# Presentation: 618561

## Driver Education:A Review of its History and Effectiveness as a Safety Program

- James L. Nichols Ph.D.
- for the
- National Transportation Safety Board

## The Youth Crash Problem

- Magnitude and Characteristics

## Unintentional MV Traffic Deathsby age group: Year 2,000Source: National Center for Health Statistics

## Key FactorsAssociated with Youth Crashes

- Youngest Drivers
- 1st six months
- Alcohol
- Low Seat Belt Use
- Young Passengers
- Nighttime Driving
- Male
- Older Vehicle

## Deaths per 100K Licensed DriversAge 16 vs. Older Groups, 1975-1996Extrapolated from IIHS, 1998

## Percent of Young Drivers KilledWith BACs >= 0.08Source: NHTSA, 2001

## Percent Unbuckledfor Various Occupant GroupsSource: NHTSA, NOPUS, FARS

## Driver Crash Rates and Presence of PassengersSource: Williams, 2003

## Daytime vs. Nighttime Crashes per Million Miles TraveledSource: Williams, 2003

## Some Progress Has Been Made

- Youth Fatalities down by 1/3 rd
- Since 1978

## Deaths per 100K PopulationMotor Vehicle Occupants by Age GroupSource: NHTSA, FARS

## But ...Much More Needs to be DoneFatalities, by Year of Age: 0-16Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2001

## Driver Education: as a highway safety program

- History
- Effectiveness
- Future Role

## A Historical Review

- Key Events, Expansion,
- Issues, and Challenges

## Four (arbitrary) Phases:

- 1930-1940  –  The Beginning
- 1941-1965  –   Rapid Expansion
- 1965-1980  –   Federal Involvement
-                          and Challenges
- 1980-2000  –   A Period of Decline
- 2000 – 2003 – A Re-Emergence?

## The Beginning (1930-1940)

- 1932 -Dr. Herbert Stack, Columbia Univ.
- 1934 - Dr. Amos Nyhart, Penn. State Univ.
- Early Involvement by NSC, AAA, ASF
- 1st Classrooms, textbooks, simulators, driving ranges, 3-phase programs, etc.
- 1937 - 1st city-wide program – Cleveland
- 1941 - 1st evaluation – Cleveland
- Teaching centers at NYU & Penn State
- AAA Text “Sportsmanlike Driving”
- Ohio State and Iowa State (ranges and simul)

## Rapid Expansion (1947-1964)

- Quality Control, Curriculum, Teacher Prep
- Relatively Uncontrolled Development
- NCSE (1943 - ASF grant)
- Teacher Training at Penn State and NYU
- 1st Conference (1949); “30+6” recommended
- Allstate Provides Premium Discounts (1952)
- 2nd  & 3rd  Conferences (1953, 1958)
- Michigan Requires DE for Licensing Under 18
- Additional Centers at Maryland and Mich. State
- 4th Conference (1963) “90 hours” recommended

## Growth In Enrollment (1947-64)and Number of Schools Offering HSDESource: Pubic Technology (AAA); Butler, 1982)

## Federal Role & New Challenges(1965-1980)

- Highway Safety Act of 1966
- NHSB/NHTSA
- HSDE is a Priority H.S. Program; Funding to the States
- NCSE Discontinued
- Challenges to Effectiveness Claims
- Moynihan Report (1968); McGuire & Kersh (1969)
- Goldstein vs. McGuire (1969); Roberston & Zador (1978)
- R&D Efforts to Develop Model HSDE Program
- Task analysis and Instructional Objectives (1971)
- Instructional program (1973), Acquisition of Skills (1974)
- Pilot Test and Curriculum Performance Measures (1977)

## Growth In Enrollment (1964-78)and Number of Schools Offering HSDESource: Butler (1982)

## A Period of Decline(1980-2000)

- Impact of SPC Evaluation
- No clear evidence of impact
- Evidence of effect on Licensing
- Change in Status as a Priority Program
- Re-examination ordered by Congress
- DE dropped from list of priority programs
- Changes in Enrollment and School Offerings
- No solid data
- Decline in State reporting
- Anecdotal Data (90% enrolled  50% -> 40%)?

