National 

Transportation

Safety Board

Washington, D.C.

National Transportation

Safety Board

Washington, D.C. 20594

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

PRSRT STD

Postage & Fees Paid

NTSB

Permit No. G-200

Report of Proceedings

National Transportation Safety Board Public 

Forum on Driver Education and Training

October 28–29, 2003

NTSB/RP-05/01

PB2005-917003 National Transportation Safety Board

Notation 633A 490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W.

Adopted August 1, 2005 Washington, D.C. 20594
National Transportation Safety Board. 2005. National Transportation Safety Board Public Forum on

Driver Education and Training, October 28–29, 2003. Report of Proceedings NTSB/RP-05/01.

Washington, DC.

Abstract: The National Transportation Safety Board convened a 2-day public forum in October 2003 to

survey the current state of novice driver education and training, including the extent to which it is used, its

effectiveness and shortcomings, and what can be done to improve it. While driver education has been

available since the 1930s and, intuitively, should improve driving safety, in fact little consensus exists on

the benefits of driver education and training, what it should entail, and how it should be delivered. The 29

forum participants included the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, State government

representatives, safety and consumer associations, groups offering driver education, and teachers, students,

and researchers. This document provides a report of proceedings of this public forum and includes the

transcript of the public forum within Part 5.

As a result of this report of proceedings, the Safety Board makes safety recommendations to the U.S.

Department of Education and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency dedicated to promoting aviation, railroad, highway, marine,

pipeline, and hazardous materials safety. Established in 1967, the agency is mandated by Congress through the Independent Safety Board

Act of 1974 to investigate transportation accidents, determine the probable causes of the accidents, issue safety recommendations, study

transportation safety issues, and evaluate the safety effectiveness of government agencies involved in transportation. The Safety Board

makes public its actions and decisions through accident reports, safety studies, special investigation reports, safety recommendations, and

statistical reviews.

Recent publications are available in their entirety on the Web at <http://www.ntsb.gov>. Other information about available publications also

may be obtained from the Web site or by contacting:

National Transportation Safety Board

Public Inquiries Section, RE-51

490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20594

(800) 877-6799 or (202) 314-6551

Safety Board publications may be purchased, by individual copy or by subscription, from the National Technical Information Service. To

purchase this publication, order report number PB2005-917003 from:

National Technical Information Service

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, Virginia 22161

(800) 553-6847 or (703) 605-6000

The Independent Safety Board Act, as codified at 49 U.S.C. Section 1154(b), precludes the admission into evidence or use of Board reports

related to an incident or accident in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report. 
Report of Proceedings

i

Contents

Part 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Part 2: Driver Education Forum Summary, Conclusions, 

and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Scope of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .v

Curriculum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Teenagers’ Learning Styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii

Driver Education Sequencing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

Part 3: Graduated Driver Licensing Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Part 4: Novice Driver Requirements in the 50 States 

and District of Columbia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Part 5: Public Forum on Driver Education and Training, 

October 28-29, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Tuesday, October 28, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Wednesday, October 29, 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Welcome and Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

History and Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Presentation by Jim Nichols . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Presentation by Allen Robinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Question and Answer Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

U.S. and International Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Presentation by Sean McLaurin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Presentation by Larry Lonero . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Presentation by Stefan Siegrist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62

Question and Answer Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

State Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Presentation by Elizabeth Weaver . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Presentation by Greg Lantzy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Presentation by David Huff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Presentation by John Harvey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .103

Question and Answer Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .113

Presentation by Barry Ford . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .121

Driver Education Teacher and Student Perspectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122

Presentation by Debbie Cottonware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .122

Presentation by Steve Cebulka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .128

Presentation by Kayla Craddick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .134

Presentation by Brad Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .140

Question and Answer Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
Contents Report of Proceedings

ii

Associations Panel I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149

Presentation by Randy Thiel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .149

Presentation by D. Keith Russell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156

Presentation by Wayne Tully . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .161

Presentation by Frederik Mottola . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170

Presentation by Richard Harkness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .177

Associations Panel II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188

Presentation by Troy Costales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .188

Presentation by Charles Butler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193

Presentation by Allan Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .199

Presentation by Chuck Hurley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .202

Presentation by Peter Kissinger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .205

Presentation by Gerald Donaldson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .209

Question and Answer Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .212

Current Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227

Presentation by Terry Kline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .227

Presentation by Bimal Aponso . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .233

Presentation by Dale Ritzel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .239

Presentation by Jean Shope. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .246

Question and Answer Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .254

Appendixes

A: Panelists . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .259

B: NTSB Staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .263

Acronyms and Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .265
Report of Proceedings

iii

Part 1

Introduction

The National Transportation Safety Board convened a 2-day public forum in

October 2003 to survey the current state of novice driver education and training, including

the extent to which it is used, its effectiveness and shortcomings, and what can be done to

improve it. (See pages 3 and 4 of the proceedings for the complete public forum agenda.)

While driver education has been available since the 1930s and, intuitively, should improve

driving safety, in fact little consensus exists on the benefits of driver education and

training, what it should entail, and how it should be delivered. The 29 forum participants

included the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), State

government representatives, safety and consumer associations, groups offering driver

education, and teachers, students, and researchers.

The forum highlighted several critical points:

• Automobile crashes are the leading cause of death among teenagers.

• What works and what does not work in developing safe drivers is not known.

Measuring the effectiveness of driver education programs is difficult because

of the myriad factors that contribute to teenage driver crashes.

• Little conclusive research on what constitutes an effective driver education

program is available. Many research projects are under way, nationally and

internationally, that show varying degrees of success for individual

components of driver education, but no program exists that integrates the best

practices in driver education and training.

• Although skill development alone does not necessarily equate to safe driving,

most driver education programs do not take into account at all how teenagers

in today’s environment learn and assimilate knowledge that leads to skill

development.

• State requirements for driver education vary greatly; for instance, no consensus

exists on whether or how driver education should complement graduated

driver licensing (GDL),1

 which all States are already implementing to some

extent.

• Driver education programs have not been designed to integrate skill

development, teenagers’ learning styles, and task sequencing, which would

help ensure that young drivers have the knowledge and skills to drive safely

when they receive a license with full driving privileges.

1 GDL is a 3-stage licensing system that provides novice drivers with driving experience under more

controlled circumstances through restrictions such as curfews, supervised driving, violation-free driving,

and passenger limits.
Part 1 Report of Proceedings

iv

• The 30 hours of classroom and 6 hours of behind-the-wheel training that most

students receive may not be adequate to teach teenagers how to be safe drivers

and is not based on a thorough analysis of how teenagers learn or on a

progression of task complexity.

While the Safety Board has issued recommendations on GDL for teenage drivers

as recently as 2002 (see part 3), this report of proceedings is the first Safety Board

document on driver education since 1971. The Safety Board considers the

recommendations issued as a result of these proceedings a critical step in determining how

driver education and behind-the-wheel training can complement each other to reduce

novice driver crashes, injuries, and fatalities. Without action on these recommendations,

the Nation will not know which driver training strategies work and, therefore, may

continue to spend scarce funds on programs that produce few or no measurable gains.
Report of Proceedings

v

Part 2

Driver Education Forum Summary, 

Conclusions, and Recommendations

Scope of the Problem

According to NHTSA, drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 represent 6.4 percent

of licensed drivers in the United States, yet were involved in 13.6 percent of fatal crashes

and 18 percent of all police-reported crashes in 2003.2

 In that same year, 15- to 20-year-old

drivers involved in fatal crashes numbered 7,884.3

 Motor vehicle crashes are the leading

cause of death for 15- to 20-year-olds, accounting for two out of every five teenage deaths.4

In 2002, the estimated economic cost of crashes involving 15- to 20-year-old drivers was

$40.8 billion.5

 Further, a study of crashes in four States revealed that 16-year-olds account

for the highest percentage of single-vehicle crashes and crashes involving speeding and

driver error.6

 Because fatalities in car crashes are the leading cause of death among

teenagers and teenage drivers are disproportionately involved in crashes, additional action

needs to be taken to identify and implement solutions to reduce these fatalities.

Curriculum

Responding to repeated requests from both advocates and opponents of driver

education, as well as from the Congress, the National Highway Safety Bureau (now

NHTSA) initiated the first comprehensive study of driver education in 1968; the goal was

to develop and evaluate a state-of-the-art driver education program. This effort ultimately

led to a demonstration project that took place from 1978 to 1981 (commonly referred to as

the DeKalb study, named after DeKalb County, Georgia, where it was conducted) and

compared the effects of three programs: a comprehensive Safe Performance Curriculum

(SPC), a shorter Pre-Driver Licensing (PDL) curriculum, and no driver education. Many

safety advocates expected this effort to conclusively show the crash-reduction potential of

a model classroom and behind-the-wheel curriculum, that is, the SPC.

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts 2003 Data: Young Drivers, DOT

HS 809 774 (Washington, DC: NHTSA, 2005).

3 DOT HS 809 774.

4 <http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/duip/spotlite/teendrivers.htm>.

5 U.S. Department of Transportation, NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts 2002: Young Drivers, DOT HS 809

619 (Washington, DC: NHTSA, 2004).

6 M.X. Cammisa, A.F. Williams, and W.A. Leaf, “Vehicles Driven by Teenagers in Four States,”

Journal for Safety Research, Vol. 30, No. 1 (1999): 25–30.
Part 2 Report of Proceedings

vi

The demonstration project did not yield strong evidence of a safety benefit associated

with either the SPC or PDL curriculum. When the crash rates of the students assigned to each

group (regardless of whether they completed the course or were licensed) were evaluated, no

significant difference was found among the three groups, either in the percentage of students

who were involved in a crash or in the average number of crashes per student.7 Debate

regarding the study’s methodology has been ongoing. Nonetheless, two additional analyses8

found no evidence of crash reduction effectiveness due to the driver education training after

the first 6 months (for SPC) or after the first 18 months (for PDL). Both studies reported that

the SPC and PDL courses resulted in earlier licensing among their students.

In 1981 (before results of the demonstration project were released), the Congress

required NHTSA to reconsider its list of national priority programs in terms of their

potential for reducing crashes. Based on available evidence (including preliminary results

from the demonstration project), driver education was dropped from NHTSA’s list of

priority programs in that year.

Many driver education curricula, public and private, have been developed without

the benefit of information about what constitutes an effective program. For example, the

American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association (ADTSEA), with funding from

NHTSA, has developed a model driver education curriculum for classroom and behindthe-wheel instruction to provide information on the basics of safe vehicle operation. This

curriculum has not yet been validated to determine whether it improves teenagers’ safety.

NHTSA plans, probably in 2006, to begin identifying the factors that would be involved in

a large-scale evaluation of driver education effectiveness and then to perform a general

evaluation of driver education, including ADTSEA’s curriculum.9

 Some States already use

the ADTSEA curriculum and some supplement it with other curricula.10 For example,

Idaho and Oregon use parts of the National Institute for Driver Behavior’s behind-thewheel curriculum, in addition to the ADTSEA curriculum. Other States have no standard

driver education curricula.11 Several private companies and associations discussed the

content and effectiveness of their driver education curricula at the forum, and each claimed

some level of success in reducing crashes;12 however, no individuals or groups have

comprehensively identified and evaluated best practices for driver education and training.

7 J.R. Stock, J.K. Weaver, H.W. Ray, J.R. Brink, and M.G. Sadoff, Evaluation of Safe Performance

Secondary School Driver Education Curriculum Demonstration Project, Final Report, DOT HS 806 568

(Washington, DC: NHTSA, 1983).

8 (a) A.K. Lund, A.F. Williams, and P. Zador, “High School Driver Education: Further Evaluation of

the DeKalb County Study,” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 18, No. 4 (1986): 349–357. (b) C.S.

Davis, The DeKalb County, Georgia, Driver Education Demonstration Project: Analysis of Its Long-Term

Effect (Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa, Department of Preventive Medicine, 1990).

9 Conversation with Jim Wright, NHTSA, May 16, 2005.

10 Elizabeth Weaver, Idaho Department of Education, 74. John Harvey, Oregon Department of

Transportation, 107. (All references from the forum transcript are cited as [speaker, company or association,

page number].)

11 Greg Lantzy, Michigan Department of Education, 89.

12 Examples include the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety’s Novice Driver Education Model

Curriculum and its driver-ZED CD-ROM, the National Institute for Driver Behavior, TeenSmart, and the

National Driver Training Institute.
Part 2 Report of Proceedings

vii

Driver education takes place worldwide, and studies are under way in Europe, for

example, to determine how best to provide driver education and behind-the-wheel training

to improve novice driver safety. Although driver licensing generally does not occur until

age 18 in Europe, the crash rate for European novice drivers is still higher than that for

more experienced drivers.13 Consequently, the European Union is researching ways to

improve driver education and to reduce the novice driver crash rate. European researchers

note, “[N]ovice drivers can have superior manoeuvering skills and still have many crashes.

Teaching scanning[14] and anticipating as well as self-evaluation skills[15] appear to be

promising ways to reduce crash rates of novice drivers.”16 Another European research

program found that “driver education should expand from the knowledge and skills of

vehicle manoeuvering and the mastery of traffic situations to include more about driving

goals and context as well as about goals for life, risk awareness, and self-evaluation.”17

A 1996 review of the role of driver education as part of GDL programs in the

United States included the recommendation that an effective program “should be

empirically based and focus on those psycho-motor, cognitive, and perceptual skill

deficiencies that have been shown to be associated with high collision rates of novice

drivers.”18 However, most driver education courses today are not based on an evaluation

of the amount of time needed to master these skills. They therefore may not have

sufficient hours or the right mix of classroom and behind-the-wheel training (30 hours

classroom, 6 hours behind-the-wheel is the typical amount of training provided) to provide

this type of instruction.

In summary, as stated at the forum, “Without national leadership, everyone has

done their own thing. As a result, what driver education is in one community is entirely

different [from what it is] in another community.”19 The Safety Board concludes that

although the various approaches to driver education in the United States and Europe may

have aspects that provide novice drivers with some of the training and skills needed to

drive safely, no systematic evaluation has been conducted to determine which components

are effective in teaching safe driving skills; consequently, educators and commercial

driving schools have little or no reliable guidance to follow in designing an appropriate

curriculum or in establishing requirements for classroom or behind-the-wheel instruction.

13 Nils-Petter Gregersen, Reducing High Risks—Young Novice Driver Measures. In

<http://www.etsc.be/evebody.htm>.

14 Scanning is the task of observing the entire scene around the vehicle to determine whether the path is

safe.

15 Self-evaluation skills are those used to observe one’s own behavior and actions to determine whether

that behavior contributes to safe driving.

16 A. Hoeschen and E. Bekiaris, editors, TRAINER System for Driver Training and Assessment Using

Interactive Evaluation Tools and Reliable Methodologies, Deliverable No. 2.1, “Inventory of Driver

Training Needs and Major Gaps in the Relevant Training Procedures” (Brussels, Belgium: BIVV/CARA,

2001).

17 S. Siegrist, editor, Driver Training, Testing and Licensing—Towards a Theory Based Management of

Young Drivers’ Injury Risk in Road Traffic, BFU Report No. 40 (Bern, Switzerland: BFU, 1999).

18 D.R. Mayhew and H.M. Simpson, Effectiveness and Role of Driver Education and Training in a

Graduated Licensing System: Summary (Arlington, Virginia: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 1996).

19 Allen Robinson, ADTSEA, 37.
Part 2 Report of Proceedings

viii

Teenagers’ Learning Styles

Research has advanced significantly since the DeKalb study 2 decades ago,

particularly in the area of how teenagers learn. A representative from the Idaho

Department of Education stated that, in her experience, “traditional classroom lecture

methods that we have used so long in our schools no longer work with teen drivers today.

Our teens need to be visually, mentally, and physically stimulated and challenged.”20

Teenagers vary greatly in their learning capacity, learning style, maturity, and risk-taking

behavior. Driver education and behind-the-wheel training need to accommodate those

who learn visually, those who learn by listening, and those who learn by doing. Having

students only read a book or listen to a lecture, as many classroom curricula do, does not

take into consideration the varying ways in which students learn. A multivariate approach

to teaching and learning can reach the maximum number of students and help them learn to

drive safely. Noting that most programs do not attempt to employ the wide-ranging

methods by which teenagers learn, a 2000 study21 of policies and practices in driver

education stated, “it will be important for future initiatives to ground efforts in the overall

cognitive, emotional, and physical developmental processes of youth.”

Thus, developing comprehensive driver education and behind-the-wheel training

curricula requires an understanding not only of traffic safety but also of how teenagers

learn. In the absence of such an understanding, educators can lose the opportunity to teach

teenagers how to drive safely. Furthermore, as is reflected in their behavior, teenagers are

extremely susceptible to peer pressure. Understanding this pressure and other aspects of

the cultural and societal pressures that affect their behavior could help educators design

curricula that take into account and compensate for risks associated with this environment.

Some European programs have begun to focus on this aspect of educating teenage

drivers.22 The Safety Board concludes that to be effective, novice driver education must

take into account research results that offer an understanding of how teenagers learn and

of the behavioral environment in which teenagers typically function.

One function of the U.S. Department of Education is to promote improvements in

the quality and usefulness of education throughout the United States.23 Driver education in

many States comes under the purview of the State Departments of Education; however, the

U.S. Department of Education currently has no role in developing driver education courses.

Yet the need for a more rigorous approach to novice driver education is pressing, and the

time for Department of Education involvement is opportune. Research results from other

educational fields on how teenagers learn may have applicability to driver education, and the

Department of Education is best equipped to make this determination.

20 Elizabeth Weaver, Idaho Department of Education, 75.

21 D. Anderson, A. Abdalla, C.N. Goldberg, T. Diab, and B. Pomietto, Young Driver: A Study of

Policies and Practices, Report of Findings (Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University, December 2000).

22 BFU Report No. 40.

23 <www.ed.gov>.
Part 2 Report of Proceedings

ix

Training is necessary for skill development and proficiency in any activity, and,

logically, driver education and training should provide such benefits for novice drivers.

Although statistics have not shown whether driver education is beneficial for novice

drivers in terms of reducing the incidence of crashes, this does not necessarily indicate that

driver education is unsuccessful, when in fact no methodology is available to measure

whether the roads would be less safe without driver education. Further, what specifically

would improve novice driver performance has not been identified; rather, driver education

curricula, including the recently developed ADTSEA course funded by NHTSA, have

been developed largely based on subjective measures and use of readily available

components that have not been validated. NHTSA, through a cooperative agreement with

ADTSEA, is preparing a summary of subjects being taught in driver education programs

throughout the country, but this agreement does not include an evaluation of the benefits

of these programs.24 Therefore, NHTSA, in conjunction with the Department of

Education, should determine which driver training methods result in increased safety for

novice drivers, and the Safety Board encourages NHTSA and the Department of

Education to solicit input from driver education providers during this effort. The Safety

Board believes that NHTSA and the Department of Education should jointly review

current driver education and training programs in use nationally and internationally and

determine which instructional tools, training methods, and curricula are consistent with

what the Department of Education has identified as best teaching methodologies and have

led to or are likely to lead to a reduction in crashes. Further, they should incorporate these

best practices into a model driver education and training curriculum.

Driver Education Sequencing

In 1949, the National Education Association’s National Commission on Safety

Education25 recommended 30 hours of classroom education and 6 hours of behind-thewheel training (30 + 6) as a standard for driver education and training. The commission

derived these recommendations based on a compromise between the time needed to teach

driver education and the time funded and feasible for teaching driving skills during the

school day.26

Despite the dramatic changes in vehicles, highways, and the driving environment

over the past 56 years, the approach to driver education has changed little. According to

one of the speakers at the Safety Board’s public forum, many schools still regard the 30 +

6 formula as the standard.27 Researchers have shown that driver education, accomplished

in 30 hours of classroom and 6 hours of behind-the-wheel training, cannot reasonably be

expected to transform a nondriver into a safe driver.28 Nonetheless, even the model

24 Conversation with Jim Wright, NHTSA, May 16, 2005.

25 The commission was formed to provide structure and guidance to the rapidly developing field of

driver education.

26 Correspondence with James Nichols, formerly of NHTSA, August 16, 2004.

27 Allen Robinson, ADTSEA, 33.

28 (a) P.F. Waller, “Driver Education: Can Its Goals Be Met?” Perception, Vol. 8, No. 6 (1975).

