB and the Fietsersbond, as well as commercial parties, such as driving schools. As far as we know, the road safety effect of Dutch refresher courses has not been studied. International research shows that training that is well tailored to the individual driver can have a positive effect on the knowledge and driving behaviour of older drivers [33].

In various parts of the Netherlands, in-person refresher courses targeting drivers, cyclists and mobility scooter users are organised (vvn.nl/opfriscursussen). The courses usually consist of a theory section and a practical section, sometimes in one half-day session, sometimes in two half-day sessions. There are also online options such as the refresher quiz that covers all kinds of traffic rules and traffic situations with immediate feedback (opfriscursus.vvn.nl/v/start).

Refresher courses for older drivers often include an actual drive in the older driver’s own car accompanied by a certified instructor. The car refresher course is similar to the earlier BROEM course (Breed Overleg Ouderen en Mobiliteit), previously organised jointly by VVN, ANWB and BOVAG. This course was assessed at the time, although not in terms of behaviour or crashes, but in terms of participants’ self-reported experiences and a knowledge test [34]. This showed that participating seniors were very enthusiastic about the course. They indicated that the course had a positive effect on their theoretical knowledge and self-confidence. They also indicated that after the course they were more aware of their strengths and weaknesses in traffic. However, on an objective knowledge test, participants scored no better after the course than before, nor better than non-participants.

A systematic international literature review found 33 methodologically sound evaluations of training programmes for older (55+) drivers [33]. The researchers conclude that training programmes that are well tailored to the individual driver can improve both knowledge and driving behaviour.

The Dutch programme ‘Doortrappen’ (‘keep pedalling’) aims to keep seniors cycling as safely and as long as possible. The programme was launched in 2018 with a variety of local activities. The actual effect on road safety has not been studied; however, participants’ experiences have been examined.

‘Doortrappen’ was initiated by the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management. The programme is coordinated nationally but implemented at the municipal level. According to the Doortrappen website, over 220 municipalities are now actively engaged in the programme. With all kinds of activities and tips for safe cycling, ‘Doortrappen’ aims to make cycling safer for senior citizens. Keeping seniors socially involved is also an important goal of the programme.

The Mulier Institute has assessed the programme [35]. Interviews with participants (individually and in focus groups) showed that they were generally positive about their participation. Where road safety was concerned, participants were particularly enthusiastic about the practical tips they received, for example on adjustments to their bicycles and the choice of cycling times and routes. For a majority of them, this made them feel safer in traffic. It is not known whether this feeling of increased safety is actually valid, i.e. whether participation in ‘Doortrappen’ leads to safer cycling behaviour and fewer unsafe situations for senior road users. A safety-relevant recommendation that emerged from the evaluation was to pay more attention to dealing with specific risk factors for elderly cyclists, such as cycling at low speed, colliding with an obstacle, going off the road and turning left.

Education programmes in which young people have encounters with people who have been involved in a road crash may result in small positive effects on attitudes and knowledge, which, however, do not always take root.

In the Netherlands, the organisation Traffic Informers (www.trafficinformers.nl) brings together road casualties suffering from permanent brain injury and secondary school pupils. In class, road casualties first talk about their lives before the crash, and next about the crash and how it changed their lives. An evaluation study in 2006/2007 [36] showed that four weeks after the talk, these encounters had a positive effect on pupils’ attitudes about road safety and on estimating the risk of being involved in a crash themselves. In contrast, some participants were more positive about traffic offences after the lesson. Thus, both positive and negative effects were found in this study, but both effects were very small.

More recently, similar initiatives to have young people meet road casualties have been evaluated in Belgium [37], Denmark [38] and Germany [39]. They generally found no or only small positive effects on attitudes, knowledge or self-reported behaviour. In the Belgian study, an effect was still found after two months; in the German study, the effects had disappeared after five months.

Short courses aimed at teaching skills such as getting out of a skid do not work or may even have a negative effect on road safety if they cause drivers to rely too much on their perceived skills. Courses that mainly focus on skidding prevention do not seem to have a negative effect, but drivers who have taken such a course do seem less inclined to avoid slipperiness [40] [41]; see also SWOV fact sheet Driver training and driving tests).

Referral to LEMA (Light Educational Measure Alcohol and traffic) or the EMA (Educational Measure Alcohol and traffic) does not lead to a lower risk of recidivism for drink-driving [42]. The EMG (Educational Measure Behaviour), imposed on speeding offenders, has also been found to be ineffective in preventing new speeding and other EMG-related offences [43].

LEMA and EMA are Dutch administrative measures that can be imposed on people caught for drink-driving. They are short courses that the participants have to pay for themselves addressing the risks of alcohol consumption in traffic and the need to separate alcohol consumption and traffic participation.