## Decline in EnrollmentEstimated % Eligible who are EnrolledSources: Butler (1982); Abbate (1984)

## Re-emergence with a New Role?A Parallel Development in Licensing(2000-present) 

- 1965-1980 Period of Expansion for HSDE
- GDL concept developed (Teknekron, 1977)
- Largely unsuccessful efforts to implement
- 1980-2000 Period of Decline for HSDE
- GDL successful in New Zealand, Australia, Canada
- Recent successes in USA (post-1995)
- 2000-2003 A New Emergence for HSDE?
- DE still part of many State licensing laws
- Becoming integrated into GDL systems
- Frequently involves a time incentive (of Concern)

## Driver Education: Evidence of Effectiveness

- Early Claims, Challenges, Controlled Studies, SPC, Other Studies

## Driver Education: What’s the Objective?

-  to develop the skills, knowledge, and attitudes necessary for safe driving?

## Driver Effectiveness StudiesFour (arbitrary) Phases:

- 1940-1965  –  Early Studies
- 1965- 1980  –   Challenges, New Studies
- 1980-1990  –   SPC Results & Challenges
- 1980-2000  –   Other Studies

## Driver EffectivenessEarly Studies (1940-1965):

*“**DE Reduces Accidents One-Half”* (AAA)
- 30+ Studies (20-50% effect)
- Conducted by Advocates, DMVs, Univ.
- AAA, NCSE/NEA, ACSC, NSC, ADTSEA,
- “Self-Selection” factor not recognized
- Much of effect due to group differences

## Driver EffectivenessChallenges (1965-1980)

- Moynihan Report, 1968
- McGuire and Kersh, 1969
- Goldstein vs. McGuire & Kersh
- California DMV Studies
- Coppin, et al, Conger et al., Ferdun et al.
- Harrington, Jones, Goldstein
- A New Problem: Increased Licensing
- IIHS Study/NHTSA Response

## Driver EffectivenessSummary of Results (1965-1980)

- McGuire and Kersh (MS) HSDE -
- Conger et al (CA) HSDE +
- Harrington (CA) HSDE +
- Coppin et al (CA) BTW -
- McGuire and Kersh (CA) BTW/Sim –
- Vernon & Phillips (TX) multi-phase > more basic
- Jones (CA) HSDE BTW = commercial BTW
- Goldstein (CA) HSDE BTW > commercial BTW
- Robertson & Zador; NHTSA  DE  licensing

## Mayhew & Simpson (1996)

- The DeKalb Driver Education Project ..”remains the most critical test of the safety impact of driver education to date.”

## Driver EffectivenessSPC Results: 1980-1990

- Stock (1983) no effect/ SPC effect/ Lic
- Smith and Blatt (1987) PDL effect
- Lund et al. (1986) no effect/ Lic
- deWolf and Smith (1988) no effect
- Davis (1990) no effect/ Lic

## Initial SPC ResultsPercent Involved in a CrashStock et al. (1983)

## Further SPC AnalysisAve # Crashes in 1st Six Months Among LicensedStock et al., 1983

## Driver EffectivenessOther U.S. Studies: (1990-2000)

- TX:  HSDE > Commercial (effect?)
- OH: HSDE > Commercial (effect?)
- OR: HSDE (no effect - more crashes)
- 47 States: DE Law (effect) (Lic)
- PA: HSDE (no effect; crashes, SBU, etc.)