(b) P.F. Waller, “The Genesis of GDL,” Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 34 (2003): 17–23.
Part 2 Report of Proceedings

x

curriculum that ADTSEA recently developed for NHTSA is based on the 1949 standard

(30 hours of classroom instruction and 6 hours of behind-the-wheel instruction),29 because

it reflects the number of instruction hours allotted in States that offer school-based driver

education. One driver education teacher at the forum agreed that, based on her experience,

precision driving skills and safe driving habit development cannot be taught in only 6

hours of behind-the-wheel instruction.30 A teenage speaker at the forum also said she did

not receive enough driving time with her instructor.31 A speaker from the Insurance

Institute for Highway Safety noted “the courses are generally of short duration, leading to

concentration on teaching basic driving skills and less opportunity to teach safe driving

techniques.”32 The Safety Board concludes that the 56-year-old formula of 30 hours of

classroom training followed sequentially by 6 hours of behind-the-wheel training was

determined arbitrarily and is probably inadequate to teach teenagers the skills necessary to

drive safely on today’s roadways.

GDL, which the Safety Board has recommended and all States have implemented

(at least in part), is a three-stage system that incrementally gives young novice drivers

added privileges as they gain experience driving. First, the young driver receives a

learner’s permit that requires completion of both a minimum of 6 months driving without

an at-fault crash or traffic violation and supervised driving practice (including nighttime

driving) in which the supervising licensed driver is age 21 or older. Next, the young driver

receives an intermediate, or provisional, permit that requires completion of a minimum of

6 months driving without an at-fault crash or traffic violation and imposes nighttime

driving restrictions and teenage passenger restrictions. During both stages one and two,

young drivers are not allowed to operate a vehicle under the influence of alcohol (blood

alcohol concentration of 0.0 grams/100 ml) and may not use interactive wireless

communication devices (cell phones). The third and final stage is full licensure.

In many States, teenagers cannot receive their learner’s permit until they have

completed the classroom phase of driver education. However, at stage 1 of GDL and

beyond, the opportunities for additional classroom education are limited. While GDL

provides novice drivers with actual driving experience under controlled conditions,33 the

opportunity for behind-the-wheel practice in a safe environment from a qualified

instructor is minimal.

The majority of States that require both classroom and behind-the-wheel training

do not require that they be taken concurrently (see part 4). Most classroom training in

driver education takes place when a novice driver has had little or no experience behind

the wheel to relate concepts learned to real-life driving. Students listen to a lecture but

often do not practice the lesson until weeks or even months later. Michigan, in cooperation

29 <http://adtsea.iup.edu/adtsea/de_curriculum/de_curriculum.htm>.

30 Deborah Cottonware, 2003 Teacher of the Year, ADTSEA, 125.

31 Kayla Craddick, student, 136.

32 Alan Williams, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 199.

33 Examples include limiting driving to daytime, driving with adult supervision, limiting the number of

passengers, mandatory seat belt usage, remaining accident/violation-free during the learner and intermediate

stages, no alcohol violations, and prohibiting cell phone use.
Part 2 Report of Proceedings

xi

with NHTSA, is studying the effect of providing two-phased classroom education, which

inserts behind-the-wheel training between two classroom phases. Some privately offered

driver education courses discussed at the forum combine classroom and behind-the-wheel

learning so that they are done concurrently. No studies to date have shown whether

students’ driving skills benefit from concurrent classroom and behind-the-wheel training.

Yet NHTSA, through its cooperative agreement with ADTSEA, will offer technical

assistance to the States on providing driver education in conjunction with GDL without

corresponding research to support the validity of such assistance.34

Although the specific number of hours that novice drivers need to learn to operate

a motor vehicle safely may vary because of individual learning differences, setting a

standard sequence for classroom and behind-the-wheel education, in conjunction with

GDL qualifications, could guide educators and trainers in providing optimum training to

teach the majority of novice drivers to become safe drivers. The Safety Board believes that

NHTSA, in cooperation with the Department of Education, should determine the optimum

sequencing, in conjunction with GDL qualifications, for educating teenagers on safe

driving skills, both in the classroom and behind the wheel, and encourage the States to

adopt this requirement. 

Conclusions

1. Although the various approaches to driver education in the United States and Europe

may have aspects that provide novice drivers with some of the training and skills

needed to drive safely, no systematic evaluation has been conducted to determine

which components are effective in teaching safe driving skills; consequently,

educators and commercial driving schools have little or no reliable guidance to follow

in designing an appropriate curriculum or in establishing requirements for classroom

or behind-the-wheel instruction.

2. To be effective, novice driver education must take into account research results that

offer an understanding of how teenagers learn and of the behavioral environment in

which teenagers typically function.

3. The 56-year-old formula of 30 hours of classroom training followed sequentially by 6

hours of behind-the-wheel training was determined arbitrarily and is probably

inadequate to teach teenagers the skills necessary to drive safely on today’s roadways.

Recommendations

As a result of its investigation and public hearing, the National Transportation

Safety Board makes the following safety recommendations:

34 Conversation with Jim Wright, NHTSA, May 16, 2005.
Part 2 Report of Proceedings

xii

To the U.S. Department of Education:

In cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

review current driver education and training programs in use nationally and

internationally and determine which instructional tools, training methods,

and curricula are consistent with what you have identified as best teaching

methodologies and have led to or are likely to lead to a reduction in

crashes. Further, incorporate these best practices into a model driver

education and training curriculum. (H-05-23)

In cooperation with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,

determine the optimum sequencing, in conjunction with graduated driver

licensing qualifications, for educating teenagers on safe driving skills, both

in the classroom and behind the wheel, and encourage the States to adopt

this requirement. (H-05-24)

To the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Education, review current

driver education and training programs in use nationally and

internationally and determine which instructional tools, training methods,

and curricula are consistent with what the U.S. Department of Education

has identified as best teaching methodologies and have led to or are likely

to lead to a reduction in crashes. Further, incorporate these best practices

into a model driver education and training curriculum. (H-05-25)

In cooperation with the U.S. Department of Education, determine the

optimum sequencing, in conjunction with graduated driver licensing

qualifications, for educating teenagers on safe driving skills, both in the

classroom and behind the wheel, and encourage the States to adopt this

requirement. (H-05-26)

BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

MARK V. ROSENKER RICHARD F. HEALING

Acting Chairman Member

ELLEN ENGLEMAN CONNERS DEBORAH A. P. HERSMAN

Member Member

Adopted: August 1, 2005
Report of Proceedings

xiii

Part 3

Graduated Driver Licensing 

Recommendations

To the Governors of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware,

Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,

Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New

York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South

Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and

Wyoming and the Mayor of the District of Columbia:

Raise the minimum legal age for drinking or purchasing all alcoholic

beverages to 21 years of age. (H-82-18)

To the State Governors:

Review your drinking age (age 21) laws to determine if they prohibit

persons under the age of 21 from attempting to purchase, purchasing,

publicly possessing, or consuming alcoholic beverages and prohibit the

sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21. Enact laws to

include these provisions and to eliminate deficiencies that may exist. 

(H-93-1)

Enact comprehensive laws that prohibit drivers under the age of 21 from

driving with any measurable blood alcohol concentration (any level above

0.00 BAC), to include: provisions for administrative license revocation.

(H-93-5)

Enact laws that prohibit driving by young novice drivers between certain

times, especially midnight to 5 a.m. (H-93-9)

Require that the supervising adult driver in the learner’s permit stage of

your graduated licensing law is age 21 or older. (H-02-31)
Part 3 Report of Proceedings

xiv

To the Governors of Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,

Idaho, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi,

Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania,

Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West

Virginia, and the Mayor of the District of Columbia:

Restrict young, novice drivers with provisional (intermediate) licenses,

unless accompanied by a supervising adult driver who is at least 21 years

old, from carrying more than one passenger under the age of 20 until they

receive an unrestricted license or for at least 6 months (whichever is

longer). (H-02-30)

To the Governors of Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Kansas, Kentucky,

Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, and

Wyoming:

Enact laws to provide for a three-stage graduated licensing system for

young novice drivers, and restrict young novice drivers with provisional or

intermediate licenses (second stage), unless accompanied by a supervising

adult driver who is at least 21 years old, from carrying more than one

passenger under the age of 20 until they receive an unrestricted license or

for at least 6 months (whichever is longer). (H-02-32)

To the 48 States that do not have legislation prohibiting holders of learner’s

permits and intermediate licenses from using interactive wireless communication

devices:

Enact legislation to prohibit holders of learner’s permits and intermediate

licenses from using interactive wireless communication devices while

driving. (H-03-8)
Report of Proceedings

xv

Part 4

Novice Driver Requirements in the 50 States 

and District of Columbia

Table 1. Learner’s permit requirements (based upon Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety [IIHS] information, June 2005).

Requirements Restrictions

Type Age Training Testing Supervision Other 

(hours, locations, 

passengers, cell 

phone usage)

Alabama Learner’s 

license

15 — Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised —

Alaska Instruction 

permit

14 — Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Arizona Restricted 

instruction 

permit

Instruction 

permit

15

15 years, 

7 months

Enrolled in driver 

education program

—

Pass 

written test

Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised

Only drive on 

designated highway 

or area

—

Arkansas Instruction 

permit

Learner’s 

license

14

14

—

Hold instruction permit 30 

days

Pass 

written test

Pass 

driving test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

—

California Instruction 

permit

15 years, 6 

months

Complete driver 

education and enrolled in 

or completed on-the-road 

training

Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Colorado Instruction 

permit

Instruction 

permit

Instruction 

permit

16

15 years, 6 

months

15

—

Complete 4-hour driver 

awareness program

Enrolled in driver 

education program

Pass 

written test

Pass 

written test

Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

Connecticut Learner’s permit 16 — Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

Delaware Level 1 learner’s 

permit

15 years, 10 

months

Complete driver 

education and certified by 

driving instructor

Pass 

written 

and 

driving test

Not drive unless 

supervised for first 6 

months

Not carry more than 

two passengers in 

addition to 

supervising driver 

(family excepted)

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

District of 

Columbia

Learner’s permit 16 — Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive between 

9 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

Florida Learner’s 

license

15 Complete traffic law and 

substance abuse course

Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

First 3 months: not 

drive after sunset; 

after 3 months: not 

drive after 10 p.m.
Part 4 Report of Proceedings

xvi

Requirements Restrictions

Georgia Instruction 

permit

15 — Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Hawaii Instruction 

permit

15 years, 6 

months

— Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Idaho Driver training 

instruction 

permit

Supervised 

instruction 

permit

14 years, 6 

months

14 years, 6 

months

Enrolled in driver training

Completed driver training

—

—

Not drive unless 

supervised by 

driving instructor

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

—

Illinois Instruction 

permit

Instruction 

permit

Instruction 

permit

15

15 years,

6 months

17 years, 9 

months

Enrolled in driver 

education 

Enrolled in school

—

Pass 

written test

Pass 

written test

Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

Indiana Unvalidated 

learner’s permit

Validated 

learner’s permit

Validated 

learner’s permit

15

15

16

Enrolled in driver 

education

Completed driver 

education

—

—

—

Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised by 

instructor or parent

Not drive unless 

supervised by parent 

or relative

Not drive unless 

supervised by parent 

or relative

—

—

—

Iowa Instruction 

permit

14 — Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Kansas Instruction 

permit

Restricted 

driver’s license

14

15

—

Complete driver 

education, drive at least 

25 hours supervised

Pass 

written test

—

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised other 

than to and from 

work and school by 

the most direct route

—

Not carry minor 

passengers (siblings 

excepted), hold 

instruction permit at 

least 6 months, and 

obtain 

recommendation of 

chief law 

enforcement officer 

of city or county if 

required

Kentucky Instruction 

permit

16 — Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive between 

midnight and 6 a.m.

Louisiana Learner’s 

license

Learner’s 

license

15

17

Completed driver 

education

—

Pass 

written test

Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

—

Maine Instruction 

permit

15 Completed driver 

education

Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

Maryland Learner’s 

instructional 

permit

15 years, 9 

months

— Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

Massachusetts Learner’s permit 16 — Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

If under 18, not drive 

between midnight 

and 5 a.m. unless 

supervised by 

licensed parent or 

guardian who has 

been licensed for at 

least 1 year
Part 4 Report of Proceedings

xvii

Requirements Restrictions

Michigan Level 1 license 14 years, 9 

months

Completed segment 1 

driver education and 6 

hours of driving

— Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Minnesota Instruction 

permit

15 Enrolled in or completed 

driver education

Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Mississippi Temporary 

permit

15 — Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Missouri Instruction 

permit

15 — Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Montana* Traffic education 

learner license

Instruction 

permit

Instruction 

permit

14 years, 6 

months

15

16

Enrolled in or completed 

driver education

Completed driver 

education

—

—

Pass 

written test

Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised by parent 

or driving instructor

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

—

—

Nebraska Learner’s permit 15 — Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Nevada Instruction 

permit

15 years, 6 

months

— Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

New Hampshire To practice 

driving; no 

learner’s permit

15 years, 6 

months

— — Not drive unless 

supervised

—

New Jersey Special learner’s 

permit

Examination 

permit

16

17

Completed driver 

education

—

Pass 

written test

Pass 

written test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

Not carry more than 1 

passenger beyond 

supervisor 

(household members 

excepted)

Not drive between 

11 p.m. and 5 a.m.

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

Not carry more than 1 

passenger 

(household members 

excepted)

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m.

New Mexico Instruction 

permit

15 Enrolled in driver 

education

— Not drive unless 

supervised

—

New York Learner’s 

permit

Limited use DJ 

license

16

16

—

Drive at least 20 hours 

supervised

Pass 

written 

test

Pass 

driving 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive in New 

York City and 

surrounding 

counties unless 

supervised

Restrictions in New 

York City and 

surrounding counties

Not drive unless 

going to and from 

school, school 

activities, work, 

medical 

appointments, and 

daycare for family 

members

North Carolina Limited 

learner’s permit

15 Completed driver 

education

Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

First 6 months: not 

drive between 9 p.m. 

and 5 a.m.

North Dakota Instruction 

permit

14 — Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—
Part 4 Report of Proceedings

xviii

Requirements Restrictions

Ohio Instruction 

permit

15 years, 6 

months

— Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive between 

1 a.m. and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised by 

parent or guardian

Oklahoma Learner permit

Learner permit

15 years, 6 

months

16

Completed or enrolled in 

driver education; enrolled 

in parent-taught driver 

education certified by 

DPS; or completed 36 

hours of supervised 

practice driving, as 

certified by parent or 

guardian

Pass 

written 

test

Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

—

Oregon Instruction 

permit

15 — Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Pennsylvania Learner’s 

permit

16 — Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Rhode Island Limited 

instruction 

permit

16 Completed driver 

education

Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

South Carolina Beginner’s 

permit

15 — Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive between 

midnight and 6 a.m. 

unless supervised by 

a parent or guardian

South Dakota Instruction 

permit

14 — Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive between 

10 p.m. and 6 a.m. 

unless supervised by 

a parent or guardian

Tennessee Learner’s 

permit

15 — Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive between 

10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Not drive while using 

a cell phone

Texas Instruction 

permit

15 Completed classroom 

phase of driver education

Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Utah Practice permit 15 years, 6 

months

Enrolled in driver 

education

Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Vermont Learner’s 

permit

15 — Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

Virginia Learner’s 

permit

15 years, 6 

months

— Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not carry more than 

1 passenger under 

18

Not drive between 

midnight and 4 a.m.

Washington Instruction 

permit

Instruction 

permit

15

15 years, 6 

months

Enrolled in driver 

education

—

—

Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

—

West Virginia Level 1 

instruction 

permit

15 — Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Not carry more than 

2 passengers in 

addition to 

supervising driver 

(family excepted)

Not drive between 

11 p.m. and 5 a.m.
Part 4 Report of Proceedings

xix

Requirements Restrictions

Wisconsin Regular 

instruction 

permit

15 years, 6 

months

— Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

Carry family 

members if 

supervised by parent 

or guardian

Carry 3 passengers 

if supervised by 

instructor in dualcontrol vehicle

If 16, carry 1 

passenger, 25 years 

or older, who has 

been licensed 2 

years

Wyoming Instruction 

permit

15 — Pass 

written 

test

Not drive unless 

supervised

—

*In additon to requirements noted by IIHS above, the Montana Department of Justice or an approved traffic education instructor may issue a

Restricted Instruction Permit to anyone age 14 years, 6 months, who has passed a knowledge test.
Part 4 Report of Proceedings

xx

Table 2. Intermediate/provisional license requirements (based upon IIHS 

information, June 2005).

Requirements Restrictions 

(hours, locations, 

passengers, cell 

phone usage)

Restrictions 

end (age, 

experience, 

and training) Age Learner’s 

permit held 

On-the-road 

experience

Training Testing

Alabama 16 6 months 30 hours 

supervised 

driving; if driver 

education 

completed, no 

supervised 

driving 

experience 

required

Optional Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 3 

passengers (parents or 

guardians excepted)

Not drive between 

midnight and 6 a.m. 

unless supervised

17, after 6 

months 

restricted

Alaska 16 6 months 40 hours 

supervised 

driving, 10 at 

night or in 

inclement 

weather

— Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry passengers 

under 21 (siblings 

excepted) unless 

supervised

Not drive between 1 

a.m. and 5 a.m. unless 

supervised

After 6 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first

Arizona 16 5 months 25 hours 

supervised, 5 at 

night; if driver 

education 

completed, no 

supervised 

driving 

experience 

required

Optional Pass 

driving 

test

— —

Arkansas 16 Instruction and 

learner’s permit 

(6 months total)

— — — — —

California 16 6 months 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Pass driver 

education and 

training

Pass 

driving 

test

First 6 months, not 

carry passengers 

under 20 (immediate 

family excepted in 

limited circumstances) 

unless supervised

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

After 1 year or 

at 18, whichever 

comes first

Colorado 16 12 months 50 hours 

supervised,10 at 

night

— Pass 

driving 

test

First 6 months, not 

carry passengers 

(family excepted); 

second 6 months, not 

carry more than 1 

passenger (family 

excepted) unless 

supervised

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

17

Connecticut 16 6 months, or 4 

months with 

driver 

education

20 hours 

supervised; if 

driver education 

completed, no 

supervised 

driving 

experience 

required

Complete 

course in driver 

education or 

home study 

with parent or 

guardian; 

complete 

course on safe 

driving 

practices

Pass 

driving 

test

First 3 months, not 

carry passengers; 

second 3 months, not 

carry passengers 

(family excepted)

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m.

Not drive while using a 

hand-held cell phone

After 6 

months—

passenger 

restriction

18—night 

driving 

restriction and 

cell phone 

restriction

Delaware 16 years, 4 

months

6 months — — — Not carry more than 2 

passengers unless 

supervised

Not drive between 10 

p.m. and 6 a.m. unless 

supervised

Not drive while using a 

cell phone

After 6 months
Part 4 Report of Proceedings

xxi

Requirements Restrictions 

(hours, locations, 

passengers, cell 

phone usage)

Restrictions 

end (age, 

experience, 

and training) Age Learner’s 

permit held 

On-the-road 

experience

Training Testing

District of 

Columbia

16 years, 6 

months

17

6 months

6 months

40 hours 

supervised

10 hours at night

—

—

Pass 

driving 

test

—

Not carry passengers 

(family excepted)

Not drive between 

11 p.m. and 6 a.m. 

(weekends and 

summers between 

midnight and 6 a.m.)

Not carry more than 2 

passengers (siblings 

excepted)

Not drive between 

11 p.m. and 6 a.m. 

(weekends and 

summers between 

midnight and 6 a.m.)

17 and after 6 

months 

restricted

18

Florida 16 1 year 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

— Pass 

driving 

test

Under 17—not drive 

between 11 p.m. and 

6 a.m. unless 

supervised

17—not drive between 

1 a.m. and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

18

Georgia 16 1 year 40 hours 

supervised, 6 at 

night; if driver 

education 

completed, 20 

hours 

supervised, 6 at 

night

Optional — First 6 months, not 

carry passengers 

(family excepted); after 

that, not carry more 

than 3 passengers 

under 21 (family 

excepted)

Not drive between 

midnight and 6 a.m. 

