The recent tragedy on the M9 has understandably prompted intense public discussion about young people and about dangerous driving, risk-taking and the influence of social media. At the outset, however, it is important to recognise that families and communities are grieving and that there are limits to what psychology can responsibly say about the motivations of the individuals involved. It is not possible to know what was going through the minds of particular young people in a specific incident and it would be inappropriate to speculate. What psychology can do though is help us understand the broader developmental and social context in which extreme risk-taking behaviour can occur.
Risk-taking among adolescents and young adults is not something new. Adolescence is a period in which young people develop a sense of independence, they test boundaries and become increasingly sensitive to social rewards as well as peer approval and novel experiences. Sensation-seeking and impulsive decision making can also be heightened during this period, particularly in emotionally charged situations or when peers are involved.
Of course this does not mean all adolescents engage in dangerous behaviour. Most young people navigate adolescence without engaging in extreme risk. However, developmental psychology helps us understand why, for some young people, the immediate reward of excitement, peer recognition or social status may temporarily outweigh an appreciation of longer-term consequences.
What has changed significantly in recent years is not the existence of adolescent risk-taking but its digitalisation.
READ MORE
Previously a risky act might have been witnessed by a small group of friends. Today that same behaviour can be filmed, shared, replayed and exposed to a much wider audience. Social media can transform peer approval from something that occurs within a small social group into a potentially much larger system of attention and reinforcement. This is not to say that social media causes dangerous driving and it would be overly simplistic to suggest a particular platform is responsible for individual behaviour. However, digital environments can amplify trends, make extreme behaviour more visible and create the impression that certain behaviours are more common or socially rewarded than they actually are. But for young people who are already seeking excitement, belonging or social status, this amplification may be particularly important.
We need to be careful not to reduce the conversation to a simple choice between blaming young people or blaming social media. Human behaviour is rarely explained by a single factor. Risk develops within a broader environment that includes family, peers, schools, communities, digital platforms, opportunities (or lack thereof), adversity and the availability of meaningful supports.
There has also been considerable discussion in recent days about boundaries and consequences. Children and young people do need clear boundaries, predictable consequences and adults who are willing to set limits. Those boundaries are an important part of healthy development. However, consequences alone are not a complete prevention strategy. Young people also need opportunities to experience belonging, competence, excitement and recognition in safer ways. They need access to youth services, sport, community activities, education, supportive adults and, where necessary, appropriate mental health and family supports.
This is particularly important for young people experiencing social exclusion, adversity or limited opportunities. If society does not provide meaningful and accessible routes towards connection, achievement and status, some young people may become more vulnerable to seeking those experiences through behaviours that carry substantial risk. The policy response must therefore operate at several levels.
There is clearly a role for road-safety measures, appropriate enforcement and Garda training. Where dangerous driving places the public at risk, the State has an obligation to respond. At the same time, there is also a need to consider the environment where risky behaviours may be circulated, rewarded or normalised.
[ M9 crash: What happened when? From attempted break-ins to the fatal collisionOpens in new window ]
Most importantly, however, prevention needs to begin much earlier. Investment in youth work, community services, family supports, education, mental health provision and early intervention is not separate from road safety or public safety. It is part of it. A young person who has a trusted adult, somewhere meaningful to go, something they feel competent at, and a sense of belonging within their community has more protective factors than a young person who feels disconnected, excluded or without direction.
Broadly, psychology consistently highlights the need for greater investment in mental health services, early intervention, youth work and diversion programmes; this also means investing in the people who deliver those supports. Project workers, youth workers, and other frontline professionals in this area need secure, longer-term contracts that allow them build sustained relationships with young people, families, and the communities they work with.
Those of us who have worked in this area will recognise how difficult it can be to tell a young person that your role or contract is coming to an end. By that stage a relationship may have been built on trust and safety and its end can be significant for everyone. For children and adolescents who may already experience significant instability, repeated changes in supportive adults can undermine the very sense of security that services are trying to build.
Effective prevention is rarely achieved through short-term programmes or brief interventions; it depends on trusted, caring adults who are trained to recognise risk, provide consistent boundaries, offer meaningful alternatives and remain present over time. Alongside appropriate policing, road safety measures, and digital safeguards, long-term investment in community-based youth services should therefore be understood as a core part of prevention.
If we are serious about reducing high-risk behaviour, we cannot rely on short-term funding cycles while expecting long-term relational work to take place. We need to intervene before a young person reaches a crisis point by ensuring that support, belonging and opportunity are already available to them.
We must also be mindful that discussions of dangerous behaviour can easily become discussions about punishment or blame alone. In the present circumstances, the word “consequences” should be used with care. There are families now living with consequences of the most devastating kind. There are people grieving the deaths of young people and others dealing with serious injury. Any public discussion needs to keep that human reality at its centre.
Understanding the psychology of risk does not mean excusing dangerous behaviour and it is important to recognise that explanation and accountability are not on opposing sides. To prevent similar incidents in the future, rather than asking what was going through the minds of particular young people in one tragic case, perhaps the more useful question is: what makes extreme risk rewarding or appealing to some young people and what can families, communities, services and the State do before that behaviour reaches a point of irreversible consequence?
Dean McDonnell is a psychology lecturer at the South East Technological University (SETU) Carlow and a member of the Psychological Society of Ireland