## Driver EffectivenessForeign Studies: (1990-2000)

- Quebec:  HSDE Law Effect (?)(+/-) (Lic)
- Denmark: new DE prog (pos effect)
- Sweden: prof DE train = parent train (no effect)
- Norway: DE (no effect)
- Austria: DE law (no effect)
- Australia: DE (no effect); on-road = off-road
- New Zealand: DE (no effect) (Lic)
- Tasmania: (small effect -> no effect)

## Driver Effectiveness28 Studies Reviewed: (1970-2000)

- 18 looked at effect of DE versus Control
- 2 (11%) found evidence of effect
- 4 (22%) found inconsistent effect or effect challenged
- 12 (67%) found no evidence of effect
- Two studies of laws found effect but also licensing
- Ten studies reported effect on licensing
- Eight studies used random assignment
- 6 found no evidence of effect
- 2 found conflicting evidence (SPC)
- Four studies looked at HSDE vs Commercial
- Mixed results

## Driver EffectivenessOther Reviews and Conclusions:

- Mayhew & Simpson (1986)
- No conclusive evidence (exc. Licensing)
- Vernick et al. (1999)
- No convincing evidence (exc. Licensing)
- Christie (2001)
- Little support for claim of safety effect (disbenefit)
- Roberts et al. (2002)
- No evidence of effect (exc. Licensing)
- Engstrom et al. (2003)
- Much knowledge not yet applied; need experiment

## Driver Effectiveness ReviewsOther Findings: Mayhew & Simpson

- Best learning environment is on-road
- Advanced skill training – mixed results, risk
- No compelling evidence of effect – MC rider
- Some evidence for remedial MC training
- Some evidence of effect for nighttime training

## Driver Effectiveness ReviewsOther Findings: Christie et al. (2001)

- Little evidence of effect (prof vs parent trained)
- Lack of support for off-road training; disbenefit
- More supervised practice effective (up to 35%)
- Emergency training may increase crash risk
- Higher-order cognitive skills learned on-road
- No evidence of effect for mandatory training (but it does encourage licensing)
- Targeted deterrence and enforcement effective

## Driver Effectiveness ReviewsOther Findings: Engstrom (2003)

- Young Driver Crashes (SV, lose control, speed, alcohol, no belts, fatigue, night, weekend)
- Acquisition of early experience is crucial
- HSDE, if introduced, no licensing incentive
- Short professional courses (DE) should not be exchanged for shorter periods of practice
- GDL restrictions have been effective
- Laws and enforcement are effective, but some youth are hard to reach

## Driver Education: as a highway safety program

- What’s in the Future?
- Important Opportunities to
- Partner in an Effective Program

## The Future Problems and Solutions: NHTSA Report

- Problems
- Focus on basic and higher-order skills (timing)
- Students not motivated to learn
- Solutions
- Teach skills first; safety later
- GDL environment provides opportunity for phased learning and the motivation to learn
- Two-Phase HSDE program proposed

## The Future Problems and Solutions: Mayhew & Simpson

- Problems
- Failure to teach critical knowledge & skills
- Students not motivated to learn
- Fostering overconfidence
- Failure to effectively address lifestyle issues
- Failure to tailor content
- Solutions
- Identifying “when” to teach
- Emergency skills (?); need insight training
- Tailoring to student; distribute over time
- Link with GDL; parental involvement in supervised practice

## The Future Problems and Solutions: Christie (2001)

- Problems
- False Assumptions
- Skill deficiencies are the problem
- Deficiencies can be remedied
- May be impossible for DE to reduce crashes
- Set more reasonable objectives
- Depend on more effective approaches
- Solutions
- Set More Reasonable Objectives
- Depend on more effective programs (e.g., law enforcement)
- Focus on increased supervised learning
- Integrate with GDL systems

## Lists

- Lifestyles not adequately addressed
- Instruction needs to be timed better
- Motivation to learn is an issue
- Effect of advanced skills training?
- 1st 6-months most dangerous
- Supervised, on-road experience is priority
- Delayed licensure is desirable
- Restrictions (e.g. night, passenger) work

## Lists (continued)

- Youth “mature out” of high risk behavior
- GDL provides for some early experience in a “safer” environment
- GDL systems are effective
- DE is already tied to GDL in many States
- DE should be modified to fit better
- DE is not an effective substitute for supervised experience

## Driver Education:A Review of its History and Effectiveness as a Safety Program

- James L. Nichols Ph.D.
- for the
- National Transportation Safety Board