18

Hawaii 16 6 months — Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 1 

passenger under 18 

(household members 

excepted) unless 

supervised

Not drive between 11 

p.m. and 5 a.m. unless 

supervised

17

Idaho 15 4 months 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

— Pass 

written 

and 

driving 

test

Not drive after daylight 

hours unless 

supervised

16

Illinois 16 3 months 25 hours 

supervised

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 1 

passenger under 20 

(family excepted)

Not drive between 

11 p.m. and 6 a.m. 

weekdays and 

midnight and 6 a.m. 

weekends unless 

supervised

Not drive while using a 

cell phone

After 6 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first—

passenger 

restriction

17—night 

driving 

restriction

18—cell phone 

restriction

Indiana 16 years, 1 

month

16 years, 6 

months

2 months

2 months

—

—

Complete driver 

education

—

Pass 

driving 

test

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry passengers 

unless supervised

Not drive between 

11 p.m. and 5 a.m. 

weekdays and 1 a.m. 

and 5 a.m. weekends

After 90 days or 

at 18, whichever 

comes first—

passenger 

restriction

18—night 

driving 

restriction
Part 4 Report of Proceedings

xxii

Requirements Restrictions 

(hours, locations, 

passengers, cell 

phone usage)

Restrictions 

end (age, 

experience, 

and training) Age Learner’s 

permit held 

On-the-road 

experience

Training Testing

Iowa 16 6 months 20 hours 

supervised, 2 at 

night

Complete driver 

education

— Not drive between 

12:30 a.m. and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

17, after holding 

intermediate 

license for 1 

year

Kansas 16 — 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education or 

driving test

— — —

Kentucky 16 years, 6 

months

6 months — — Pass 

driving 

test

— 18

If under 18, 

must attend 

driver education 

course or State 

traffic school 

within 1 year

Louisiana 16 6 months — — Pass 

driving 

test

Not drive between 

11 p.m. and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

17

Maine 16 6 months 35 hours 

supervised, 5 at 

night

— Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry passengers 

(family excepted) 

unless supervised

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m.

Not drive while using 

cell phone

After 6 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first

Maryland 16 years, 3 

months

6 months 60 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry passengers 

under 18 unless 

supervised

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m 

unless supervised

Not drive while using a 

cell phone

After 5 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first—

passenger 

restriction

After 18 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first—

night driving 

restriction

Massachusetts 16 years, 6 

months

6 months 12 hours 

supervised

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry passengers 

under 18 (family 

excepted) unless 

supervised

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

After 6 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first—

passenger 

restriction

18—night 

driving 

restriction

Michigan 16 6 months 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete 

segment 2 

driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised 

17

Minnesota 16 6 months 30 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

— —

Mississippi 15 years, 6 

months 

6 months — — Pass 

driving 

test

Not drive between 

10 p.m. and 6 a.m. 

unless supervised

After 6 months 

or at 17, 

whichever 

comes first

Missouri 16 6 months 20 hours 

supervised

— Pass 

driving 

test

Not drive between 1 

a.m. and 5 a.m. unless 

supervised

18
Part 4 Report of Proceedings

xxiii

Requirements Restrictions 

(hours, locations, 

passengers, cell 

phone usage)

Restrictions 

end (age, 

experience, 

and training) Age Learner’s 

permit held 

On-the-road 

experience

Training Testing

Montana 15

16

6 months

6 months

50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education

—

Pass 

driving 

test

Pass 

driving 

test

First 6 months, not 

carry more than 1 

passenger under 18 

(family excepted) 

unless supervised; 

second 6 months, not 

carry more than 3 

passengers under 18 

(family excepted) 

unless supervised

—

—

Nebraska 16 — 50 hours 

supervised; if 

driver education 

completed, no 

supervised 

driving 

experience 

required

Optional Pass 

written 

and 

driving 

tests

Not drive between 

midnight and 6 a.m. 

unless supervised

After 1 year or 

at 18, whichever 

comes first

Nevada No earlier 

than 16

6 months 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night, and 

complete driver 

education or 100 

hours 

supervised (in 

locations where 

driver education 

not available)

Complete driver 

education 

— Not carry passengers 

under 18 (family 

excepted)

Not drive between 10 

p.m. and 5 a.m.

3 months

New Hampshire 16 — 20 hours 

supervised

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 1 

passenger under 25 

(family excepted) 

unless supervised

Not drive between 1 

a.m. and 5 a.m.

After 6 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first—

passenger 

restriction

After 13 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first—

night driving 

restriction

New Jersey 17 6 months 

(learner’s or 

examination 

permit)

— Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 1 

passenger (household 

members excepted) 

unless supervised

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m.

Not drive while using a 

cell phone

After 1 year or 

at 21, whichever 

comes first

New Mexico 15 years, 6 

months

6 months 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 1 

passenger under 21 

(family excepted)

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

After 1 year or 

at 18, whichever 

comes first

New York 16 6 months 20 hours 

supervised

— Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 2 

passengers under 21 

(family excepted) 

unless supervised

Not drive between 9 

p.m. and 5 a.m. unless 

supervised

Not drive in New York 

City and only to and 

from school in 

surrounding counties

17, with driver 

education; 18, 

without
Part 4 Report of Proceedings

xxiv

Requirements Restrictions 

(hours, locations, 

passengers, cell 

phone usage)

Restrictions 

end (age, 

experience, 

and training) Age Learner’s 

permit held 

On-the-road 

experience

Training Testing

North Carolina 16 1 year — — Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 1 

passenger under 21 

(family and household 

members excepted) 

unless supervised

Not drive between 9 

p.m. and 5 a.m. unless 

supervised

After 6 months

North Dakota 16 6 months — — — — —

Ohio 16 6 months 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not drive between 1 

a.m. and 5 a.m.

17

Oklahoma 16 6 months 40 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Optional Pass 

written 

and 

driving 

tests

Not carry more than 1 

passenger (household 

members excepted) 

unless supervised

Not drive between 11 

p.m. and 5 a.m. unless 

supervised

After 1 year; 

after 6 months if 

completed 

driver education 

and supervised 

driving practice

Oregon 16 6 months 50 hours 

supervised and 

complete driver 

education or 100 

hours 

supervised

Optional Pass 

driving 

test

First 6 months, not 

carry passengers 

under 20 (family 

excepted); after that, 

not carry more than 3 

passengers under 20 

(family excepted)

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

After 1 year or 

at 18, whichever 

comes first

Pennsylvania 16 years, 6 

months

6 months 50 hours 

supervised

— Pass 

driving 

test

Not drive between 

11 p.m. and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

17

Rhode Island 16 years, 6 

months

6 months 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

— Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 1 

passenger under 21 

(family and household 

members excepted)

Not drive between 1 

a.m. and 5 a.m. unless 

supervised

After 1 year or 

at 18, whichever 

comes first

South Carolina 15 years, 6 

months for 

conditional 

restricted 

license (16 

to get special 

restricted 

license)

6 months 40 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 2 

passengers under 21 

(family and students 

going to and from 

school excepted), 

unless supervised

Not drive between 6 

p.m. and 6 a.m. 

(between 8 p.m. and 

6 a.m. during daylight 

saving time) unless 

supervised; between 

midnight and 6 a.m. 

must be supervised by 

parent or guardian

After 1 year or 

at 17, whichever 

comes first

South Dakota 14 years, 6 

months, or 

14 years, 3 

months, with 

driver 

education

6 months, or 3 

months with 

driver 

education

— — Pass 

driving 

test

Not drive between 

6 a.m. and 10 p.m. 

without parent’s 

permission; not drive 

between 10 p.m. and 

6 a.m. unless 

supervised

16
Part 4 Report of Proceedings

xxv

Requirements Restrictions 

(hours, locations, 

passengers, cell 

phone usage)

Restrictions 

end (age, 

experience, 

and training) Age Learner’s 

permit held 

On-the-road 

experience

Training Testing

Tennessee 16 6 months 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

— Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 1 

passenger (family to 

and from school 

excepted) unless 

supervised

Not drive between 

11 p.m. and 6 a.m. 

unless supervised

Not drive while using a 

cell phone

After 1 year or 

at 18, whichever 

comes first

Texas 16 6 months — Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 1 

passenger under 21 

(family excepted)

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

Not drive while using a 

cell phone

After 6 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first

Utah 16 — 40 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry passengers 

(family excepted) 

unless supervised

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

After 6 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first—

passenger 

restriction

17—night 

driving 

restriction

Vermont 16 1 year 40 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

First 3 months, not 

carry passengers 

unless supervised; 

next 3 months, not 

carry passengers 

(family excepted) 

unless supervised

After 6 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first

Virginia 16 years, 3 

months

9 months 40 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

First year, not carry 

more than 1 passenger 

under 18 (family 

excepted); after 1 year, 

not carry more than 3 

passengers under 18 

(family excepted)

Not drive between 

midnight and 4 a.m. 

unless supervised

18

Washington 16 6 months 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education

Pass 

driving 

test

First 6 months, not 

carry passengers 

under 20 (family 

excepted); after 6 

months, not carry more 

than 3 passengers 

under 20 (family 

excepted)

Not drive between 1 

a.m. and 5 a.m. unless 

supervised

After 1 year or 

at 18, whichever 

comes first

West Virginia 16 6 months 30 hours 

supervised; if 

driver education 

completed, no 

supervised 

driving 

experience 

required

Optional Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 3 

passengers under 19 

(family excepted)

Not drive between 

11 p.m. and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised

After 1 year or 

at 18, whichever 

comes first
Part 4 Report of Proceedings

xxvi

Requirements Restrictions 

(hours, locations, 

passengers, cell 

phone usage)

Restrictions 

end (age, 

experience, 

and training) Age Learner’s 

permit held 

On-the-road 

experience

Training Testing

Wisconsin No earlier 

than 16

6 months 30 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

— Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 1 

passenger in addition 

to supervising driver 

(family excepted)

Not drive between 

midnight and 5 a.m. 

unless supervised 

After 9 months 

or at 18, 

whichever 

comes first

Wyoming 16 10 days 50 hours 

supervised, 10 

at night

Complete driver 

education and 

have 

intermediate 

permit for 6 

months or have 

learner’s permit 

for 10 days and 

be 17 or older

Pass 

driving 

test

Not carry more than 1 

passenger under 18 

(family excepted) 

unless supervised

Not drive between 11 

p.m. and 5 a.m. unless 

supervised

After 6 months 

or at 17, 

whichever 

comes first
Report of Proceedings

1

Part 5

Public Forum on Driver Education 

and Training, October 28–29, 2003

Executive Summary 

More than 4,000 teen traffic fatalities occur on the Nation’s roadways each year.

To help determine what can be done to prevent them, the National Transportation Safety

Board (NTSB) convened a public forum in Washington, DC, on October 28 and 29, 2003,

to consider issues related to driver education and training. 

Speakers from Federal agencies, State governments, Europe, Canada, driver education

and traffic safety associations and companies, as well as students, teachers, and researchers

addressed the forum. Speakers discussed the history and current state of novice driver education

and training, the extent to which it is used, and its quality and effectiveness. Speakers also

explored the strengths and weaknesses in driver education and training and what can be done to

improve it. Private, State and Federal programs (both here and abroad), experiences with current

driver education programs, and new initiatives to improve driver education were also discussed. 

The decision to hold the forum was prompted by an accident that occurred near

Belgrade, Montana, on January 23, 2003. On that day, about 3:20 p.m., a 1997 Oldsmobile

Achieva, operated by a 14-year-old participant in the driver education program at Manhattan

Christian School, was westbound on Amsterdam Road (State Route 347) west of Belgrade.

Also in the vehicle were two other students, ages 14 and 15, and the driver education instructor,

age 49. Amsterdam Road, a two-lane rural roadway (70 mph speed limit), was wet with snow

and slush that had accumulated on the edges of the roadway and in the center of the westbound

lane. The weather was overcast and partly sunny; the temperature was about 37° F. 

About the same time, a 1991 International tractor-semitrailer combination vehicle,

operated by a 29-year-old driver, was eastbound on Amsterdam Road, crossing a short

bridge over a drainage ditch. According to the truckdriver, both vehicles were traveling 35

to 45 mph when he saw the Oldsmobile begin to “fishtail” and veer into the eastbound

lane, directly in front of him. He said he tried to avoid the collision by steering to his left.

The tractor-semitrailer struck the Oldsmobile on the right side, causing it to rotate

clockwise and plunge down a 10-foot embankment on the south side of the roadway. The

truck came to rest facing north on the roadway, blocking both travel lanes. 

The four occupants of the Oldsmobile, all of whom were wearing seat belts,

sustained fatal injuries. The truckdriver, who was also wearing his seat belt, was not injured. 
Part 5 Report of Proceedings

2

Some of the speakers’ remarks in these proceedings have been edited. A public

docket (HWY-03-MH-018) has been established for this forum. In addition to verbatim

transcripts of the speakers’ presentations, the docket contains administrative information

pertaining to the hearing. Additional information about the public docket may be obtained

from the Public Inquiries Section, RE-51, National Transportation Safety Board,

Washington, DC, 20594, 800-877-6799 or 202-314-6551.
Agenda 

Tuesday, October 28, 2003 

Welcome and Introduction 

History and Research – Kevin Quinlan, NTSB 

Essential background information on driver education and training, including its 

history, development, evaluation, and major studies in the area 

Jim Nichols (retired) 

Allen Robinson – American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association 

(ADTSEA) 

U.S. and International Programs – Jennifer Bishop, NTSB 

The current state of driver education and training in the U.S. and abroad 

Sean McLaurin – United States (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA)) 

Larry Lonero – Canada (Northport Associates) 

Stefan Siegrist – Europe (Swiss Council for Accident Prevention) 

State Programs – Gary Van Etten, NTSB 

State programs, their effectiveness, and needs 

Elizabeth Weaver – Idaho Department of Education 

Greg Lantzy – Michigan Department of Education 

David Huff – Montana Office of Public Instruction 

John Harvey – Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation Safety 

Division 

Barry Ford – Vermont Department of Education 

Report of Proceedings

3

Part 5
Wednesday, October 29, 2003 

Driver Education Teacher and Student Perspectives – Peter Kotowski, 

NTSB 

Teaching standards and techniques, simulators, and a perspective on program 

effectiveness from recent graduates 

Delores Cottonware – Teacher of the Year, ADTSEA 

Steve Cebulka – Colonial School District, New Castle County, Delaware 

Kayla Craddick – National Student Safety Program (NSSP) 

Brad Wells – National Student Safety Program

Associations Panels – Rafael Marshall and Paula Sind-Prunier, NTSB 

Issues pertaining to the current state of driver education and initiatives underway 

to improve novice driver safety 

Randy Thiel – American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association 

D. Keith Russell – Driving School Association of the Americas (DSAA) 

Wayne Tully – National Driver Training Institute 

Frederik Mottola – National Institute of Driver Behavior (NIDB) 

Dr. Richard Harkness – Adept, Inc. 

Troy Costalas – Governors’ Highway Safety Association (GHSA) 

Charles Butler – American Automobile Association (AAA) 

Allan Williams – Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

Chuck Hurley – National Safety Council (NSC) 

Peter Kissinger – AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 

Gerald Donaldson – Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

Current Research – Robert Molloy, NTSB 

Validation studies for driver education techniques and future research needs 

Terry Kline – Eastern Kentucky University Traffic Safety Institute 

Bimal Aponso – Systems Technology, Inc. 

Dale Ritzel – Southern Illinois University 

Jean Shope – University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 

4
Welcome and Introduction 

MR. OSTERMAN: I’d like to welcome everybody to the National Transportation 

Safety Board and the NTSB Conference and Hearing Room. My name is Joe Osterman. 

I’m the director of the Office of Highway Safety. And over the next two days, we’re 

going to be exploring the issues related to driver education. 

To begin with, I’d like to introduce our chairman, Chairman Ellen Engleman from

the NTSB, for some opening remarks. 

CHAIRMAN ENGLEMAN: Good morning, everyone. I want to thank you all for 

being here today, and this is really what the NTSB -- it’s one of our best aspects of being 

here and providing a sanctuary for safety discussions in order to bring forth the topics 

that really matter in order to bring them forth in a way that we can discuss them

thoroughly and without prejudice or in, shall we say, a neutral setting. So we can really 

focus on we like to say the facts, the science, and the data, and not allowing ourselves to 

be distracted by supposition or guess or desire or, you know, things that really don’t 

matter to the real topic of safety because that’s really the job that we have. 

When I give speeches and talk to people outside the NTSB, I always like to brag 

about the NTSB, saying we have 429 dedicated professionals who really don’t have jobs; 

they have missions, and they’re on mission every day. So I’m very proud to serve, and 

it’s truly a privilege to be the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. 

Today’s forum is sponsored by our brand new NTSB Academy. And it’s the first 

time that the Board has addressed this issue of novice education driving -- driver 

education probably since the early 1970s, around 1971. 

I think it’s really critical that we understand the role of the Board in that 

everything we do is based on the fact that someone has lost their life. Our role is to be the 

lead investigation agency into determining what we call the probable cause of an 

accident. And when we find out why and what, we’re able to issue safety 

recommendations in order to ensure that it doesn’t occur in the future. 

So this discussion was actually prompted by an accident that occurred in 

Belgrade, Montana, earlier this year. 

Now, the Safety Board supported and promoted a graduated driver’s license to try 

to curb, to lessen, the number of fatalities by younger drivers. And we believe that the 

effort needs to begin at the beginning. 

5

Part 5
It kind of reminds me of “The Sound of Music,” you know. Where do you begin; 

you begin at the beginning. So perhaps this is the “Do Re Mi” of driver education. 

Driver education is so much more than a three-point turn or parallel parking. We

need to focus on the -- our attention on the history, on the substance, on the true quality 

and effectiveness of driver education. We need to explore the strengths and weaknesses 

of the programs and what we can do to improve them. 

So that’s really critical. It’s not a role of criticism; it’s a role of construction. We

need to determine what we can do to make things better. 

So we have a group of panelists, and these are some of the best that we can offer 

from the NTSB. Kevin Quinlan, Jennifer Bishop, Gary Van Etten, Peter Kotowski, 

Rafael Marshall, Dr. Paula Sind-Prunier, and Dr. Robert Molloy, and Mr. Larry Yohe, 

Ronald Kaminski, and Michele McMurtry will all be assisting with this forum.

Now, again, as I mentioned, our forum will be a fact-gathering exercise. We’ll 

spend our time looking at the current safety problems and try to study possible solutions. 

We will use this information to help develop our recommendations and other materials on 

this issue of novice education, novice driver education. 

So here’s the procedure, the rules of the road if you will. The panelists will be 

introduced. Each will make a presentation in his or her area of expertise. With each group 

of panelists, we’ll make sure that there is time for questions. 

We’re going to pass out cards, have you write down your questions, and then give 

them to the Board staff who’ll be up and down the aisles. And then they’ll try to get to as 

many of the questions as possible, all right?

We’ll also have a table outside the auditorium that’ll contain information on a 

variety of the driver education programs that we’ve accumulated -- about programs 

throughout the country. Please take it. 

There are also two driver’s training simulators in the room to your left. If you exit 

the auditorium and you’ll be able to try. So that’ll be kind of interesting. I think that’s 

important. Now, the simulators are not endorsed by the NTSB Safety Board as a product 

per se, but they are being utilized today as an information tool. 

We will have a transcript of the forum and all the exhibits entered into the record. 

That’ll be part of the public record in the Safety Board’s Washington Office. Anyone 

desiring to purchase a transcript should contact the court reporter. We do not provide 

copies of the transcript per se. 

An archive of the webcast can be found on our website, which is www.ntsb.gov. 

And in addition, the Safety Board’s accident investigation reports, our publications, and 

our Academy classes will be available on our website. 

6
So, any general questions at the very beginning?

(No response) 

CHAIRMAN ENGLEMAN: No? All right. Thank you so much for being here. 

Again, this is an important forum for us because we’re really talking about the future, and 

that’s the future of the young people that are driving today. 

As you may know, traffic accidents are the number one what we call nonvoluntary form of death for teenagers, meaning suicide is, unfortunately, the number one. 

But highway accidents are the number one cause of death for teenagers. This is a critical 

area for us to address. There’s nothing, I think, sadder than seeing a young life taken far 

too soon. 

And with over 45,000 accidents or deaths on our highways, we do have an 

epidemic that we hope today won’t be a band-aid but truly will be a first aspect of trying 

to wipe out this condition that we truly find intolerable. 

Thank you for your attention. I’ll let the panelists begin, and we’ll look forward to 

a very, very successful forum. Thank you. 

(Applause) 

MS. BISHOP: Good morning. My name is Jennifer Bishop, and I’m the project 

manager for this forum. And I’d like to introduce Gary Van Etten. He was the 

investigator-in-charge on the Belgrade, Montana, accident which prompted us to have 

this forum, and he’ll give you some background on that accident. 

MR. VAN ETTEN: Good morning. I am pleased to see many of you here who 

I’ve spoken to before, and I’m glad you’re part of the forum that we’re going to have 

over the next couple days. 

This whole process started with a traffic collision that occurred in Belgrade, 

Montana, in January of this year. I’m going to talk to you a little bit about what happened 

that time, give you a little bit of background of how this whole process got started, how it 

was generated. 

