Pedestrian crashes on a composite highway are placed cell by cell on the Haddon Matrix in PU605's Unit 5 intervention design, where the Safe System approach decides which cells receive resources. Searches like "pu 605 unit 5 assignment example", "pu605 unit 5 sample" and "pu605 unit 5 example" land here.
What a finished PU605 Unit 5 intervention design looks like
Eight pages with the matrix on the second: three rows for the pre-crash, crash and post-crash phases, four columns for the walker, the vehicle, the physical environment and the social environment. Twelve cells, nine filled. Each filled cell names an activity and cites its evidence, such as continuous lighting and pedestrian hybrid beacons in the pre-crash environment cell and a speed management request in the crash-phase cells, since the speed at impact largely determines whether a pedestrian survives. A second framework, the Safe System approach adopted in the 2022 National Roadway Safety Strategy, is used to weight the cells. Activity descriptions follow the matrix, each with its dose, setting, responsible partner and link to the Unit 4 model. A short section explains the three empty cells.
How a PU605 Unit 5 example is structured
The design reasons from framework to activity rather than the other way round, which is the point of this unit. The matrix comes first so a reader sees coverage at a glance before any activity is described. The Safe System approach then explains weighting: people will make mistakes, human bodies tolerate only limited impact forces, and responsibility is shared by those who design and operate the road, so environmental and speed cells receive most resources and walker-education cells receive least. Activities are then described cell by cell, with the post-crash row covering ambulance response times on the corridor and a request that the county dispatch system geocode highway mile markers. Empty cells get the last section, including vehicle design, which the program has no way to influence, stating that plainly instead of filling the cell with something decorative.
Twelve cells, nine filled
The matrix is shown whole before any description, so gaps are as visible as coverage. Cell labels match the activity headings that follow.
Speed at the moment of impact
The crash-phase row carries the design's central argument: a pedestrian's chance of surviving falls steeply as impact speed rises, so lowering operating speed protects even when every other measure fails.
Weighting from the Safe System
Principles from the 2022 federal strategy are quoted briefly, and two of them, human error and shared responsibility, explain why walker education receives the smallest share.
Post-crash minutes on Route 12
Dispatch records show slower ambulance arrival for highway calls lacking a street address. A mile-marker geocoding request fills the post-crash environment cell.
Cells deliberately left blank
Vehicle design before a crash, for example, lies beyond any local program. The design says so rather than inventing an activity to complete the grid.
Where marks go in PU605 Unit 5
Three withheld cells may be the strongest evidence in this design that the framework is doing real work, and fit between framework and activities is generally the heaviest criterion on a PU605 intervention design. Here the matrix places activities, weights them through the Safe System approach, and in three cases declines to fill a cell. Evidence marks come from a source cited in each filled cell. Specificity is scored through the activity descriptions, where dose, setting and partner are named. Alignment follows from linking every activity to a Unit 4 box. Designs lose points when the framework appears only in the introduction, when activities would be identical without it, when education dominates a problem the assessment traced to the environment, and when a cell holds something the program cannot deliver.
Get a PU605 Unit 5 example written to your instructions
Tell the desk which framework the PU605 Unit 5 prompt requires, whether a behavior theory, an injury model or a planning framework, and send the logic model and priority from earlier units with the rubric. A free first custom sample, ready in 24-48 hours, derives each activity from that framework and states its dose and evidence.
PU605 Unit 5 questions, answered
Can an injury framework replace a behavior change theory?
When the problem is an injury and your prompt allows any named framework, yes. The Haddon Matrix and the Safe System approach are established in injury prevention and suit problems driven by environment and energy transfer. If your section specifically requires a behavior theory, pair one with the matrix for the walker cells rather than dropping the requirement.
How detailed should activity descriptions be?
Detailed enough that someone else could deliver them: what happens, where, how often, for how long, delivered by whom and to whom. A sentence such as provide education is too vague to grade. A description naming the setting, schedule and responsible partner shows the design is feasible and lets the implementation plan in a later unit build on it directly.
Is it acceptable to leave parts of a framework unused?
Yes, if the reason is stated. Filling every cell or construct regardless of fit suggests the framework is decoration. Explaining that a cell falls outside local influence, or that the assessment found no need there, shows the framework was applied with judgment, which is what the rubric's theory criterion is generally looking for.