EMG (educational measure behaviour) is a similar administrative measure, but it is imposed on drivers who exhibit very dangerous driving behaviour, such as excessive speeding. Since April 2023, there has been a light EMG (LEMG) especially for young drivers who have committed a major speeding offence for the first time. In April 2023, an Educational Measure Drugs (EMD) was also introduced. The effects of these new educational measures are not yet known.

For more information, see SWOV fact sheets Driving under the influence of alcohol en Risky road user behaviour, aggression and repeat offenders.

Education programmes that are designed to increase young people's resilience to risk and (perceived) social pressure in a broad sense and are not or barely about road user behaviour can still have an effect on road safety.

This was found, for example, in a longitudinal Australian study of young drivers. The crash risk of young people who had attended a one-day workshop and various follow-up activities aimed at reducing risky behaviour and increasing resilience in a broad sense was compared with the crash risk of young people who had attended a one-day course specifically focusing on traffic risks. In the former group, the crash rate decreased by 44%, while there was no effect on crash rate in the latter group [44]. After 13 years, the participants of the general resilience training were still found to have a lower crash risk [45].

A Dutch example of an education programme that only indirectly deals with traffic, but also aims to have an effect on road user behaviour, is 'Fight your inner monkey' by Veiligheid.nl [46]. This programme aims to make 15- to 17-year-olds aware of peer pressure and how this can lead to unsafe situations. An evaluation in 2013 (mentioned in the 'Toolkit Verkeerseducatie' [8]) showed that, compared to pupils in a control school, the project participants had more knowledge about peer pressure and therefore were able to better recognise situations in which peer pressure occurs.

Proper traffic education requires:

• Direct alignment with the target group's road user roles and how they experience those roles.
• A substantiated understanding of the target group’s road user roles, risk factors and situations.
• Subsequent very concrete (SMART) learning goals in terms of skills, behavioural strategies, knowledge and motives.
• Didactic work formats that fit the target group’s learning goals and cognitive abilities.
• Enthusiastic, motivated and well-informed teachers, supported by parents where necessary (during practical training).

See [3] [16] and the questions What are the characteristics of a good traffic education programme? en What are the goals of traffic education?.

The developed checklist 'quality of traffic education interventions' [16] is a practical tool for users to get an indication of the quality of a particular programme or course. It is also a tool for developers to check whether their product meets the main qualitative criteria. Assessment with this checklist shows the quality of the programmes to have increased in recent years: from a total of 3.6 in 2012 to 4.7 in 2022 at a maximum score of 5 [16]. Most educational programmes appear to meet the conditions formulated by Vissers and colleagues about knowledge of the problem behaviour, a clearly formulated target group, well formulated learning goals and teaching methods geared to the problem behaviour, target group and learning goals (see the question What are the characteristics of a good traffic education programme?). The greatest gains can still be made in the implementation of effect measurement [16].

Effect measurements should ideally be done in terms of crash involvement. But that is virtually impossible since crashes are fortunately rare events. To demonstrate an effect statistically, large numbers are needed and thus a very long time period in which all kinds of other things happen, besides traffic education, that may have affected crash involvement. Consequently, no statement can be made about the effect of traffic education.

Final assessment therefore preferably takes place in terms of observed road safety behaviour. After all, road safety behaviour is ultimately what traffic education aims to influence and, thus, observed behaviour is a much more reliable indication than self-reported behaviour. Interim assessments can also look at underlying aspects such as skills, knowledge and motives, based on the learning goals and as long as there is a correlation with the eventual desired/intended behaviour.

Below you will find the list of references that are used in this fact sheet; all sources can be consulted or retrieved. Via Publications you can find more literature on the subject of road safety.

[1]. ETSC (2020). Key principles for traffic safety and mobility education. European Transport Safety Council, Brussels.

[2]. Betuw, A.J.M. van & Vissers, J.A.M.M. (2002). Naar een succesvolle invoering van Permanente Verkeerseducatie: uitgangspunten voor beleid. Gezamenlijke Regionale en Provinciale Organen voor de Verkeersveiligheid.

[3]. Doumen, M.J.A. & Schagen, I.N.L.G. van (2022). Didactische uitgangspunten voor verkeerseducatie. Inventarisatie van relevante leertheorieën en didactische principes [Didactics of traffic education. Inventory of relevant learning theories and didactic principles]. R-2022-17. [Summary in English]. SWOV, Den Haag.

[4]. Hatakka, M., Keskinen, E., Gregersen, N.P., Glad, A., et al. (2002). From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education. In: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 5, nr. 3, p. 201-215.

[5]. Vissers, J.A.M.M., Nägele, R.C., Kooistra, A.B., Betuw, A.J.M. van, et al. (2005). Leerdoelendocument Permanente Verkeerseducatie. In opdracht van Directoraat-Generaal Rijkswaterstaat, Adviesdienst Verkeer en Vervoer AVV. Traffic Test, Veenendaal.

