I started with a question: should I build anything at all? If a good product already existed I’d rather use it, and spend the time on the real walks.
What’s already out there
I scored the UK options against a framework of 22 points. The rule I set was that a product had to pass four gates (accurate to UK rules, works on a PC or iPad, free or cheap, no ads or accounts) and score at least 15, with something for both pedestrian and cycling skills.
| Product | Score | Main gap |
|---|---|---|
| Arility (Constable Care and Road Safety GB) | about 12 | Needs iPad AR and printed markers, collects names and photos |
| Tales of the Road (THINK!) | 11 | A workbook more than a game, text-heavy |
| Roadstars (Road Safety Scotland) | about 11 | No cycling, last updated in 2022 |
| Take the Lead (THINK!) | about 7 | Pedestrian only, written before the 2022 Highway Code changes |
None reached 15. Bikeability has no digital learning for families at all. Nothing in the UK combined pedestrian and cycling skills in a game for children as young as 6.
I also looked abroad for ideas to borrow. The Dutch ANWB Streetwise and the Belgian Mission: Safe to School both tie the game to real-world missions and checks. The Canadian Crosswalk Quest makes the safety routine itself the controls, which became the idea at the centre of this. It also has a timer, which I left out. The Alberta Motor Association’s School Safety Patrol puts the child in the role of the crossing guard, and that turned into the fix-the-helper scenes. The US virtual pedestrian training from the University of Alabama at Birmingham showed me levels that end on mastery.
What the evidence says about screens
I read the research next, and I’d call my confidence moderate on the direction and low on the size of any effect.
- Roadside training works. Kerbcraft, the DfT’s scheme, changed observed behaviour in 5 to 7 year olds, and the gains lasted months.
- A 2014 randomised trial of 231 children aged 7 and 8 found training at the roadside was best. Virtual reality also helped. Video and websites did very little.
- Knowing the rules didn’t predict behaving safely.
- A UK computer-based study found it worked when an adult led a small group, and 6 year olds gained little at choosing safe places.
- Parents taught as well as experts in one study, but another found they rarely talk children through a crossing.
- Under-10s struggle to judge how fast a vehicle is approaching, especially above about 20 mph.
- Children who played a game on a phone while crossing left smaller safety margins.
- No study measured injuries, and the cycling evidence is thin.
So the evidence supports a game as a rehearsal for adult-led practice, and says very little for a game on its own.
What I decided
On 18 October I chose to adapt and build. Real practice would start straight away with free resources, and the programme would be built alongside. The game became rehearsal for real walks and rides and never a substitute, which is also the first rule on the safety page.
I also widened the scope. A game for children only would leave the parent with the hard part, so the programme became a structure for both: a briefing, a rehearsal, a walk and a debrief. The research on parent-led practice pushed me that way, and so did the thought that other parents would want to feel confident about what they teach.
The design principles that came out of this:
- Rehearsal for real walks and rides, not a substitute.
- The Kerbcraft order: safe places, then parked cars and sightlines, then junctions.
- Stopping, looking and choosing safe places are the controls and the only rewards.
- Conservative rules, not tight gap judgement.
- Ask “why is this safe?” and let the child show the answer.
- Short sessions, spread out and revisited.
- Prompts for the parent before and after each walk.
- No ads, no unrelated mini-games, no reward clutter.
- Teach rules, not “this crossing is safe”.