We have a Manhattan Christian School was the school in which our driver 

education vehicle was originated. They have an after-hours driver education school. It 

consists of 30 hours of classroom and six hours of behind-the-wheel training. 

Our students were in their third session of the six hours behind the wheel. The 

first session is spent in a parking lot just getting familiar with the vehicle and how it 

works and getting a little comfortable with that kind of driving process. And then this 

was the -- actually just the second time that they were out on the roadway. 

Each time they go out, there are three students in the car. They go out for about 

three hours, so each student gets between 45 minutes and an hour of driving. So they 

7
were actually returning at the end of this third session, so each student in the vehicle had 

had approximately two hours of behind the wheel driving out on the street. 

The driver education vehicle that they were driving was a 1997 Oldsmobile 

Achieva. It was a leased vehicle from the local Chevrolet dealership. 

Our driver was a 14-year-old male. We had a 49-year-old instructor sitting in the 

right front seat. The vehicle comes equipped with the auxiliary brake but not the auxiliary 

steering wheel, so there was a brake that the instructor could operate, but not the steering 

wheel. 

And then in the back seat we had two other students, a 14-year-old and a 15-yearold. 

The vehicle was involved in a collision with a tractor semi-trailer combination 

vehicle weighing about 50,000 pounds. It had a load of potatoes on it. That was operated 

by Food Services of America. They have a 29-year-old driver who had been driving for 

the company for several years. Basically, he would leave his tractor at a tow yard. A 

semi-trailer would be there waiting for him in the morning to go out, and he would make 

his deliveries and his pickups. 

He’d bring that semi-trailer back on the hook, and then somebody from Billings 

would come with another tractor semi-trailer, drop off the one that they brought from

Billings, pick up the one there in Belgrade, and then take it back. And then the driver 

would come in the morning and do his route over again. 

And he, again, was at the end of his delivery and he was headed back to the tow 

yard at the end of his day. 

The location of our accident occurred just outside of Belgrade; the red circle 

shows the roadway. It’s Amsterdam Roadway, State Route 347. The school is down in 

this area here. And this roadway is about five miles long, and it is the major route into 

and out of that particular area where the school is located. So they really didn’t have 

another option of roadway to be on because this is the road that connects basically the 

Bozeman-Belgrade area where they were out driving during the day. 

This picture was taken standing approximately where the collision occurred. And 

we’re looking westbound. And a couple of features on the roadway that I’d like for you 

to look at which were things that we take into consideration when we do our evaluation 

of any accident. 

We’ve got a two-lane roadway. It goes across a little bridge over a culvert. You 

can see the warning paddles. You can see the guardrails on either side. And from the 

pavement, there really are no shoulders. You’ve got about a foot or two of dirt shoulder, 

and then it drops off into ditches on either side. So there really isn’t a whole lot of room. 

8
And as the vehicle going westbound, which our driver education vehicle was 

going westbound, as it approaches the bridge, it gives the perception of the roadway 

narrowing. And so we feel this probably had an effect on the decision-making process 

that both drivers had as they were coming across the bridge because as the driver is going 

westbound, our truck is coming eastbound across that bridge. 

And so we’ve got this big truck coming at us, and this inexperienced driver. And 

now where does he go; he’s got a narrowing of the roadway. He doesn’t have shoulders 

to go to. What kind of decision-making processes does he have going through there. 

Also, I’d like for you to notice the trees that are on the south side of the roadway, 

which would be right over in this area here. Typically, what happens during the 

wintertime when the sun starts to set, it gets lower on the horizon, it causes shadows to 

come across the roadway. 

And because the accident occurred when it was near freezing, in fact, it had 

snowed the night before. The road had been plowed, but still there was enough snow and 

slush on the roadway that as those shadows come across and the wind blows, it starts to 

freeze, creating slippery spots on the roadway. So we’ve got a number of considerations 

here to look at once we start evaluating what occurred. 

This is just the same position, only turned around and facing eastbound. You can 

see it’s a pretty straight roadway. There are no visual obstructions. Again, you can see the 

drop-off on either side of the roadway. So the south side of the roadway over here, we 

have four single family residences, just the four. And then there is some open area to the 

east of that. 

To the north, we have some horse property. So there’s nothing really close to the 

roadway. There’s a driveway that leads back in there to about two or three homes. But 

basically, there’s nothing there on the north side of the roadway. 

Again, look at the roadway. See how wet it is. This was actually taken about two 

days later. Still a lot of snow; still a lot of slush on the roadway itself.

The speed limit on this roadway, by the way, is 70 miles an hour, which is very 

typical for Montana to have a roadway like that with that kind of speed limit. Our -- from

what we have determined, the evidence that we have, the statements that we have, we 

believe both these vehicles are going somewhere between 35 and 40 miles an hour. So 

while the 70-mile-an-hour speed limit is pretty high, the actual speeds of the vehicles 

really didn’t play into this all that much. 

So this is basically what happened. Our driver education vehicle with the 14-yearold driver is headed westbound on Amsterdam Road. Our truck driver, as he’s coming 

eastbound across the bridge, says that he sees the vehicle start to fishtail a little bit and 

then suddenly veers right into his lane, right in front of him, before he can put on his 

brakes. We have our collision. And then the driver education vehicle is spun out about 

180 degrees and ends up in the ditch on the south side of the roadway. 

9
This is a picture taken by the Montana Highway Patrol right after the accident, 

about 20 minutes after the accident occurred. You can see our truck blocking the 

roadway with the tractor down in the ditch. Over here is our driver education vehicle, 

right in this area here. 

But I want you to notice again the roadway, the slush. When the plows come

through and they plow the snow off of the roadway, it creates these banks of snow and 

slush and ice on the sides of the roadway. And that gives, again, the perception of the 

roadway narrowing because you don’t seem to have as much room because of all the 

snow and slush that’s there. 

And again, it’s a very cold time of the day. A lot of this was melting and freezing, 

melting and freezing even as the investigators were out there. So we have weather 

conditions that were played into our evaluation of this particular accident. 

These are the issues that we looked at here. First we looked at roadway geometry, 

and I’ve explained to you a little bit about some of the issues that we looked at in terms 

of the roadway geometry: its narrowness, the lack of shoulders, the drop down, the 

perception of the narrowing of the roadway. The speed limit on the roadway, again, as I 

mentioned, 70 miles an hour, didn’t play a whole lot into that, although we looked at that 

real, real closely. 

The weather conditions we believed played a fairly significant factor here. Again, 

you can see what was going on the roadway in terms of ice and snow and slush. Again, 

roadway conditions. 

Our driver’s experience. He’d only been out on the roadway for at most two hours 

out driving on the public roadways. So he’s going to be rather tenuous about what he 

does. 

And then we looked at the driver education and the driving the training 

curriculum, and that led us to come to the conclusion that we needed to take a little bit 

closer look at the driver’s education in general and the programs that are put on by the 

folks across the country. 

I want to emphasize, we didn’t look at the safety of driver’s education. We looked 

at the effectiveness of driver’s education. 

So it led us to our purpose, and the purpose of our meeting here today is to survey 

the history and current state of the novice driver education and training programs to the 

extent to which they are used and their quality and effectiveness. We are to explore the 

strengths and weaknesses of such programs and what can be done to improve them. 

That’s why we’re here today, to make driver education better, more effective so 

that we can have an impact on the youthful driver fatality and injury rate that we see in 

this country today. 

10
I’m pleased with the panelists that we have. I think this is going to be a very 

profitable, very interesting and informative time here. 

Thank you very much. 

MS. BISHOP: I’d also like to thank a few other people who’ve been involved in 

the planning of this forum.

Lauren Peduzzi is our public affairs officer. Peter Knudsen and Donald Chupp are 

from the Academy, and they’ll help you outside if you want more information about 

courses that are offered by our academy. Mary Jones and Carolyn Dargen have provided 

administrative assistance. And Will Skolochenko and Antion Downs are responsible for 

the audio/visual in here. 

As the chairman said, we will take questions at the end of each panel. We will 

have people walking up and down the aisles handing out question cards and also 

collecting them from you to bring up here. We can’t promise we’ll get to every question. 

We’ll get to as many as we can, time permitting. 

Also, feel free to try out the simulators during the breaks or during lunch. And 

also, there are some bios for the panelists that are out in the hallway out there that you 

can pick up for more information about the panelists. 

And with that, I will turn it over to Kevin Quinlan. 

11
History and Research 

MR. QUINLAN: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I’m Kevin Quinlan. I’m

the chief of Safety Advocacy Division at the National Transportation Safety Board. 

In order to start off a forum like this, we felt that it was important to have 

essential background information on driver education and training: its history; the 

evaluations and research that have been conducted; the major studies, the strengths and 

weaknesses of them. That is intended to give us a common frame of reference so that we 

know history and we don’t repeat it. 

So to that end, I would like to introduce our first speaker. Dr. Jim Nichols 

received his Ph.D. in psychology from the University of South Dakota and was with the 

federal government National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for over 30 years, 

retiring as the director of the Office of Research and Traffic Records, which includes 

driver education. And he was also involved in the Safe Performance curriculum.

He has a number of awards and a very large number of articles written, and in one 

of them he had the good judgment to ask me to coauthor for the surgeon general’s report 

on drunk driving. 

Dr. Nichols. 

Presentation by Jim Nichols 

DR. NICHOLS: Thank you. 

I know this is a very serious occasion and a very serious subject. I’d like to start 

with something that’s just a little bit lighter. I have a lot of material to cover but there are 

a few people sitting in this room who didn’t think I was going to be here on time. I got 

here at 7:00 this morning just to prove to them that I could do this. Actually, it was 

because I forgot to set my clock back. 

(Laughter) 

DR. NICHOLS: But this story goes back to Saturday, when my wife told me

about the change from daylight savings time to regular time this weekend. Saturday, I 

took my son to the baseball game and got him there late (at the end of the first inning). I 

guess I set the clock back a little early. 

12 Part 5
So then, after getting this straightened out with my wife, yesterday morning I left 

both boys at school at 7:20 a.m. When I got home last night, my wife said to me, “didn’t 

it occur to you that you were early, that there was nobody there?” And I said, I just 

thought I was late as usual. 

In any case, I’m happy to say that I’m here on time today and very happy to take 

part in this forum. A little bit of a qualification. I think that I’m quite qualified to talk 

about the history and the effectiveness of driver education. If you want to talk about what 

content of driver education currently is and has been, I think there are at least a dozen 

people in this room who know a lot more than I do about that. I think that we’re very 

fortunate to have these people here with us. 

The Problem 

[Note: This presentation had a PowerPoint component which contained the 

nucleus of information regarding the history and effectiveness of driver education. A 

description of the relevant figures, referred to in this presentation, is included in 

bracketed italics.] 

DR. NICHOLS: I’m going to start very briefly with the youth crash and fatality 

problem. [In reference to start of slide presentation] I’m not going to take a lot of time for 

each of these slides, but I think a brief review provides a useful context to talk about why 

we are even dealing with the youth [safety] issue. I think it comes as no surprise to 

anybody that we have a tremendous spike in crashes and fatalities and injuries with the 

15 to 24 age group. This slide shows the dramatic increase for the 15-24 age group, using 

data from the National Center for Health Statistics. You can just look at the bars on this 

graph and you can get the picture. You don’t need to look at the numbers. 

[Figure shows “Unintentional Motor Vehicle Traffic Deaths by Age Group, for 

Year 2000”. Number of death increases dramatically (to 10,323) for 15-24 age group] 

DR. NICHOLS: I’m not sure, but I believe that NTSB will make all of these 

figures (and the comprehensive review on which they are based) available to you at some

point. 

[The Next figure lists “Key Factors Associated with Youth Crashes.” It includes: 

Youngest drivers, 1st 6 months of driving, alcohol, low seat belt use, presence of young 

passengers, nighttime driving, males, and older vehicles] 

DR. NICHOLS: If you look at all of the factors that affect youth crashes, there are 

many more than are shown in this figure, but these are some of the key factors. The 

youngest of drivers are at the greatest risk, particularly during the first six months of 

driving. Alcohol is a factor and it becomes more of a factor as you proceed from the 

youngest (i.e., age 16) to the older youth (i.e., age 20). 

13
Low seat belt use is one key factor that just has to be talked about. It’s probably 

one of the single most important issues associated with youth fatalities and injuries today. 

Other key factors have to do with having young passengers in the car and with 

nighttime driving, the latter of which is dangerous for everybody but which is much more 

dangerous for young people, primarily in reference to the rate of crashes per miles driven. 

Youth crashes most often involve male drivers. And, finally, I include this 

[reference to older vehicles on the list of key factors] because it always comes out in the 

research. I don’t know exactly what to do about it (in terms of countermeasures), but 

certainly older vehicles are more prevalent among crashes involving young drivers than 

among crashes involving older drivers. 

[The next five Figures in the presentation graphically illustrate the relationship 

between youth crashes and (1) age, (2) alcohol, (3) seat belt non-use, (4) young 

passengers, and (5) nighttime driving, respectively] 

DR. NICHOLS: There are a couple of things that I would like to illustrate with 

regard to a few of these key issues. This figure shows the results of a study conducted by 

the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) several years ago. 

[This Figure shows increasing death rates for 16-year-olds from 1975 to 1996 (red 

line) as compared with rates for older groups], 

DR. NICHOLS: If you look at the red line you can see how relatively dangerous 

driving has become for the youngest of drivers, while rates have actually decreased for 

older youth. Back in the 1970’s, when I first looked at this issue, we frequently cited the 

studies conducted by Peltz and Schuman. These studies, as well as studies conducted by 

other researchers, generally reported the youth crash fatality problem to be most severe 

for the 17 to 20 age group or for the 18 to 20 age group, which actually had had the 

highest death rate. 

Over the years, however, the death rate for the 16-year-old age group has 

increased and has actually overtaken the rate for the older age groups. As you can see 

[from the Figure showing death rates for younger and older youth], there have been major 

increases in the rate of fatalities among younger drivers, while progress has been made 

with regard to reducing these rates among older (youth) drivers. I understand (from

discussions with IIHS researchers) that that this (rate of increase among 16-year-old 

drivers) has plateaued in recent years. I didn’t do a reanalysis of that. But basically, it 

appears that the youngest of drivers have become more dangerous over the time that 

we’re talking about (in reference to 1975-1996, the period of time included in the IIHS 

study). 

[The next figure in the presentation showed the percent of youth ages, 15, 16, 17, 

18, 19, and 20, killed who have blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) of .08 or greater. 

Other than an elevated amount for 15-year-olds, it is relatively low for 16-year olds (10% 

with a BAC >=.08) and increases steadily to age 20 (35% with BAC >=.08)] 

14
DR. NICHOLS: In terms of alcohol, as you can see, alcohol becomes more of a 

factor as we get up towards age 20. However, at any level, what the general research data 

show is that alcohol -- even small amounts of alcohol -- affects young people more than it 

affects older people. And by the way, alcohol-involvement in crashes occurs primarily at 

night. 

[The next Figure showed the percent of drivers (on the road and killed in crashes) 

who were unbuckled. This percentage increases from 27% (on the road) to nearly 80% 

(among young driver, alcohol-related fatalities)] 

DR. NICHOLS: This is seat belt non-use among a variety of groups. If you look 

at our most recent national (observational) surveys, we have about 27 percent of non-use 

among all drivers and front seat passengers on the roadways (73% use in 2002). 

But if we look at fatalities of all ages, look at the percent that are not using seat 

belts (62%), and then look at the 16 to 24 age group with alcohol (79%). Clearly, if 

there’s an area where we can improve the situation, this is it. We can’t change the 

number of crashes (by increasing seat belt use), but we can reduce the numbers of 

fatalities and injuries that result. This is an area which surely needs some work. 

[The next figure shows Driver Crash Rates and the Presence of Passengers. It 

shows a dramatic increase in crash rates among 16-17 year-old drivers, associated with 

the number of passengers being transported. This increase is less evident among 18-19 

year-old drivers and is non-existent among older drivers (30-39)] 

DR. NICHOLS: Finally, with regard to the presence of passengers, as you can see 

on the left, the 16 to 17 age group already has much higher rates of crashes. But if you 

add passengers, it’s much more of a detrimental factor with these younger drivers than it 

is even with the 18- or 19-year-olds. And, having passengers actually appears to be safer, 

rather than more risky, for older drivers. 

[The next figure “Daytime versus Nighttime Crashes” shows a much higher 

nighttime rate of crashes (per miles traveled), for every age group but particularly for the 

youngest of drivers.] 

DR. NICHOLS: Finally, as you can see, nighttime driving is dangerous for 

everybody. But because young people (particularly 16 year-olds) have so many crashes 

and because so many of them are at night, nighttime driving has to be an issue of major 

concern to us. 

[Figure “Some Progress has been Made: Youth Fatalities Down by 1/3rd Since 

1978] 

DR. NICHOLS: The good news is that we have made progress over the past 

several decades and much of that progress has been in terms of reducing alcohol-related 

youth crashes. In fact, most of the approximately 30 percent reduction in youth crashes 

has resulted from a reduction in alcohol-related crashes. 

15
So some things have worked - like minimum drinking age laws, zero tolerance 

laws, deterrence programs, all of which have demonstrated some impact. 

[The next Figure shows a dramatic increase in number of deaths per age-year 

(from less than 100 for ages 0-12, to nearly 300 by age 15, over 800 by age 16)]. 

DR. NICHOLS: However, here is the sobering fact [that there is a significant and 

dramatic increase in fatalities among young people ages 15-16]. I took this [Figure] from

a paper that I just completed for the Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety (ACTS). It’s 

just so sobering to see how dramatically things change between the ages of 13 and 16 in 

terms of risk to our children. 

I have a young boy who’s 12 right now, and this is of extreme interest to me

because he’s just entering this very high-risk period. This is an area that we must do 

something about. It’s the dramatic change during this period – during these few age years 

that is so troubling. It’s just something that must be addressed. 

The History 

[Figures Outlining Driver Education: History, Effectiveness, and Future Role. 

Next Figure Summarizes a Historical Review including: Key Events, Expansion Issues, 

and Challenges] 

DR. NICHOLS: Let’s now look at the history, the effectiveness, and a potential 

future role for driver education. I’m going to start with a historical review. Again, I think 

the things that I am most comfortable talking about are the key events that have occurred 

[since the 1960’s]. Much of the data that I reviewed initially came from monitoring 

articles in traffic safety magazines in the ‘60s, ‘70s, ‘80s, and ‘90s, as well as from other 

reviews that have been conducted. 

In terms of course content and things like that, the speakers that will follow me

are much more able to give you an idea of what kinds of programs and what variations 

there are [and have been]. I will just say that there have been extreme variations in course 

content was over the years [from one program to another]. 

[The next Figure outlines Five (arbitrary) Phases: The Beginning; Rapid 

Expansion; Challenges and Federal Involvement; A Period of Decline; and a ReEmergence] 

DR. NICHOLS: I have organized this historical review, somewhat arbitrarily, into 

five overlapping phases. 

Phase I 

[Figure “The Beginning’ shown which outlines events from 1932-1940, including 

references to: pioneers such as Dr. Herbert Stack and Dr. Amos Neyhart; involvement by 

16
key organizations such as National Safety Council, American Automobile Association, 

Automotive Safety Foundation (ASF); first classrooms, texts, and programs; teaching 

centers at New York University (NYU) and Pennsylvania State University (PSU), etc.] 

DR. NICHOLS: The first phase I call “the beginning” and, after looking at it, I 

really wanted to call it “a lofty beginning” because it really must have been very exciting 

to be involved in this program in the 1930s. Driver education, at the time, was primarily a 

product of the universities, primarily PSU, Columbia University and NYU at the time. 

There were a lot of people who really believed in this movement. I have to say that it was 

my kind of time in that, more than anything else, I love to promote new, potentially 

effective programs. I would have liked to have been involved in driver education back 

then. 

Phase II 

[The next Figures “Rapid Expansion (1947-64)” and “Growth in Enrollment 

(1947-64)” highlight rapid growth, relatively uncontrolled development and quality 

control, teacher training at PSU and NYU, the National Commission for Safety 

Education (NCSE), and its 1st National Conference to provide some structure, the 

“30+6” rule, insurance discounts, State requirement for licensing, additional centers, 

additional national conferences, etc.] 

DR. NICHOLS: From 1941 to 1965, there was major expansion and this 

expansion caused many growing pains. 

Phase III 

[The next figures entitled “Federal Role and New Challenges” and “Growth in 

Enrollment” highlight continued growth, implications of the Highway Safety Act of 

1966, Challenges from the research community, and a decade-long federal effort to 

develop and demonstrate a “state-of-the-art” driver education] program.] 