[6]. Rijksoverheid (2023). Welke vakken krijgt mijn kind op de basisschool? Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap. Accessed on 24-08-2023 at https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/basisonderwijs/vraag-en-antwoord/welke-vakken-krijgt-een-kind-op-de-basisschool.

[7]. SLO (2016). Karakteristieken en kerndoelen - Onderbouw voortgezet onderwijs. Stichting Leerplanontwikkeling SLO, Enschede.

[8]. CROW (2023). Toolkit Verkeerseducatie. Kennisplatform CROW. Accessed on 24-08-2023 at https://www.crow.nl/kennis/tools-mobiliteit-en-gedrag/toolkit-verkeerseducatie.

[9]. Hoekstra, A.T.G. & Twisk, D.A.M. (2010). De rol van ouders in het informele leerproces van kinderen van 4 tot 12 jaar. Een eerste verkenning [The role of parents in the informal learning process of children in the age group 4 to 12 years-old. A first investigation]. R-2010-19 [Summary in English]. SWOV, Leidschendam.

[10]. Hamann, C.J. & Spears, S. (2019). Parent-adolescent bicycling safety communication and bicycling behavior. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 131, p. 350-356.

[11]. TeamAlert (2023). Kruispunt. Accessed on 24-08-2023 at https://teamalert.nl/zakelijk/thema-s/kwetsbare-verkeersdeelnemers/kruispunt/.

[12]. TeamAlert (2023). StreetTalk - Alcohol & Drugs. Accessed on 24-08-2023 at https://teamalert.nl/zakelijk/thema-s/rijden-onder-invloed/streettalk-alcohol-drugs/.

[13]. TeamAlert (2023). Blikveld - Op straat. Accessed on 24-08-2023 at https://teamalert.nl/zakelijk/thema-s/onervaren-verkeersdeelnemers/blikveld-op-straat.

[14]. VVN (2023). Blijf veilig mobiel. Veilig Verkeer Nederland. Accessed on 25-08-2023 at https://vvn.nl/50-plussers.

[15]. Fietsersbond (2023). Fietsersbond Fietsschool. Fietsersbond, Utrecht. Accessed on 23-08-2023 at https://www.fietsersbond.nl/onderweg/fietsschool/.

[16]. Vissers, J., Slinger, W., Hukker, N. & Kluitman, A. (2023). De checklist verkeerseducatie: Tien jaar kwaliteit meten van verkeerseducatieve interventies. In: Tijdschrift Vervoerswetenschap, vol. 59, nr. 2, p. 23-42.

[17]. Mütze, F. (ed.) (2021). The LEARN! Manual for developing and evaluating traffic safety and mobility education activities. European Transport Safety Council ETSC, Brussels.

[18]. Twisk, D.A.M., Vlakveld, W.P., Commandeur, J.J.F., Shope, J.T., et al. (2014). Five road safety education programmes for young adolescent pedestrians and cyclists: A multi-programme evaluation in a field setting. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 66, p. 55-61.

[19]. Lehtonen, E., Airaksinen, J., Kanerva, K., Rissanen, A., et al. (2017). Game-based situation awareness training for child and adult cyclists. In: Royal Society Open Science, vol. 4, nr. 3.

[20]. Wijlhuizen, G.J. & Kint, S. van der (2018). Verkeersvaardigheidstraining met virtual reality voor basisschoolleerlingen. Evaluatie van het WegWijs VR-experiment. R-2018-12. SWOV, Den Haag.

[21]. Skjermo, J., Roche-Cerasi, I., Moe, D. & Opland, R. (2022). Evaluation of road safety education program with virtual reality eye tracking. In: SN Computer Science, vol. 2022, nr. 3, Article nr. 149.

[22]. Vankov, D. & Jankovszky, D. (2021). Effects of using headset-delivered virtual reality in road safety research: A systematic review of empirical studies. In: Virtual Rality & Intelligent Hardware, vol. 3, nr. 5, p. 351-368.

[23]. Szczurowski, K. & Smith, M. (2018). “Woodlands” - a virtual reality serious game supporting learning of practical road safety skills. Paper presented at IEEE Games, Entertainment, Media Conference (GEM), Galway, Ireland. August 15-17, 2018.

[24]. Tan, Q.P., Huang, L., Xu, D., Cen, Y., et al. (2022). Serious game for VR road crossing in special needs education. In: Electronics, vol. 11, nr. 16, p. 2568.

[25]. Gounaridou, A., Siamtanidou, E. & Dimoulas, C. (2021). A serious game for mediated education on traffic behavior and safety awareness. In: Education Sciences, vol. 11, nr. 3, p. 127.

[26]. Horswill, M.S., Hill, A., Buckley, L., Kieseker, G., et al. (2022). An online hazard perception training course reduces heavy braking, speeding, and over-revving rates during everyday driving. In: Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, vol. 87, p. 54-68.