DR. NICHOLS: From 1965 to 1980, there was an increasing federal involvement, 

starting with the Highway Safety Act of 1966, and lots of challenges that came about 

from researchers and evaluators. 

Phase IV 

[The next two figures “A Period of Decline” and “Decline in Enrollment” show 

the impact of the federal (Safe Performance Criteria (SPC)) development and 

demonstration (with its negative results regarding program effectiveness), a change in 

driver education’s status as a “priority” safety program, and evidence of change in the 

level of driver education activity.] 

DR. NICHOLS: These challenges resulted in the phase that I’m calling “A Period 

of Decline” from 1980 to 2000. During and since this period, driver education activity, 

17
by all accounts, is less well documented [e.g., in terms of enrollment, funding, etc.] than 

in earlier years. 

Phase V 

[The next figure suggests a “Re-emergence of Driver Education (2000 – present) 

with a new Role” along with parallel developments in novice driver licensing (emergence 

of graduated driver license (GDL)] 

DR. NICHOLS: Finally, there is at least anecdotal evidence of a “re-emergence” 

of driver education in recent years, particularly in conjunction with the emergence of 

GDL. 

That is basically how I see what has happened over the past 7 decades. It has its 

beginning in places like Pennsylvania State University, Columbia University, and New 

York State University. During this period, it is nurtured by organizations such as the 

National Safety Council, the American Automobile Association and the Automotive 

Safety Foundation. 

It includes the development of early textbooks, simulators, laboratories, and 

classroom activities. Ohio State and Iowa State also figured prominently in this history. 

There were not a lot of training centers around the country at the time. Thus, much of this 

activity was centered in a few (but expanding number of) universities. 

One of most significant activities that occurred in the (rapid expansion) period 

from 1947 to 1964, in my opinion, was the establishment of the National Commission for 

Safety Education which was formed (with a grant from the Automotive Safety 

Foundation) primarily for the purpose of improving the standardization of course content 

and teacher preparation and to address some of the growing pains that were becoming 

apparent during that period. 

The main tool that the NCSE used during this period was the conduct of four 

national conferences, at the first of which the “30 Plus 6” rule was proposed, and at the 

last of which 90 hours of education was proposed. 

And so these (figures showing expansion from 1947 to 1964) illustrate some of 

the tools that were being implemented to try to bring quality and standardization to a 

program that was expanding so rapidly that problems were developing. Some of these 

problems had to do with not having enough instructors involved to deal with the demand. 

This was a major issue in the literature of the period. 

In my view, one very significant event that contributed to the rapid proliferation 

of driver education was the offering, by Allstate Insurance, of incentives or premium

discounts for driver education graduates. Other insurance companies soon followed this 

lead. Another significant event was the requirement, by the State of Michigan, of driver 

education for driver licensing (prior to age 18). 

18
I did not actually go back and check out [the next statement] with regard to 

changes in each State’s licensing laws, as I had to conduct this review relatively quickly. 

But, a point is made in the 1982 “Effectiveness and Efficiency Study” written by Gary 

Butler (NHTSA) that Michigan (as well as many other States) did not lower its driving 

license age requirement, but that it actually raised its age limit to 18 years for people who 

did not take driver education. I think that’s a relevant point. 

Basically, to give you an idea of how much driver education expanded in the early 

years, this [“Growth in Enrollment”] figure shows an increase from approximately 

200,000 students in 1947 to about 1.3 million in 1964, a six-fold increase. During this 

period, [this figure shows that] the number of schools offering driver education increases 

from about 3,000 to about 12,000, a four-fold increase. 

The period (of Federal Involvement and Research Challenges) from 1965 to 1980 

is a very critical period in that the Highway Safety Act of 1966 made driver education a 

priority safety program and it provided for additional (driver education) funding to the 

States. It also marks a period during which much responsibility for driver education was 

shifted to a new government agency (the National Highway Safety Bureau). The NCSE, 

which was monitoring driver education up to this point, was disbanded -- according to 

my recollection in 1970. 

But much more significant, I think, are the challenges that came about at this 

time. The Moynihan Report was one such report. In 1968, Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

authored a report to the secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare which raised issues 

regarding the effectiveness of driver education. 

In 1969, the McGuire & Kersh Report was published. It critically challenged all 

of the previous research regarding driver education effectiveness.. And there was a backand-forth exchange for probably a year between Dr. Leon Goldstein, who I believe at that 

time was with NTSB, and Dr Frederick McGuire. This issue of effectiveness and research 

design simply dominated the driver education literature during this period of time when 

the Highway Safety Act was being implemented. 

Then, at the end of this period (from 1965-1980), you have the Robertson and 

Zador (IIHS) study, which not only challenges the safety effectiveness of driver 

education but, in addition, suggests that it has the effect of increasing the number of 

young drivers licensed (thus increasing their exposure to crashes and fatalities). These 

reports presented very serious challenges to driver education. 

Also, towards the end of this period, NHTSA was completing its decade-long 

development and demonstration of a “state-of-the-art” driver education program. Because 

of time constraints, I will have to gloss over much of this development and evaluation 

activity and not give it due justice, but this was a long term, very meticulous program. It 

actually started in 1968 with a series of research plan proposals. It proceeded with a task 

analysis (in 1971), the development of instructional objectives (in 1973) and performance 

requirements, measurement of skill acquisition (in 1974), pilot testing (in 1977), and then 

the demonstration phase (implemented in 1978). 

19
[The next figure showed the continued “Growth in Enrollment and Number of 

Schools Offering Driver Education” from 1964-78] 

DR. NICHOLS: During this period of time you get an idea of the continued 

increase in enrollment and school offerings, at least through the 1976-77 school year, 

when enrollment was approximately 3.2 million students in about 17,000 schools. At this 

time, I believe that the total cost was in the neighborhood of $250 million in total federal, 

State, and local funding. 

[The next two figures describe “A Period of Decline (1980-200)” and illustrate 

the “Decline in Enrollment” during this period]

DR. NICHOLS: A period of decline followed. The reasons for this decline are 

multiple. However, I think that the results of the Safe Performance Curriculum

evaluation, combined with all of the other challenges and research accumulated during 

this period (primarily from 1965 to 1983) contributed significantly to this decline. 

In addition, there was a change in the status of driver education as a priority 

program. 

[In reference to Figure showing “Change in Status as a Priority Program,” which 

describes a re-examination of NHTSA priorities ordered by Congress and the result that 

driver education was dropped from the list of priority programs] 

In 1981 (prior to the release of the findings of the SPC evaluation), Congress 

required NHTSA to reconsider its list of priority programs in terms of their potential in 

reducing crashes. Based on available evidence (including preliminary results from the 

SPC evaluation), driver education was dropped from NHTSA’s list of priority programs. 

This re-examination and reprioritization was not initiated with driver education in 

mind. There was a general feeling that 18 safety standards (resulting in 18 priority areas) 

was too many and that the number needed to be paired down considerably (ultimately to 

about six). At least in part, the accumulating evidence regarding its lack of safety 

effectiveness, contributed to driver education being dropped as a priority program. That 

also meant that funding was reduced. 

[Figure showing “Decline in Enrollment” after 1976; Information is less complete 

than for previous years but shows the percentage of eligible students enrolled dropping 

from about 80 percent in 1976 to about 50 percent in 1990] 

DR. NICHOLS: With regard to changes in enrollment, there is much less solid 

data during this period. I’ve talked with a number of people, including Allen (Robinson) 

about this, and it appears that there clearly there was a significant decline in the 1980’s, 

as measured by the percentage of eligible students who were actually enrolled. This 

figure provides the best information that I can give you in terms of enrollment. Prior to 

1980, the numbers come primarily from the driver education status reports. After 1980, 

the numbers are primarily estimates. 

20
One problem with these data involves the fact that there are different numbers of 

States reporting each year, so you kind of have to assume that the reporting States are 

representative of the non-reporting States as well – which is unlikely. The final 50 

percent figure for 1990 is derived from personal conversations I’ve had with persons in 

the driver education program (e.g. John Harvey and Allen (Robinson). This (50%) figure 

is also reported in a recent review by Christie. 

By all accounts, it appears that there has been a significant decline in enrollment 

(and schools offering driver education) since 1980. 

[Figure entitled “Re-emergence – with a new Role” describes three points: (1) 

driver education is still a part of most States’ licensing laws; (2) driver education is being 

integrated into emerging graduated driver licensing systems; and (3) as part of this 

integration, driver education may be resulting in a lessening of critical time requirements 

in the GDL systems. This is a matter of concern] 

DR. NICHOLS: Now, I think that – while largely undocumented in terms of 

absolute numbers -- there are indications of a revival in driver education that probably 

began in the late 1990s, but which has certainly picked up momentum since 2000. It is 

related to the new optimism associated with the GDL systems that have been adopted by 

many of the States. 

And it has to do with the fact that driver education is still ingrained in the 

licensing laws in more than half the States. So it’s automatically part of the graduated 

driver licensing programs that exist in those States. Associated with this re-emergence, a 

key question that I think remains for us to consider is how should it (driver education) be 

partnered with graduated driver licensing. Certainly, we need to be concerned that it not 

result in any “watering down” of the time requirements which are so integral to the 

success of GDL systems. 

Effectiveness 

[This section begins with a figure which asks what the objective of driver 

education should be. It suggests that the objective is “to develop the skills, knowledge, 

and attitudes necessary for safe driving.”] 

DR. NICHOLS: With regard to the studies of the evidence of effectiveness, 

there’s much discussion in the literature (certainly since 1965) regarding what the 

objectives of driver education should be. I’m taking the position in this review, as many 

people have -- certainly as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has -- 

that the objective of driver education is to develop the skills, knowledge, and attitudes 

necessary for safe driving. Certainly the ultimate outcome we want is safe drivers and 

that implies that we want drivers who have fewer crashes. 

I’m going to digress for a moment and point out that, if there’s any question about 

it, driver education certainly provides persons with the skills necessary to drive. It is an 

21
empirical fact that millions of people have gotten their driver’s license as a result of

taking driver education. Further, there is some evidence from the Safe Performance 

Curriculum evaluation that students who actually took the course were superior in their 

driving skills, as compared with students in the control group. This evidence of 

superiority in performance was measured as part of a California driving test. 

So, I think there’s no question about the fact that driver education does teach 

people the skills necessary to begin operating a motor vehicle. The key question for this 

review is: does it result in safer drivers? We could argue for a long time about whether it 

should be charged with that (onerous) responsibility, but that is what this is all about – 

safety impact. And, because safety ultimately translates into reduced crash involvement, 

crash reduction must be part of the objective of driver education. 

[Figure showing four phases of “Driver Education Effectiveness Studies:” Early 

studies (1940-65; Challenges (1965-1980); SPC Results (1980-90) and Other studies 

(1980-2000.] 

As with the historical events, I’ve broken the effectiveness studies into several 

phases. 

[Next Figure entitled “Early Studies” summarizes literature from 1940-65 as 

follows: DE reduces accidents one-half; 30+ studies showing 20-50% effect; studies 

conducted by advocates, DMVs, and universities; “self-selection” of driver education 

students not considered; much of effect likely the result of group differences on other 

dimension.] 

There is an early phase, from 1940 to 1965, during which many of the early 

studies were accumulated. These studies resulted in the very common claim – as was 

indicated in the latest review that was done for the AAA -- that driver education reduces 

crashes by half. This, in fact, was a common assumption at least until 1965. 

[Next figure outlines “Challenges” to effectiveness findings from 1965-1980. It 

includes: the Moynihan Report (1968); McGuire and Kersh (1969); Goldstein vs. 

McGuire (1969-70); California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) studies; and the 

1978 IIHS study of the effect on early licensing] 

From 1965 to 1980 is when we have the McGuire and Kersh challenge to driver 

education effectiveness as well as other reports and studies. There was an awful lot of 

activity during this period. For example, at the California DMV, several studies were 

underway (e.g., Conger, Miller, & Rainey; Ferdun, Coppin, & Peck; etc.) There were five 

or six studies that were conducted by the California DMV during the 1960s, in an attempt 

to identify the personality variables and other factors that contributed to the differences 

between driver education and non-driver education groups. [Not all of these studies were 

detrimental to driver education]. 

22
The McGuire and Kersh study resulted in a major public discussion with Dr. Leon 

Goldstein (of the NTSB) with regard to the merits of various research designs and the 

robustness of the findings of earlier studies. 

At the end of this period, a new problem emerged – research evidence that 

suggested that driver education, as promoted at the time, may have resulted in a greater 

number of young drivers being licensed at an earlier age, thus contributing to their early 

exposure to crashes, deaths, and injuries. The first such study was conducted in 1978 by 

Robertson and Zador. NHTSA quickly re-analyzed these data and found similar results. 

[The next figure summarized nine studies conducted during this period (1965-

1980), showing mixed results regarding the effectiveness of driver education and its 

various components] 

[The next four figures summarize the results and impact of the SPC evaluations. 

The first points out that the Dekalb Driver Education (SPC) Evaluation “remains one of 

the most critical tests of the safety impact of driver education to date.” The remaining 

figures list five analyses and re-analyses of this program and summarize their (largely 

negative) results.] 

The period from 1980 to 1990 is dominated by the results of the SPC evaluations. 

They start in 1983, and continue in 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1990. As this figure shows, 

their results are largely negative. The original report (Stock, 1983) suggests that there 

may be some small effect of the SPC curriculum but also suggests that it results in early 

licensure. The second (Lund, et al., 1986) finds no evidence of effectiveness but evidence 

of early licensure. The third (Smith and Blatt, 1987) find a small effect for a very basic 

comparison course (PDL) but no effect for the comprehensive SPC curriculum; The 

fourth study (deWolf and Smith (1988) finds no evidence of any impact; and the five 

study (Davis, 1990) also finds no evidence of safety effectiveness but does find evidence 

of early licensure. 

[Figure entitled “Driver Education Effectiveness: Other U.S. Studies (1990-

2000)” lists five studies conducted in Texas, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and a multiState study covering 47 States and summarizes their results] 

I know that there’s a concern and a general feeling among some that there has 

been no new information (since the SPC evaluations). This is not really the case. This 

review suggests that, internationally, there have been at least 15 studies conducted either 

at the same time as or since the SPC evaluations. Five U.S. studies are identified in the 

current figure and eight of the foreign studies are included in the next figure. 

[Figure entitled Driver Education Effectiveness: Foreign Studies (1990-2000) lists 

studies conducted in Quebec, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Austria, Australia, New 

Zealand, and Tasmania. Most suggest no effect in terms of crash reduction. Two suggest 

an effect of early licensure. One study (in Denmark suggests a relatively robust effect.] 

23
While a couple of these (U.S.) studies suggest that high school driver education 

may be superior to commercial driver education, there certainly is no consistent evidence 

of impact. On the other hand, there is rather consistent (and accumulating) evidence that 

driver education results in early licensure. 

Okay. In review of the earliest studies, there are 30 or more studies that have been 

reviewed in the various reports supported by AAA and the American Casualty Insurance 

Association, as well as other reviews. But, let’s say 30 early studies, the majority of 

which contributed to the general consensus that driver education is 20 to 50 percent 

effective in reducing crashes and violations among its students. Basically, it is the people 

who are primarily involved in the (driver education) movement at the time that are 

reporting on these studies. 

A primary problem with these early studies and their conclusions is that there is 

no recognition that driver education students are different from people (young novice 

drivers) who don’t take driver education. And much of the effect reported during this 

early period has, more recently, been attributed to these group differences. 

The next phase, beginning in 1965 starts with the Moynihan criticism. Next, we 

have McGuire & Kersh, who published the results of two of their own studies, one 

conducted in Mississippi and one conducted in California, that claimed that driver 

education has no impact. In addition, McGuire and Kersh critique 30 of the earlier studies 

included in a report prepared for AAA. This report by McGuire and Kersh resulted in a 

major exchange and very public exchange between them and Dr. Goldstein. 

Meanwhile, there are several studies ongoing at the California DMV trying to 

ferret out the differences between driver education and non-driver education groups. 

These differences add a new dimension to the interpretation of the results of earlier 

studies. 

And then, at the end of this era you have a challenge that probably is not fully 

recognized at the time – the suggestion that driver education results in early licensure and 

thus adds to the exposure of young persons to crashes, deaths, and injuries. I remember it 

because I was on the other side of this argument. It starts with the study by Leon 

Robertson and Paul Zador that says, look, driver education results in earlier licensing 

amongst the highest risk people that you could possibly have licensed. And, it continues, 

this impact overwhelms any small safety benefit that driver education might have. 

We, at NHTSA, did a reanalysis of that study. We found that while the effect 

wasn’t as great as was reported in the IIHS study, driver education did appear to be 

associated with early licensure and the effect seemed to be greater when there were 

efforts to enroll all young drivers in the program. 

During this period, as was shown in the figures provided earlier [i.e., in figure 

entitled “Driver Education Effectiveness: Summary of Results (1965-1980)”], there were 

both pluses and minuses with regard to evidence of impact. Some results reflected the 

impact of overall programs and some reflected the relative effectiveness of different 

24
components or configurations of driver education programs. The main thing to take from

this summary is that, at very least, there are conflicting results. There certainly is no 

longer a consensus that driver education is 50 percent effective in reducing deaths and 

injuries among its students. Some studies find an effect and some do not. Importantly, 

nearly all of the authors of these studies are attempting to control for the kinds of 

differences between education and no-education groups (e.g., differences in age, grade 

average, socioeconomic status, etc.) that have been found to be associated with crashes. 

Then, we come to the evaluations of the Safe Performance curriculum and its 

basic counterpart, the pre-driver licensing (PDL) course. I think Dan Mayhew and Herb 

Simpson summed it up accurately when they said the DeKalb County Education Project 

remains the most critical test of the safety impact of driver education to date. I believe 

that as well. Sixteen thousand young drivers were assigned randomly to this state-of-theart program that every effort was made to make it just that -- a state-of-the-art driver 

education program. Students assigned to the SPC were compared with those assigned to 

the PDL program, and to those assigned to a no-education control group. This is the 

design approach that had been recommended in the safety literature for over a decade. 

Several analyses and re-analyses resulted. They were conducted by NHTSA 

(three analyses), IIHS (one analysis) and by an independent researcher (one analysis. The 

majority of the studies found either no effect or a different or conflicting effects 

depending on which groups (e.g., assigned versus completed driver education) were 

being compared. 

[Figure entitled “SPC Results: Percent Involved in a Crash” shows results for 

those assigned to the three conditions, to those assigned and licensed, and to those who 

completed the courses and were licensed] 

This figure shows that if you’re looking only at people assigned -- in other words, 

all of the people that were randomly assigned to SPC, PDL, and control groups, there was 

a tendency for higher crashes amongst the SPC group. This was attributed primarily to 

the effects of early licensure of those who were assigned to the SPC course. This trend is 

consistent in the other comparisons as well. 

[Next figure entitled “Further SPC Analysis” shows lower number of crashes for 

SPC group in first 6-months of driving] 

However, if you controlled for the period of licensing (e.g. by looking only at the 

first six months of driving, regardless of when that occurred, it appears that both the SPC 

and PDL groups have lower levels of crashes during this period. However, this approach 

can be criticized on the basis that you again may be looking at the effects of a selfselection process. 

In summary, while there was some evidence of effect, the SPC evaluation did not 

result in a definitive demonstration of the effectiveness of a state-of-the-art driver 

education program. 

25
[Figure showing Other U.S. Studies since 1990] 

Since 1990, there have been several additional studies, conducted in a number of 

States, including one 47-State law which involved a regression analysis of the impact of 

laws requiring driver education for licensing (at an earlier age) and their relationship to 

crashes. This study finds evidence of a reduction in crash rates associated with such a law 

but it also suggests that such an effect is countered by an early licensure effect. The two 

other studies which provided at least some control of extraneous factors were the Oregon 

and Pennsylvania studies, both of which found no evidence of effectiveness. 

[Figure entitled “Foreign Studies (1990-2000)”] 

As suggested earlier, there have been several foreign studies that more often than 

not have found no evidence of effect, but there’s one study, conducted in Denmark (by 

Carstensen), that clearly suggested that, when the driver education program was 

improved and implemented on a large scale, there was evidence of a reduction in crashes. 

This program and study perhaps deserves additional examination. 

[Next figure entitled “Driver Education Effectiveness: 28 Studies Reviewed 

(1970-2000)” summarizes 28 studies reported since 1970.] 

This figure shows that while the majority of studies conducted since 1970 have 

found no evidence of impact in terms of crash reduction, studies have consistently 

reported that driver education increases or leads to premature licensing. 

Eighteen studies looked at the effect of driver education programs. Two of them

(11%) found evidence of an effect; four (22%) found inconsistent evidence of an effect 

(including two of the five SPC studies); and twelve studies (67%), reported no evidence 

of effect. 

Two studies of laws (requiring driver education for licensing) find them to be 

associated with reductions in crashes. These are two studies conducted by Levy (1988 

and 1990). Again, ten studies reported increased licensure associated with driver 

education programs. Eight studies used random assignment. Of these eight studies, six 

(75%) found no effect and two found inconsistent or conflicting evidence. Finally, four 

studies looked at high school driver education versus commercial driver education, again 

showing mixed results. 

Other Reviews and Their Conclusions 

[Figure entitled “Driver Education Effectiveness: Other Reviews and 

Conclusions” lists five reviews by: Mayhew and Simpson (1996); Vernick et al. (1999); 

Christie (2001); Roberts et al. (2002); and Engstrom et al. (2003), each of which finds no 

convincing evidence of crash reduction associated with driver education] 

26
I’m not the only one who’s looked at these data. (On this figure), I’ve identified 

five other recent reviews, the first of which is by Mayhew & Simpson in 1996. Not all of 

these reviews are alike. 

The Vernick (1999) review and the Roberts (2001) review are what I would call 

systematic reviews. These reviewers established a set of criteria by which studies would 

be either included or excluded. Only those studies that met these criteria were used to 

form their conclusions, which were: no convincing evidence of effect (Vernick et al.) and 

no evidence of effect (Roberts et al.). 

I would describe the reviews by Mayhew & Simpson (1996), by Christie (2001), 

and by Engstrom et al. (2003), as well as my own review (Nichols, 2003), as descriptive 

reviews. Each of these reviews looked at all of the available studies and tried to organize 

their results in a meaningful way. While these reviews have been less selective 

(alternatively, more inclusive), their results have been generally the same: no conclusive 

evidence of effect (Mayhew and Simpson); little support for claim of safety effect 

(Christie); and much knowledge not yet applied; need for additional experimentation 

(Engstrom). At least three of these reviews (Mayhew and Simpson, Vernick, and 

Roberts) found consistent evidence of increased licensure associated with driver 

education programs. 

Other findings. Basically, this is significant, the best learning environment is on 

the road under supervision of either a trainer or an older adult. There is no compelling 

evidence in the area of motorcycle education, but with regard to remedial training -- in 

other words, when somebody fails a test -- there is some evidence. And there’s some

evidence of effect for nighttime training. 

[The next three figures summarized the findings of Mayhew and Simpson, 

Christie et al., and Engstrom et al., respectively. 

From Mayhew and Simpson: the best learning environment is on the road; mixed 

results for advanced skills training; no compelling evidence for effect of motorcycle rider 

training; some evidence of effect for remedial motorcycle rider training; and some

evidence of effect for nighttime training. 

From Christie et al.: more supervised practice may reduce crashes up to 35%; 

higher order cognitive skills better learned on-road; targeted deterrence and enforcement 

are effective; no evidence of effect for mandatory training; little evidence of difference in 

effect for professional versus parental training; disbenefit of off-road training; emergency 

training may increase crash risk. 

From Engstrom et al.: young driver crashes involve loss of control, speed, 

alcohol, no seat belt use, fatigue, nighttime and weekend driving; GDL restrictions have 

been effective in reducing crashes; acquisition of early experience is crucial; if high 

school driver education (HSDE) is introduced into (licensing/GDL) system, it should not 

be accompanied by licensing incentive (e.g., reduction in age or learning time); driver 

27
education should not be exchanged for shorter periods of practice; and laws and 

enforcement are effective but some youth are hard to reach.] 

With regard to other findings, I’m not going to have time to look over each 

element of these next figures. But, I would like to point out that several reviewers have 

concluded that: early experience is crucial to reducing crash risk among young drivers; 

additional supervised practice (on-road) is likely one of the most important factors 

associated with reducing crash risk; higher order cognitive skills are best learned onroad; and GDL restrictions are likely the best means for maximizing supervised, on-road 

driving experience. Unlike driver education, with which there is, at best, mixed evidence 

of impact, there are some actions that have provided evidence of effectiveness in 

reducing the crash involvement of young drivers. They include graduated driver 

licensing, various laws, targeted deterrence and enforcement programs. 

From the Engstrom review, there is this same general conclusion with regard to 

the effectiveness of GDL, deterrence and enforcement. It is notable that, as you review 

this (driver education) literature, there is more and more reference to driver education in 

conjunction with graduated driver licensing, the U.S. development of which began in the 

1970s, as a part of a research and development program at NHTSA. 

On the one hand, there is reference to driver education working as an effective 

component of a GDL system. On the other hand, there is frequent reference to problems 

associated with introducing driver education in a manner which reduces the effectiveness 

of GDL by reducing its time and practice requirements. 

Current Problems and the Future 

[The next Figure in the presentation focus on “Driver Education as a Highway 

Safety Program: What’s In the Future?” Reference is made to important opportunities to 

partner in an effective (GDL) program] 

DR. NICHOLS: Where this leads us -- I’m really sorry that I’m going to have to 

rush through this material – is to a summarization of the current problems associated with 

driver education. To do this, I’m going to focus on the conclusions from three recent 

reviews or reports. 

[Next Figure entitled “The Future: Problems and Solutions: outlined in a 1994 

NHTSA Report to Congress entitled “Research Agenda for and Improved Novice Driver 

Education Program.”] 

DR. NICHOLS: The 1964 NHTSA Report to Congress concluded that focusing 

on both basic and higher order skills at the same time presented a learning problem for 

young novice drivers. It suggested that the timing of these activities was important – 

focus first on basic skills and teach higher order skills later. 

28
It also highlighted another problem – the fact that students are not generally 

motivated to learn. 

What are some of the solutions suggested to address these problems? Well, the 

Report suggests that we teach skills first and higher order safety issues later. Further, 

there is the implication that we should get driver education more integrated into the GDL 

environment, which provides an opportunity for more lengthy and distributed learning. 

Finally, it suggests that both of these issues can be addressed via a two-phase driver 

education course, designed to be integrated into a graduated driver licensing system. 

[The next Figure “The Future - Problems and Solutions: Mayhew and Simpson 

(1996)” provides a second summarization of problems and solutions. Among the 

problems listed are: failure to teach critical knowledge and skills; students not motivated 

to learn; fostering of overconfidence in abilities; failure to effectively address youth 

lifestyles (e.g. risk taking); and failure to tailor content. Solutions include: identifying 

“when” to teach; tailoring material to students and distributing training over time; and 

linking driver education with GDL and parental involvement in supervised practice.] 

DR. NICHOLS: In Mayhew & Simpson’s review, which I think is perhaps the 

most complete descriptive review that I looked at, several problems are identified, some

of which overlap with those of the NHTSA Report. The identified problems include: 

failure to teach critical knowledge skills, students not motivated; fostering 

overconfidence; failure to effectively address lifestyle issues -- that’s basically risktaking; and failure to tailor content. 

I think we need to recognize that the one problem -- failure to effectively address 

lifestyle -- is perhaps one of the most significant problems that we have. No matter what 

we do (or have done), we have not been able to address that issue effectively. How can 

you do that with 30 hours of classroom training?

With regard to proposed solutions, this figure shows several, some of which 

overlap with those suggested in the NHTSA Report. Mayhew and Simpson suggest: 

identifying when to teach various things; the fact that teaching emergency skills is of 

questionable value, but that, if you’re going to teach emergency skills, accompany such 

training with insight training with regard to risk-taking and skill limitations; think more 

about tailoring driver education to the student rather than to time (i.e. competency-based 

instruction rather than time-based instruction); and finally, linking driver education with 

GDL, parental involvement, and supervised practice. 

[The next Figure “The Future – Problems and Solutions: Christie (2001)” 

summarizes some of the conclusions from this review as they related to problems and 

solutions. Problems include: false assumptions regarding skill deficiencies as the problem

and that deficiencies can be remedied; assuming that driver education can reduce crash 

risk; and not depending on more effective approaches. Solutions include: setting more 

reasonable objectives; depending more on effective programs such as enforcement; 

increasing (the period of) supervised learning; and integrating driver education with GDL 

systems.] 

29
DR. NICHOLS: From Christie, we have a slightly different set of identified 

problems. They include: false assumptions with regard to skill deficiencies and their role 

in the causation of crashes; and a false assumption that we can change skill deficiencies 

with education. 

Basically, Christie takes a somewhat negative view regarding potential solutions. 

He suggests: setting more reasonable objectives; depending more on effective programs, 

such as enforcement and deterrence programs; focusing more on increasing supervised 

learning; and integrating driver education into the GDL system. 

Conclusions 

[The final two figures entitled “Lists,” provide conclusions identified in the 

current review as being either recurrent in the literature and/or of significant importance 

so as to be considered for improving the effectiveness of driver education. 

They include: (youth) lifestyles (and personalities) have not been adequately 

addressed; instruction must be better timed; motivation to learn must be addressed; 

advanced skills training appears to be of questionable value and may have some

disbenefit; the first six months of driving is the most dangerous; supervised, on-road 

experience is a priority need; delayed licensure is desirable from a crash-risk-reduction 

point of view; GDL restriction (especially nighttime and passenger restrictions) are 

effective; youth “mature out” of high-risk behavior; GDL provides time for more onroad, supervised experience (early experience in a “safer” environment; GDL systems are 

effective in reducing crash risk; driver education is already tied to licensing laws and thus 

GDL systems in may States; driver education should be modified to fit GDL (rather than 

vice versa); and driver education is not an effective substitute for supervised experience 

(time).]

DR. NICHOLS: Now, my list. The things that are replete in the literature are the 

following. First of all, lifestyle, risk-taking, and lack of experience or age -- actually, age 

in this case – have not been adequately addressed in driver education (or any other 

program), and I’m not sure that any program can effectively address the lifestyle aspect. 

We, as a society, have not found an acceptable and effective way to modify the 

exuberance, the risk-taking, and the lack of judgment of young people. It’s a problem that 

remains with us and I don’t know that it’s been effectively addressed in anything that 

we’ve done in safety throughout the years. 

We need to more effectively time our instruction to consider the motivations and 

attention capacities of young novice drivers. That issue comes through in several reports -

- in the NHTSA report to Congress, in the Mayhew & Simpson report, and from other 

reviews. There have been some attempts made to better time instruction objectives – 

efforts to focus on skills first and advanced (safety) skills at a later period -- but these 

efforts have not yet resulted in any demonstrated. 

30
There’s considerable concern in the research literature regarding the effectiveness 

of advanced skills training. 

Certainly, there’s much consensus that the first six months of driving is the most 

dangerous time. Further, there is the suggestion that supervised on-the-road experience 

during this period is the safest, best way to prepare students for driving. Under what 

conditions (such training should be provided) may be an issue. 

But certainly, of all of the things that come through in the literature, one of the 

most important is that this (i.e., the fist few months of driving) is a very dangerous period 

and that the best way to address this situation is to provide the maximum amount of onroad supervised training prior to full licensure. 

Delayed licensure is desirable and has been found to result in reduced crashes 

(and crash risk). Restrictions, such as nighttime and passenger restrictions (i.e., they are 

associated with reductions in crashes). Fortunately, youth mature out of high-risk 

behaviors. 

GDL provides the opportunity for early experience in a safer environment. GDL 

systems are effective. Driver education is already tied to GDL systems in terms of the 

licensing laws in at least half the States. 

Driver education should be modified to fit better with graduated driver licensing 

systems. 

It is most important to recognize that driver education is not a substitute for 

increased experience behind the wheel during the learning period. In other words, there 

should be no hastening of the learning period (and its requirements) by offering licensure 

incentives (e.g., reducing learning time) in exchange for driver education. The benefit of 

that tradeoff certainly has not been documented in the literature. 

So, that is what I have. And, if I were to make a conclusion with regard to the 

effectiveness of driver education, I would conclude that it likely is effective in teaching 

basic skills. Is it effective in making young drivers safer drivers? Certainly, that effect 

has not been demonstrated. Well, should it be? (i.e., should we expect driver education to 

result in reduced crashes?) Well, in my opinion, if driver education is going to be 

considered as a safety program, it seems appropriate to expect that it be capable of

reducing crash risk. 

Why hasn’t driver education been more effective in increasing safety – reducing 

crashes? Well, there may be some effect but, if there is, it’s not large and its operating 

against very difficult odds (i.e. the personality and behavioral propensities of youth). On 

the one hand, I think I have to agree with Dr. Pat Waller when she indicated that it is 

ridiculous to assume that driver education in 30 hours is going to change behavior. But, 

on the other hand, this is where we are. We are looking at the effectiveness of driver 

education as a safety program. 

31
So where’s the shining light? Well, and I don’t have time to go into this totally, 

but there’s been a lot of discussion over the years with regard to the value of positioning 

of driver education – and education of any type seems – as an adjunct to other more 

effective, more institutionalized programs. With regard to smoking, for example, when I 

presented at a meeting regarding “Medicine for the 21st Century,” at least one speaker 

talked about the fact that, following smoking restrictions in the work place and in 

restaurants, etc., there was evidence that anti-smoking, public information programs 

worked better. 

In our situation, I think the current environment with graduated driver licensing 

offers some real potential. But, I also think that we need to be really careful in how we 

pursue this potential. We need to make very sure that we don’t reduce the effectiveness 

of the existing (and future) graduated driver licensing programs by taking away the very 

thing that makes them effective – the period of time under restricted learning. That’s a 

very important point. If we solve that problem, I think we have a unanimous vote to try to 

make this a partnership. 

Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Allen Robinson 

Our next presenter is Dr. Allen Robinson, who received his doctorate in 

secondary education from Michigan State University. He is the director and -- of and 

professor in the Highway Safety Center at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania. He’s 

also a professor of health and physical education, and he’s currently the chief executive 

officer of the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association. 

As with Dr. Nichols, he’s received numerous awards and also published a large 

number of articles. I’ve worked with Allen for some time, and I find him always 

challenging, provocative, and informative. I think you will, too. 

Dr. Robinson. 

DR. ROBINSON: I also want to comment a little bit on Jim’s (Nichols) 

presentation. As always, he’s very thorough, to the point, and covers a great deal of 

content. If he just had more time, he would give us enough detail that we could plow 

through it for weeks and weeks to go. 

I took some notes during his comments. They were important to me because 

they’re going to be referred to in my own presentation. 

And he started with the most important point. I’ll compare notes with Jimmy

(Nichols) later to see if we really do concur on some of these important points. But he 

32
said there’s extreme variations in course content in driver education. That’s critical. You 

know, what driver education is to you, to me, and to your neighbor is probably very 

different. 

He did get into the problems of no impact in driver education, and I’m going to 

cover that in my remarks as well. And we have a great deal of problems when we start 

studying fatalities and looking at official accident records and trying to measure 

differences. Differences, as he mentioned, sometimes are very small and we don’t tend to 

look at that. We always are looking for larger differences. 

He covered the problems of premature licensing as an incentive in driver 

education to get early licensure, as that being of concern because, depending how you use 

the statistics and how you make your statements, you can make a negative for driver 

education by saying driver education allowed them to get their license earlier so that’s 

really the problems in terms of young driver crashes. And it’s questionable whether that’s 

the problem or just exactly how does it tie in with licensing. 

He ended with some great comments. You know, how can you do all of this in 30 

hours? Well, many in this room have been trying to change that concept. At a White 

House conference many years ago, “30 and 6” became buzz words, and it really has 

stuck. 

Then he said something even more important. Jimmy (Nichols) probably doesn’t 

know he said so many important things, but he always does. It should be competencybased instruction. That shouldn’t be foreign to most of us, but it is foreign to the general 

public in terms of what they think of driver education. 

And we do need a maximum amount of supervised driving. There’s a great 

scholar from the State of Wisconsin that always talked about piano lessons and tennis 

lessons and soccer. How much money and how much time we spend on those things, and 

the fact that when you take piano lessons, you don’t just play the piano in front of the 

teacher. You probably have a piano at home, or at least access to one, where you put in 

many hours of practice learning that delicate skill of playing properly. 

Yet in driver education, we haven’t done very much of that because, in our earlier 

years, we didn’t want parents anywhere near our students. We made some drastic 

mistakes in our -- not just our early years but in our continuing years in driver education. 

Well, what do I have to say about the problem and the solutions. First of all, I 

think that the collection of people here to speak to us today is really wonderful in terms 

of helping us understand where we’ve been and where we need to go. So I’m grateful to 

the Board for bringing this forum together and bringing the kinds of people that they 

have here today to help us discuss an issue that’s obviously very important to me and 

obviously very important to all of you. 

I’m pleased to speak on this topic at this forum on driver education and training 

because the issues that are of concern to all of us in this room are vital to America. 

33
Nearly all of our society drives cars, and our young people are no exception. All of us in 

one way or another arrived at this meeting today in an automobile, either getting to the 

airport, from the airport to the hotel, or coming from home, many of the local people. We

all drove cars. 

The fatality rate of drivers in the United States is far better than any other country. 

You know, sometimes we don’t step back and look at our successes. Even though our 

fatality rate is much better than any other country, it’s not satisfactory to us. 

Clearly, the easiest way to further reduce the fatality rate is to restrict driving. If 

we restrict driving privileges, we are going to reduce the amount of potential for collision 

and crashes. For example, your initial driver’s license would be issued at age 20, and 

your license privilege would end at age 65. We all know that that is totally unacceptable 

in our society. 

Therefore, we are here today to discuss the responsible solutions to solving this 

problem. The specific program solutions we are discussing today is driver education and 

training. 

It is important that we strive to find solutions and not use the easy approach of 

reducing fatalities by simply restricting driver licenses. In driver education, we have 

historically made many mistakes. The single biggest mistake has been to overstate our 

program outcomes. 

Jim (Nichols) referred to this. In 1955, traffic safety professionals said that driver 

education reduces 10 -- teen fatalities by 50 percent. This came out of the information in 

Michigan, who has been our leader in driver education. In 1981, the Safe Performance 

Secondary Driver Education Demonstration Project, DeKalb Study, said that driver 

education would reduce teen fatalities by 10 percent. At least we’re getting more 

realistic. 

Clearly, both of these statements are ridiculous. No single countermeasure can 

reduce fatalities by these percentages. We have clearly overstated the purpose of driver 

education. 

In addition, the wrong approach has been used to evaluate driver education. No 

other countermeasure is evaluated by employing a control-experimental group 

comparison with fatality reduction utilizing official accident records as the only criteria 

for demonstrating successful programs. 

Now, I know Jim (Nichols) clearly pointed out to us that there’s a lot more 

evaluations than just fatality comparisons. But it’s the public who zeroes in on those 

studies that deal with fatality comparisons. When we look at reduction in crashes, 

severity of crashes, reduction in violations and other incidents, those are important 

factors that help us measure successful programs. 

34
This approach of simply measuring fatalities using control studies really is not the 

best way to measure the effectiveness. Sample sizes are frequently not large enough, 

official traffic records are inadequate, and controlling the research design in many cases 

is impossible. Traffic records becomes a critical element in the process of measuring 

program effectiveness. 

This method or technique to determine effectiveness is not used for seat belt 

programs, current alcohol programs, driver licensing, or any of the single components of 

graduated driver licensing. It is true that newly enacted graduated driver licensing 

programs have a significant reduction in fatalities of young drivers the first two years of 

the program. This is primarily due to driver restrictions. If the 16-year-olds don’t drive, 

they’re not killed as drivers. However, they still show up in the passenger deaths. 

The greatest value of GDL is its combination of countermeasures working 

together to reduce fatalities. And Jim (Nichols) also mentioned this. The importance of

these countermeasures working together, trying to have an impact, a controlling factor on 

how people not only learn to drive a car but their initial years in driving and that as we 

employ the restrictions and as we keep monitoring what the driver is doing, we’re 

enhancing their maturity and we’re enhancing their experiences. 

It is essential that driver education be included as one of those countermeasures 

within GDL. Most of us in this room learned to drive a car through driver education, and 

most of our children learn to drive through driver education. How can we expect new 

drivers to learn to drive if we don’t teach them the proper driving skills? 

Driver education has been an essential tool in teaching basic driving skills. That 

is, the start, stop, turn, and basic interaction with other drivers. These requirements are 

essential in obtaining a driver’s license and in gaining initial driving experience. 

Driver education needs to have better resources and techniques in order to teach 

safe driving practices. This includes making good choices concerning risk, driver 

decision, use of occupant restraints, not driving under the influence, dealing with 

fatigues, distractions, and aggressive drivers. 