[27]. Duperrex, O., Bunn, F. & Roberts, I. (2002). Safety education of pedestrians for injury prevention: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. In: British Medical Journal, vol. 324, nr. 7346, p. 1129-1131.

[28]. Twisk, D.A.M., Vlakveld, W.P. & Commandeur, J.J.F. (2007). Wanneer is verkeerseducatie effectief? Systematische evaluatie van educatieprojecten [When is education effective? Systematic evaluation of education projects].. R-2006-28 [Summary in English]. SWOV, Leidschendam.

[29]. Twisk, D.A.M. (2014). Protecting pre-license teens from road risk: Identifying risk-contributing factors and quantifying effects of intervention strategies. Dissertation Maastricht University, Maastricht.

[30]. Gregersen, N.P. & Nolén, S. (1994). Children's road safety and the strategy of voluntary traffic safety clubs. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 26, nr. 4, p. 463-470.

[31]. Feenstra, H., Ruiter, R.A. & Kok, G. (2012). Go fast! Reaction time differences between adults and adolescents in evaluating risky traffic situations. In: Journal of Health Psychology, vol. 17, nr. 3, p. 343-349.

[32]. VVN (2016). Doorlopende leerlijn - Verkeerseducatie basisonderwijs. Veilig Verkeer Nederland.

[33]. Sangrar, R., Mun, J., Cammarata, M., Griffith, L.E., et al. (2019). Older driver training programs: A systematic review of evidence aimed at improving behind-the-wheel performance. In: Journal of Safety Research, vol. 71, p. 295-313.

[34]. Davidse, R.J. & Hoekstra, A.T.G. (2010). Evaluatie van de BROEM-cursus nieuwe stijl. Een vragenlijststudie onder oudere automobilisten [Evaluation of the new style BROEM course. A survey among older drivers]. R-2010-6 [Summary in English]. SWOV, Leidschendam.

[35]. Balk, L., Dellas, V., Folkersma Kok, F., Suijlekom, A. van, et al. (2022). Doortrappen - Eindrapportage monitoring en evaluatie. Mulier Instituut, Utrecht.

[36]. Feenstra, H., Ruiter, R.A.C. & Kok, G. (2014). Evaluating traffic informers: Testing the behavioral and social-cognitive effects of an adolescent bicycle safety education program. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 73, p. 288-295.

[37]. Cuenen, A., Brijs, K., Brijs, T., Vlierden, K. van, et al. (2016). Effect evaluation of a road safety education program based on victim testimonials in high schools in Belgium. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 94, p. 18-27.

[38]. Bojesen, A.B. & Rayce, S.B. (2020). Effectiveness of a school-based road safety educational program for lower secondary school students in Denmark: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. In: Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 147, p. 105773.

[39]. Koehler, M., Brockamp, T., Bamberg, S. & Gehlert, T. (2022). Change of risk behaviour in young people - the effectiveness of the trauma prevention programme P.A.R.T.Y. considering the effect of fear appeals and cognitive processes. In: BMC Public Health, vol. 22, nr. 1, p. 595.

[40]. Beanland, V., Goode, N., Salmon, P.M. & Lenné, M.G. (2013). Is there a case for driver training? A review of the efficacy of pre- and post-licence driver training. In: Safety Science, vol. 51, nr. 1, p. 127-137.

[41]. Farmer, C.M. & Wells, J.K. (2015). Crash and citation records of young drivers with skid avoidance training. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington.

[42]. Blom, M., Boschman, S.E. & Weijters, G. (2022). Differentiële effectiviteit maatregelen alcohol en verkeer. Cahier 2022-7. Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en documentatie Centrum WODC, Den Haag.

[43]. Blom, M., Blokdijk, D. & Weijters, G. (2019). Recidive na maatregelen rijvaardigheid en geschiktheid. Cahier 2019-20. Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en Documentatiecentrum WODC, Den Haag.

[44]. Senserrick, T., Ivers, R., Boufous, S., Chen, H.-Y., et al. (2009). Young driver education programs that build resilience have potential to reduce road crashes. In: Pediatrics, vol. 124, nr. 5, p. 1287-1292.

[45]. Senserrick, T., Möller, H., Rogers, K., Cullen, P., et al. (2021). Youth resilience education and 13-year motor vehicle crash risk. In: Pediatrics, vol. 148, nr. 6.

[46]. VeiligheidNL (2023). Fight Your Inner Monkey: stoppen met na-aapgedrag in het verkeer. VeiligheidNL Kenniscentrum letselpreventie. Accessed on 02-10-2023 at https://www.veiligheid.nl/kennisaanbod/lespakket/fight-your-inner-monkey-stoppen-met-na-aapgedrag-het-verkeer.