And I might say, not only do youth need better programs to learn these things, we 

as adults do, too. You know, when we take that 44- or 45,000 deaths, about 5- to 6000 are 

those young people. Another five to six are these older people, like some of us are getting 

to be. But there’s a big chunk in the middle that’s not doing too well, either. 

Well, how do we impact new drivers to understand all of the basic concepts and 

skills if we simply tell them to learn on their own? Driver licensing alone will not do this. 

Driver restrictions alone will not do this. We must have driver education programs that 

do teach basic driving skills and safe driving practices to the youth of our nation. We

must quit trying to evaluate driver education simply by comparing control-experimental 

groups with official accident records using fatalities as the primary criteria. 

35
There’s not enough time here today to completely describe what I feel needs to be 

done. I am providing a handout to the Board that describes in detail what driver education 

should be, how it should be delivered, and what outcomes we should expect. 

I do have a few extra copies other than what I’m giving to the Board. 

This document deals with, first of all, what is driver education, since there are so 

many variations and descriptions of driver education. And in this document we describe 

Segment 1 and Segment 2 driver education. 

It’s a great concept NHTSA came up with. I think it’s one of the best concepts 

that has come about in driver education. Greg Lantzy from the State of Michigan will talk 

about this later. They’re the only ones that believe it. And we’ve worked very hard on it, 

and no one seems to believe it. 

Now, in some form or another, if you use violator programs as a Segment 2 driver 

education, Ohio does that. But we first teach them how to drive a car. We give them

some experiences. And then we bring them back and deal with safe driving practices. 

How can you get a young person who’s never started, stopped, and went through 

an intersection to understand how alcohol affects their ability to go through that 

intersection if they haven’t been driving or drinking? I know you skeptics in the back are 

saying, well, they’ve been drinking long before they were driving. I don’t happen to 

believe that. 

But how do we get young people to understand risk when risk is not even in their 

vocabulary in terms of the risk that they take when they drive a car? How do we get 

young people to understand that they must have seat belts because eventually they’re 

going to crash when they know that they’re such good drivers that crashes are not in their 

vocabulary. 

So in Segment 1 driver education, we teach all the basic skills, and in Segment 2 

we teach safe practices, which includes improved perception and decision-making. 

Well, what outcome should we have? Those are described in this document 

because the outcomes, if we can agree on what we’re to accomplish, it’s far easier to 

measure what we’re doing. 

And then, how about the delivery of driver education? We have some great ideas 

on the delivery, but they’re expensive and I doubt that anybody is using them. And I 

encourage others to look at the proper delivery of driver education to have its greatest 

impact. We can’t complete driver education in just a few weeks. It’s a long-term activity. 

And to make it simple, in the document I’ve provided a topical outline of what 

driver education looks like because reading some of these thick, boring books puts us to 

sleep. 

36
Well, there are other panelists today that will share good ideas on addressing this 

problem, and there will be some that simply say driver education does not reduce teen 

fatalities. Let me share with you my ideas on improving driver education. 

To accomplish any changes in society, you must first create an awareness of the 

problem and an understanding of the solutions to the problem. The task of reducing 

highway collisions involving young drivers is a goal that almost seems impossible to 

accomplish. However, with combined resources, expertise, and financial support, this 

goal could become a reality. A strong foundation needs to be laid to fully utilize all 

available assets. 

An informational campaign needs to be developed, and it should clearly outline 

the problems and solutions facing driver education. We need to communicate this 

information to corporate America, the general public, and the traffic safety community. 

To achieve success with driver education and training, we need everyone working 

together on common problems and solutions. 

One component of the awareness effort is to clearly define what the young driver 

problems are and how we can reduce these problems. Corporations and traffic safety 

professionals have a different understanding and perception of what driver education is. 

Even within the driver education community, there is a lack of specification as to what 

driver education is. 

This is an understandable problem. Without national leadership, everyone has 

done their own thing. As a result, what driver education is in one community is entirely 

different in another community. Driver education is whatever you want it to be. 

There are many single-purpose organizations that work in traffic safety. These 

organizations include youth groups, alcohol groups, seat belt coalitions, Mothers Against 

Drunk Driving (MADD), and others who know their specific area of interest regarding 

safety. They also have some knowledge of the specific education awareness they 

promote. Solving a single issue with young drivers does not solve the problem. Without 

formal driver education, there is a limited audience for these single-purpose programs. 

The second component is in the driver education teacher. Most teachers are of 

retirement age. They have not even stayed current with existing driver education 

concepts let alone progressed to the new theories of training young drivers. 

New teachers have not entered the field because the job prospect has been limited. 

As a result, colleges and universities have dropped teacher training programs for driver 

education, and many State education offices do not require training standards, nor do 

they provide supervision and guidance to the driver education programs for young 

drivers. 

The monitoring of both basic driver education programs and teacher training 

programs is limited at best. Federal and State resources have been reduced, and driver 

education has suffered. What we need today is a clear direction at the national level with 

37
the support of all federal, State, and private agencies to plan, implement, and monitor a 

concentrated effort to provide complete training programs to all new drivers. 

The American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association stands ready to 

work cooperatively with all interested parties to accomplish this goal. It is impossible for 

us to do it alone. This is a national problem that requires national recognition and 

national program solutions. 

Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Question and Answer Session 

MR. QUINLAN: Now is the question and answer period. And if you have 

questions, please hand them to the folks roving the aisles there. 

Dr. Robinson, what’s your view of behind-the-wheel instructions in conditions 

that are not optimal, such as rain, fog, snow, and slush, which seems particularly germane 

to the Belgrade crash?

DR. ROBINSON: Well, the more experiences that you give people in controlled 

environments, the better off you are. Obviously, when you start scheduling your training 

environments and it’s time for adverse weather conditions, it’s pretty hard to program the 

weather outside to do what it is that you want to do in order to accomplish that teaching. 

Certainly, though, I think we’ve overlooked the value and the importance of 

classroom instruction. In classroom instruction, it’s much easier to deal with the concepts 

of these adverse conditions to better prepare the student so that when they do get in the 

car they’re able to demonstrate their understanding, awareness, and ability to drive in 

these situations. 

I know it’s not theoretically possible, but it is ideal that if we did a better job in 

the classroom, the in-car instruction would be simply an evaluation tool. Our classroom

instruction lags way behind what we do in in-car instruction. 

MR. QUINLAN: A follow-on question for both of you, actually. In your 

experience, is there an optimal age for beginning driver training and for unrestricted 

licensure? And start with Dr. Robinson. 

DR. ROBINSON: He knows that’s a loaded question, but that’s all right. 

I don’t know that there’s an optimal age. For those of you who have raised 

children, you know they’re all different. They respond differently at different ages. So to 

arbitrarily say that there is in fact an age that people should do something is difficult. 

38
What I believe is essential is that the licensing process takes two years. And 

during that two years, you have the controls, one which is driver education; secondly, the 

restrictions on nighttime driving, passengers, seat belts, zero tolerance. And if anything 

goes wrong in terms of how they relate to those laws, that license is pulled. If they can’t 

demonstrate that they’re going to follow the rules and regulations and safe practices, they 

should not have a license. 

And some people mature earlier and they will follow all those rules, and by age 

18 they should have an unrestricted license. If they don’t follow those rules, they 

shouldn’t get an unrestricted license till they’re 19. That’s a national program that would 

have a direct impact on people listening to safety messages. 

DR. NICHOLS: Well, I think that the research clearly shows that 16 and 17 are 

the riskiest years, so that’s at least in part an answer. If you want to eliminate the riskiest 

years, 16 and 17 are those. 

I think that a lot of the laws are oriented around 18 as kind of a target year for 

unrestricted licensing, so that might be a reasonable target that fits with the data. 

I don’t know that I could say there’s an optimal, but those are two factors that I 

would certainly consider. 

MR. QUINLAN: Dr. Nichols, one of the European studies, Carstensen’s study in 

Denmark, showed a marked decrease in crash rates with the new program compared with 

the old program. Do you think that this is a rigorous scientific study, and if so, should we 

be paying more attention to the way Denmark trains, educates, and licenses?

DR. NICHOLS: Well, I can’t say that I totally know what the Denmark program

was all about. I read about it and basically it had more in site training and it spent more 

time on the road, and -- but I think that in terms of the rigor of the study, it was a 

longitudinal study. Basically, it looked at what happened to the crash rate of the target 

population in the years preceding versus the years after the new law, and it compared it 

with, I believe, if I remember right, 20-year-olds, or some control. 

I think it’s a very good design, and I think that it measured -- I think that it has 

some of the advantages that Allen (Robinson) alluded to. I think that when you evaluate a 

law or a change that affects an entire population, you have the advantage of a larger 

sample size. So your test is going to be somewhat more powerful. 

But the answer to your question is, yes, I thought it was a very good study. 

MR. QUINLAN: A question from the audience for Dr. Nichols. “How important 

is the distinction between classroom and behind-the-wheel training in evaluating the 

effectiveness of driver education programs?” 

DR. NICHOLS: I think it’s always important to know what it is you’re 

evaluating. Unfortunately, the descriptions that we have in the research have included a 

39
number of different combinations. And even further, there’s not a lot of consistency 

between more complete programs and less complete programs. 

So I think that you have a very -- at best, you have a small measurable effect and 

that when you start varying the different combinations, as Allen (Robinson) mentions, 

you get smaller sample size and you get variation in results. 

So after talking about this, I guess my answer is, I think it’s very important to 

always know what you’re evaluating, but the more you define the group in such a way 

that it makes it a smaller group, then the less powerful your evaluation is. 

MR. QUINLAN: For either Dr. Robinson or Dr. Nichols. “I’ve always had the 

idea that supervised driving was very safe. Do we know how many crashes happen in 

training or practice?” 

DR. NICHOLS: I’ll start. No, we don’t know how many. At least, I know of no 

study that’s looked at that. Well, actually some of them have alluded to it. Several of the 

reviews which have looked at the European literature have indicated that that is the safest 

period in terms of crashes for young people, under the supervision of an adult. But the 

number that they would have, I don’t know. 

DR. ROBINSON: Well, I think Jim (Nichols) is right. When you look back and, 

as you noticed in his very thorough review of what has happened in driver education, 

there is very little statistical data of what has happened in terms of controlled driving 

environments. 

In my memory, and I’ve probably been in this too long, I can’t remember of 

another fatality in a driver education vehicle. I do know that there have been some

incidents in vehicles with a licensed driver with a young driver. But again, those 

incidents have been very infrequent, very few. 

Those of you living in this area do know of some of the extraordinary cases where 

a drunk father was riding with a 16-year-old, and there was a crash and the father was 

cited for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). You know, those are so weird you can 

hardly use them. But the monitored, controlled driving environments have been very safe 

for young drivers. 

DR. NICHOLS: If I could just have a follow-up to that, I agree with Allen 

(Robinson). I think there’s two points that should be made here. You want -- what is your 

objective? Well, you want the people to be safe while you’re teaching them. And there’s 

evidence that under supervision they are very safe. 

Obviously you could make the case, well, if they weren’t on the road they’d be 

safer. That may be true, but countered by that is that the experience, the importance of 

the experience gained, is so much greater on the road for preparing them for the period 

after the training that you have to consider that aspect of it as well. 

40
So I think this combination is why all of the reviewers that I looked at, all of the 

reviews that I looked at suggest that maximizing that period of training under supervision 

is the most important thing that you can do in driver education. 

MR. QUINLAN: For either of you, “What about a test to study risk level before 

allowing the licensing of the new driver?”

DR. ROBINSON: Good luck. Well, yeah, we could do that, but licensing won’t 

allow for it. You know, you have to look at what society will accept. Several people have 

done some inventories and personality characteristic studies and said, you know, that 

person shouldn’t drive. But getting that through a licensing system is not easy to do. 

DR. NICHOLS: No, I think, you know, you have the issue of just testing is not a 

great predictor of anything. There are just so many false positives, false negatives, that I 

think that would be very difficult to do. And I think the work that’s been done with 

regard to the elderly driver bears that out. 

MR. QUINLAN: Again for Dr. Nichols. “What’s the value of research and 

studies that are 30 to 40 years old for our youthful driver problems today?” 

DR. NICHOLS: Well, I think because I’m trying to provide a history, I think it’s 

important to know how things have evolved, but I have tried to include at least -- there 

were 15 studies conducted since 1980. There were several studies conducted since 1990. 

So the most recent study was conducted in 2000. 

So it’s a matter of trying to give a full picture. And you could cut it off at any 

point, but no matter where you cut it off, the answers are the same. 

MR. QUINLAN: Dr. Robinson, “Many feel competency/performance-based 

driver education is essential. Are these competencies and performance standards 

developed? How do we use such standards in today’s driver education?” 

DR. ROBINSON: The simple answer is, yes and yes. Competency-based 

standards have been developed, and I am convinced that a whole bunch of people know 

how to teach to those competencies. The problem that you run into when you get into a 

competency-based situation is that you’ve elongated the training system. It’s timeconsuming; it’s repetitive; people want a license yesterday, not tomorrow, and they don’t 

want to put up with a competency-based system. 

And that’s why I’ll challenge all of you. You’re probably wondering, what kind 

of recommendations did that nut have? If we don’t do a publicity campaign that tells the 

world what the problem is and what the solutions are, trying to change driver education is 

useless. They need to understand that through a competency-based system we can do a 

better job, but it’s going to take more time, there are going to be more restrictions, and 

it’s going to take more money. If we continue to do 30 and six, you’re not going to have 

any competencies accomplished. I do think we have the ability to do that. 

41
MR. QUINLAN: For either or both, “What minimum objective beyond the basic 

car-handling skills should driver education try to accomplish?” Let’s start with Dr. 

Nichols. 

DR. NICHOLS: I would say an objective is to maximize the period of on-the-road 

supervised training. 

DR. ROBINSON: For once today I’ll disagree with you. If we can teach people 

perception and to deal with risk, then the driving will follow. 

We’ve all heard the police officer’s report. They didn’t see what they hit. We do a 

terrible job of teaching perceptual skills and decision-making. People make the wrong 

choices. Now, making the wrong choice is directly related to risk. They don’t see that it’s 

a problem, so that’s the decision that they make. 

And absolutely, Jim (Nichols) is right. We have to follow that with improved 

long-term monitoring of initial driving. So we can’t just come up with a simple solution. 

There is not one. But decision-making and perceptual skills followed by that long-term

monitoring of driving is absolutely needed. 

DR. NICHOLS: I’d like to just come back on that. I don’t disagree with you. I 

think that one of the best environments for teaching those perceptual skills is on the road 

under supervision. And then I think that under an ideal system we would accomplish the 

rest, the safety part, later, either after some of the restrictions have been removed or by 

having the higher order safety education at some later stage. 

MR. QUINLAN: Actually, there seems to be a trend in the questions because this 

one again is for either or both of you. “In evaluating the effectiveness of supervised 

driving, has there been an assessment of what supervision should be or mean? The issue 

is that there are many parents that do not themselves have the requisite driving skills to 

supervise their child’s driving.” 

DR. ROBINSON: I’ll start. The problem is guided instruction. Just going for a 

ride to the 7-11 or the K-Mart or the Wally World doesn’t cut it. If the -- if the guided 

instruction and practice doesn’t deal first of all with light traffic, then moderate traffic, 

then high-density traffic so that we’re progressing through this decision-making process, 

it just doesn’t work. 

Parents do want to help, but they need guided instruction. And if we give them

some guided instruction, that home practice, just like the piano lesson and the tennis 

lesson, can be very productive. 

DR. NICHOLS: I don’t know exactly what it should be because I’m not close 

enough to actually sitting in the car watching and I do know this. There have been a 

number of studies that have shown relatively equal effects of let’s say on-the-road 

instruction with professional instructors versus on-the-road instruction with parents. And 

42
I would guess that time is probably a factor there. There’s much more of it with parents. 

And so time is an issue too because you’re trying to accumulate experience. 

I think the ideal system tries to integrate both professional supervision by 

someone who’s aware of the dangers and risks and what the objectives of the training are, 

supplemented by as much parental supervision as possible. 

MR. QUINLAN: This is the last question for both of you. “Do you believe that 

uncontrolled environments could be tested with the use of virtual reality?” 

DR. ROBINSON: Yes. If you’ve got several million dollars. 

MR. QUINLAN: Okay. Dr. Robinson, “How can behind-the-wheel students be 

screened for neuromuscular limitations so that the behind-the-wheel instructor 

accommodates the student’s driving limitations,” and this goes on at some length 

discussing directional dyslexia and the information being critical to the instructor before 

they go on the road. 

DR. ROBINSON: Well, that is a heavy question. One of the areas that we 

probably do the worst job in is dealing with our special population students and helping 

them to acquire the skills they need to drive a car, although I think that question goes a 

little bit further than dealing with special needs. 

The evaluation tools to measure what you’ve described, Kevin (Quinlan), I 

believe are there. It’s just that in most school settings they’re not used. And since driver 

education for the most part is after school and weekends, there’s no tie-in between health 

situations, a counseling situation, or any kind of psychological or physiological testing 

that is used by the driver education teacher. It could help, but it doesn’t happen. 

MR. QUINLAN: For Dr. Nichols, again going at supervised driving. “DMV in 

California records that only 17 percent of parents complete the required 50 hours at 

home. How do you think we should replace the loss of training to the new driver?”

DR. NICHOLS: Well, I think that we need to find ways to increase the amount of 

time that parents are willing to spend. I think you only have a limited amount of time that 

you can spend under supervised professional training, and you have to supplement it. The 

parents or an older adult are the best ways, so we have to find better ways of increasing 

that percentage. 

MR. QUINLAN: My understanding is that in a survey done by Jean Shope in 

Michigan that Michigan required 50 hours and the average supervised driving reported 

was 75 hours. I may be misinterpreting that, but Dr. Robinson?

DR. ROBINSON: Well, I’m sure that the supervised instruction in Michigan has 

been very high because of the interest of a lot of agencies supporting it. When you use 

voluntary 50-hour practice driving, that’s what you get, a voluntary system. 

43
There are States that require that the statement that says the 50 hours was 

provided is notarized. There are States that have driving logs that must be turned in. And 

I know all of those can be forged, but the greater the responsibility of the parent and the 

greater controls by the system, the State licensing system, that says these are important 

and they have to be done, the greater probability that they will be done. But that practice 

is essential. 

DR. NICHOLS: If I could just follow up on that, again if those data are correct, I 

think it’s an example that if you do work on this you can make a difference. 

MR. QUINLAN: Our last question. For Dr. Nichols. “What has been the trend of 

driver education moving out of high schools and into commercial schools and trainers?

And what will be the future of the same?” 

DR. NICHOLS: I think Dr. Allen Robinson is a lot more qualified to answer that 

question. 

What I saw in the literature basically is considerable use of commercial driving 

schools in some school districts and not very much in others. And so it’s variable. I think 

if the commercial driving programs are there and available and I would guess reasonably 

economical to use, they were used in a number of cases. 

But in terms of whether that’s increasing or decreasing, I have to ask Allen 

(Robinson) to answer that. 

DR. ROBINSON: Sure. If we would clearly define what we want in driver 

education and define our outcomes, it doesn’t make any difference where that training 

actually takes place as long as the right training is provided. Our difficulty has been in 

the control and the monitoring of what is the training and where does it take place. 

The school system is an ideal place for teaching driver education. All the facilities 

are there; the trained teachers are there; the counselors are there; all the things that’s 

needed to help contribute to that young person. And there are many ways that 

commercial driving schools can help. 

Part of this continued practice is an ideal way to use commercial schools. 

Commercial schools contracting with public schools to provide the instruction when 

there are inadequate facilities and inadequate numbers of teachers in the public schools in 

many cases have demonstrated an effective system of offering driver education. 

We can’t just look back at the old ways. We have to look at new and improved 

ways of making sure that instruction is available to all youth, not just part of our youth. 

MR. QUINLAN: Audience, I want to thank you for your questions. Let’s give our 

presenters a round of applause. 

(Applause) 

44
U.S. and International Programs 

MS. BISHOP: The last session talked about some of the history and research 

that’s gone on and some of the generalizations on driver education. Now we’re going to 

talk about some of the specific programs going on in the United States, Canada, and in 

Europe. 

Presentation by Sean McLaurin 

MS. BISHOP: Our first speaker is Sean McLaurin. He is a highway safety 

specialist with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Program

Development and Delivery. Mr. McLaurin’s responsibilities include graduated driver 

licensing programs for young novice drivers, driver education programs, driver license 

security, and crash record information systems. 

MR. McLAURIN: Now, you’re going to find out through the series of my

presentations here that most of what Jimmy (Nichols) covered I’m going to cover again. 

So if you’ve lost some sleep lately, this is a good opportunity to catch up. 

I always like to start some of my presentations by relating one of the typical 

teenage driver education stories from my past, and it involved me and my father. At the 

time I was 17 years old and I had gone through the Colonel’s very rigorous driver 

education program. And believe me, my father was an excellent trainer. He had seven 

children; I was the third. So he had pretty much honed his skills down by the time he got 

to me. 

One time I wanted to go buy my girlfriend a nice little promise ring or something 

like that when I was a senior in high school. And I had a friend of mine drop me by the 

place where my sister had the car. And we had one kid car and one family car. I 

borrowed the car, and we were headed in a direction where there was a lot of traffic, 

through the Springfield area. Those of you that live here know that Springfield is 

notorious for crowded conditions. 

It had started to rain just lightly, just enough to lift a lot of the garbage up off the 

roads. And we came over a hill traveling at what wasn’t an excessive amount of speed 

but probably was a speed considered to be too fast for the conditions. 

At the time I came over the hill, the traffic had backed up because of a truck that 

was turning left, and I did what any other teenager did at the time. I smashed the brakes 

on the car and fishtailed around. 

45 Part 5
Now, those of you that have a lot of history behind you will realize that the 

Maverick of that day did not have a lot of weight in its tail end, and it came around on me

very quick. Thanks to the Colonel, I learned when he was in the command and general 

staff school in Leavenworth, Kansas, how to negotiate through some pretty treacherous 

conditions. 

So I negotiated the skid pretty well. As I came back across the road and avoided 

the truck that was heading up the hill, I managed to get my wheels onto the gravel, at 

which time I got traction again. And I swerved into a tree. 

Now, I didn’t kill the car; I just dented it. Much to my chagrin, there was a State 

trooper three cars behind me who pulled over and got out. And first question, of course, 

was, is everybody okay? I said yes. He says, were you wearing a seat belt? I said yes. He 

goes, it’s not against the law to not wear a seat belt. And I said, I was wearing a seat belt. 

Believe me, I’ve never gotten into a car without one. He says, you sure? And I said yes. 

About that time, I turned around and I looked at the road. And there goes my

father and my mother driving up the hill. And my father at that time turned, and we made 

eye contact. And I told the State trooper at that time, if that weapon of yours is loaded, 

you need to kill me right now because there’s nothing you’re going to do that’s going to 

be worse than when that man gets out of the car. And believe me, just going into prom

season, that was a bad thing. 

So anyway, there was the typical teenage situation. I had another teenager in the 

car. I was driving too fast for conditions. I overreacted; didn’t know I was in trouble. And 

I had a mild crash. Luckily, there were no serious injuries, and that was the only crash 

I’ve ever had. 

Today I’m going to go over a little bit of what Jimmy (Nichols) and Allen 

(Robinson) had covered with you, but I’m going to talk about a little bit of what’s going 

on now in the United States in the federal role of driver education. 

As kind of a little anecdote, I want to get to how we do training and everything in 

this country in different areas. 

I’ll have you know that I am a certified trainer in a particular area. I’m not going 

to tell you what that is. I’m going to let you know that I train young people in passage 

through crowded environments. I teach them how to change directions, avoid obstacles. I 

teach them acceleration, deceleration, decision-making, passing, and stopping. 

Can any of you give me any suggestions on what it is that I’m certified to train 

in? 

(No response) 

MR. McLAURIN: Come on. Take a wild guess. 

46
(No response) 

MR. McLAURIN: I am a certified soccer trainer. I’m a soccer coach. 

We’re required in this environment that I currently exist in to constantly recertify, 

to constantly keep my credentials up, and to constantly be on top of any new 

developments in the world of soccer. We sometimes take an approach towards driver 

education that we’ll have a football coach come in, somebody with my qualifications, and 

try to teach a subject that they’re not qualified to teach. And that leads to a great deal of 

problems. 

Throughout this presentation I think I’m going to leave you with a great deal 

more questions than I am going to leave you with answers, and that’s because I think that 

right now, after being involved with the driver education programs in the United States 

over the last seven years, I see that driver education currently is in a state of transition. 

And I think Jimmy (Nichols) and Allen (Robinson) touched on it very quickly, 

and I’m going to reemphasize the fact that when you’re in a transition, you can either 

transition into a good area or you can transition into an area that is going to bring your 

program into further decline. I think that we’re into a positive transition right now. 

Just to go over some facts with you. We have 191 million licensed drivers in this 

country. We’ve got 15- to 20-year-old drivers that comprise about 6.6 percent of those 

licensed drivers. There are approximately 8,200 teen drivers that are involved in fatal 

crashes in the year 2002, which is our most recent data. Fourteen percent of all fatal 

crashes involved a teenage driver. Sixteen percent of all police-reported crashes involved 

teenage drivers, and that was 1,800,000 of those. 

There are 20 million teenagers in the United States; 12.6 million of those are 

licensed. So when you think about a driver education problem, you think about, what are 

we doing; what is our pool of people that are involved. You’ve got 12 million of them out 

there. We’re not doing a poor job at all. I think on the general view of driver education, I 

think we’re educating our kids well. 

The costs of crashes. Eight thousand of the occupants of motor vehicle crashes are 

killed by teenage drivers. There’s 3,827 -- now, these are teenage drivers only, that are 

killed in the crashes in 2000. 

And there were 324,000 injuries. This is everything from a sprained wrist to a 

broken neck. And it’s a fairly serious amount. I’m not going to try to minimize what’s 

going on with our teenage drivers. 

And we estimate the annual cost of automobile crashes involving the teenage 

drivers to be about $32 billion. 

Some more historical facts. 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, grand total of 25,000 

fatalities involving teenagers over the last four years. And this is a serious problem. 

47
I can’t tell you how many times I get phone calls from moms and dads that say, 

my son was just killed. I need to do something about this. I feel so impotent now that he’s 

gone and I don’t know what it is that I can do. Please tell me something that I can do. 

And so I try to hook people up with the different advocacy groups and tell them that the 

education of the teenager is of primary importance. 

I’m going to go over a little bit of history for you, and I’m going to go real quick 

because Jimmy (Nichols) and Allen (Robinson) covered this fairly effectively. 

Driver education reached its zenith in the late ‘60s and ‘70s. And you had about 

14,000 schools across this country that offered driver education. There were about 2 

million students that were involved in the process. 

This represented about 70 percent of the total number that were eligible to take it. 

And you’ve got the National Highway Safety Bureau, which is the forerunner of NHTSA 

where I’m employed, that had 18 State highway safety programs. Number 4 in that was 

driver education. 

The bureau supported the driver education standard by providing State and 

community highway safety grant program funds -- this is Section 402 -- to the States to 

improve and evaluate their driver education programs. And as most of you know, a lot of 

times when you have a grant program, the money doesn’t exactly always go to where you 

wanted or how you intended the money to go there. States primarily used the funds to 

expand their programs, they did very little to improve the programs and improve the 

training for the trainers and to evaluate their programs. 

Now, I will tell you that I agree with Dr. Robinson when he said that we hold 

driver education to an unfair standard in this country. And it’s a simple reason that you 

can go to the student and see -- and I always go -- when I talk to students, I always will 

go and talk to them and say, why is it that you are in this class? And nine times out of 10 

they will say, to get a driver’s license. I said, well, aren’t you going to learn how to drive 

safely? And they go, yeah, but, you know, I just want to get the license, you know. 

And so you go to the motivation of the student that you have. The student doesn’t 

want to learn to drive safely. They want the keys to the car. 

Now, as a probably secondary reason why they’re in there, if I wreck Dad’s car 

he’s going to drive up the road with me and restrict me and I’ll be double-dating for the 

prom. 

And so you’ve got what is a receptive audience in one particular respect. They’re 

there to learn. But they’re there to learn the very basics to get the license. They want to 

get through. 

I have girls in my neighborhood that associate with my older daughter that say, 

hey, I got a “B” in driver’s ed, I got the car. And I substitute sometimes in the local high 

schools and I’m horrified when the sophomores walk into class. And I’m thinking, oh no, 

48
they’re going to be driving down my street in a couple of weeks. But they can’t even 

remember -- I had -- this is a great story. 

I asked one of the girls one time. I said, what is your next class? And she goes, 

fifth period. I said, okay. What is the fifth period? She goes, I don’t know, fifth period. I 

said, do you have a book? She goes, yeah, it’s in my locker. I said, what does it say on 

the front? She goes, I don’t know. I said, oh, she’s going to get the keys to the car. 

All right. So the agency then decided that we were going to do our own 

evaluation of driver education programs. And we used the Highway Safety Research and 

Development Fund Section 403 to initiate major programs of research and development 

to evaluate, you know, driver education. And basically, what we wanted to do is just find 

out if there was a positive effect of this program that we were throwing so much money 

on. 

And basically, what happened was we were kind of disappointed by the results 

that we found out because, as Dr. Robinson said, we had kind of overstated our 

expectation. You can think of any other number of countermeasures that we have people 

will mark out and say this is our goal. That’s for sure. But if they don’t reach the goal 

they don’t kill the whole program. 

But with driver education it’s just like the federal government at that particular 

time says this isn’t what we were expecting. And it kind of provided impetus for us to 

basically just go ahead and stop funding State driver education. 

Now, most schools are now still offering driver education, but what they’re doing 

now is they’ve moved instead of like when I took it back in the Stone Age, they’re 

offering it as an after-school program. So there’s a great deal of competition with people 

like me, who are soccer trainers or piano teachers or the marching band or the football or 

the basketball. 

And so you’ve got kids that sometimes will go ahead and take this 30 hours of 

classroom and they’ve got to wait six months before they start taking their in-car. And 

the separation of the two provides for a great deal of laxity in the applied learning that 

you learn in the 30 hours. All of a sudden, you’re going to apply it in the six hours in the 

car and you’ve got a real problem there. 

Right now there are no federal standards. There are no basic State-involved 

federal government standards for driver education. We don’t give States any money for 

driver education. And what we do is basically -- and I’ll get into this in just a minute -- 

provide some groups to do some research and evaluation and development for us. 

Over the last couple of years, though, what we’ve noticed is that with the State 

budget crunches that have been overtaking this country, that driver education programs 

even in the after-school programs have been declining seriously simply because they 

can’t spend the money to train, they can’t spend the money for the cars, and basically the 

private schools are stepping up and saying, we can do it all. 

49
Now, I can go to another example of my sports background to give you an 

example of, you know, what the mindset is with driver education as compared to say, for 

instance, sports. 

To train -- to be on some of the teams in Stafford County, Virginia, you have to 

pay almost $800 or $900 a year to participate in that team. During the year, you have 

other advanced training sessions that take place that parents willingly write those checks 

to because they’re seeing a World Cup soccer player developing even at eight years old. 

But I often get calls from parents that will say I had to spend 300 bucks on 

teaching my kid how to drive. And when you talk about one of the most complex 

psychomotor skills that you will ever develop and use for the entirety of your adult 

productive life, there it is. 

And I’ve got people that are complaining that it’s a $300 investment. By the way, 

hold on. I’ve got to write a $1000 check for this travel team. And they’ll just write it 

down. Same thing for piano lessons. Same thing for marching band. Cheerleading. 

Cheerleading in a high school these days is almost a $1000 venture. 

But when this person gets in this $25,000 bundle of glass and steel, they drive 

down the street by my kids. And by the way, I have six. So I’m invested in the driver 

education program. Believe me, my 22-year-old will tell you that the Colonel had nothing 

on Dad. 

Okay. Currently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has two 

cooperative agreements where we do projects in driver education. The first one is with 

Dr. Robinson’s Indiana University of Pennsylvania’s (IUP) Highway Safety Center. And 

what we do there is we’re developing credentialing programs for driver education 

instructors. We’re developing standardized driver education curricula. And within that, 

we’re doing the two-phase driver education curriculum as well. 

We’re putting out driver education public information and education materials so 

that the public can be better informed on what it is that driver education is, what the 

expectation can be, what the students should be ready for, et cetera. 

IUP and ADTSEA. We are also doing a study into the development of the twostage driver education program. We’ve got cooperative activities involving -- and I’ll get 

to these in just a second -- with the American Association of Motor Vehicle 

Administrators (AAMVA). And it’s like a marriage made in heaven. We all have the 

same interests. 

We all have the highest regard for the level of expertise from IUP’s Highway 

Safety Center and AAMVA. These are the experts. 

We also have technical assistance that we will provide to the States on their 

graduated driver licensing programs. And that’s to get them established. There are still 14 

50
States by our estimation that do not have what we would consider to be a three-stage 

graduated driver licensing system. 

And for those States that have it and need to improve it, we’ll go in there and help 

them with what we call a model program, show them how to do it. We have model 

legislation, and we’ll provide testimony. NTSB often does as well. 

Part of the cooperative agreement with AAMVA, we develop a driver education 

curriculum of classroom and behind-the-wheel curricula. 

We develop a national model non-commercial driver testing system. And this is 

important insofar as it states that we’re trying to modernize our testing system. They 

don’t have to go out and pay somebody to proprietarily develop one for them. We’ve got 

the materials that should be coming out in the ‘04 fiscal year that will be available to the 

States so that they can just go ahead and take these materials and make it just their Statespecific sort of information in there as well as the general, and then they can go ahead 

and deploy these. And it’ll cut down on their costs as well. 

We’re also developing a GDL parent-teen guide. And Allen (Robinson) touched 

on that just a little bit earlier. 

I want to tell you that when you first get in a car with a teenager, the first thing, 

I’m thinking at 48 years old is, what are the basics that I need to teach. And I’m very 

good at teaching basics. And one of the funniest things that I found out when I first 

started doing this is that you get lost when you go out on your first couple of trips 

because you’re thinking about turn right, turn left, turn right again. Stop. Go into the 

parking lot. Turn around, and all of a sudden it’s like, where are we? It’s just like you 

don’t think about where it is that you’re going to go. 

And part of this parent-teen guide is insistence on planning your trip, 

understanding that when you first start to learn this, gripping the wheel like it’s trying to 

run away is going to tire out your student very quickly. 

And so we go from a very remedial level in this parent-teen guide up to a more 

complicated series of driving maneuvers and things that you can do. You can write notes. 

You can say, okay, here are some things that I need to go ahead and practice again with 

the teenagers. 

And this is invaluable because you never know what it is to practice until you’ve 

been in a game and you take a note and say, well, we need to practice finishing, you 

know. But if you don’t write it down, you’re not going to realize that when two or three 

days later you say, okay, let’s hop in the car and let’s go back. And you go over the same

things and all of a sudden it’s like making the same mistakes. 

Constant practice with a novice driver is something that is critical. And I saw it in 

a friend of mine whose daughter was learning and went through several weeks of training 

51
and then went away to band camp. And they came back, and her mother said, you would 

not believe. It is like back to square one because she’s been out of a car for two weeks. 

And that is graduated driver licensing and two-stage driver education at its best 

because you have a kid in a controlled environment that they’re receptive. A lot of 

parents will tell me the kid doesn’t talk to me anymore. You don’t have anything that’s of 

value to them. But when you have the keys in your hand and you set them in that driver’s 

seat, suddenly you can’t shut them up. They’re like, ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba. 

I can tell you, I’ve been through it with two of them already, you know. If you 

want to find out what’s going on in their life, put them in a car and make them drive. And 

then they’ll just talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talk. 

So, we’re also developing generic road tests and knowledge test item pools, skill 

test exercises. And we’ve also got at NHTSA some research projects. And these are 

starting to come out now because of the need involving better training these teenage 

drivers. 

The first one, and it’s been underway for quite a while in Michigan, is the twostage driver education. We’re going to try to test and see what sort of effectiveness this 

has. We’ve been in Michigan for a couple of years, and Dr. Shope, I guess, will touch a 

little bit on this, or maybe not. But their graduated driver licensing program there is 

basically a national model, and it’s something that has shown as far as countermeasures 

go, it is an atomic bomb. Their program there is absolutely astounding. 

In Texas, we’re going to start a research project very soon on the effectiveness of 

home-schooled driver education. Now, remember I told you that I think that driver 

education is in transition, and I’m going to point this out further as I go along. Home

schooling driver education. Well, there’s the ultimate in parental involvement. We’ve 

been preaching parental involvement for a long time; here it is. Now you’re going to have 

the parent as the teacher, the parent as the in-car instructor, and the parent as the 

administrator of the graduated driver licensing program. And Texas does have a GDL 

program. 

So now what you’ve got is school, driver education school at home. Now, what 

are your material. And so you need to have the materials and what have you, and how 

effective is this going to be. 

In Oregon, the effectiveness of the required hours of parental involvement. How 

much is enough? Is it 25? Is it 50? Is it 100? Do parents overshoot the runway?

I’ve listened to a couple of researchers from North Carolina that said when you 

ask the parents, it’s 75 hours. When you ask the kids, it’s 25. What is it? The parents are 

being socially responsible and so, yes, it’s 75. And the kids are saying, no-o-o, we’re 

only in there for 25 hours. Who’s right?

52
How much is it going to take to properly train this driver, to get them so that they 

can solo without crashing?

In Georgia, we’re trying to find out what the long-term effects of graduated driver 

licensing. And then Johns Hopkins University, through some of our funds, is going to 

start into the effects of graduated driver licensing over multiple States. 

Now we’re back to the future. What’s going on? The corporations are now getting 

involved. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve got to do technical assistance with 

corporate America on their brand new spanking great driver education programs. 

And as Dr. Robinson pointed out that we’ve got a lot of very specific programs 

that touch on one aspect or the other aspect of driver education. AAA has a very good 

program. Cingular Wireless has one on distracted driving. Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, 

Mitsubishi. NETS -- that’s the Network of Employees for Traffic Safety -- has a parentteen guide. 

So the involvement of corporate America shows that there’s a bit of a vacuum

that they’re flowing into. And this is also, I think, for driver education a great opportunity 

because corporate America has the big bucks. And how do you get involved participation 

with this corporate America to bring them into what it is that you want to do with these 

children. It’s a great opportunity. 

I think we’re seeing a lot more private schools. I know that because I get calls 

weekly, at least two or three calls a week, from a new driver school that is just opening 

up and they’ve got this great program. And if the federal government would just write 

them a check for $10 million, they would save all the teenagers out there. And I keep 

telling them, well, we don’t really do that sort of thing, but I’m sure if you just send me

your program I can look at it and let you know what it is that you need to do with it. And 

about 50 percent of the time it’s, find another occupation. 

Web-based training. That’s on the increase. It’s huge now. You’ve got a group of 

techno-junkies coming up in this generation. 

I know that, going back to ancient history, I can still tell you the name of the film

that we watched. One of them was “Death on the Highway,” and the other one is 

“Mechanized Death.” And that is the reason why I never get into a car without a seat belt 

on. 

I remember as a junior in high school going to wrestling matches and riding in 

this 1962 Chevrolet that my friend had that was the most disgusting thing you’ve ever 

seen in your life. Four out of the eight cylinders worked. And we piled into the car, and 

there was no seat belts. And so I actually dug the seat out, took the seat out, dug into who 

knows how many years of grunge in the bottom of that thing to get a seat belt out and put 

it across me because I just knew my friends and I know my friends weren’t going to 

really be all that concerned about safety. 

53
But these days those films don’t affect kids the way they affected me. I can 

remember the first shot in one of those films was a large red splotch on the highway, and 

they said, this is a human body. And I was horrified. Kids these days are like, well, who 

shot them. 

My kids are always saying, hey, Dad, they got a great new video game out there 

where all you do is kill people and run over them with cars. You can imagine the look I 

get from my wife for that one. 

Anyway, another thing that’s coming out really strong, and we’re going to do this 

study in Texas like I told you, is about home schooling. Thirty years ago no one would 

have thought of home schooling driver education. 

So like I said before, you’ve got a program here that’s in transition. And it’s in 

transition in a positive way, I think, and it’s time for us to kind of take a little bit of time 

to guide it, to give direction. And I think that the NTSB is on the right note here by 

saying, okay, let’s gather all these experts together. And I tell you, I feel kind of humbled 

by sitting by some of these people because I don’t feel really all that well qualified to be 

here. 

Why can’t we come to a consensus about the importance of driver education? I 

know you’re going to hear from people in the next two days that are going to say, well, 

driver education just doesn’t work. 

I had that conversation with somebody in Pennsylvania two months ago. And I 

said, well, let me prove to you that it did. How did you learn how to drive? He said, well, 

I went to the driver education class. I said, killed anybody with your car lately? He said 

no. I said, it works. That’s it. It just works. It’s like we know safety belts work. You 

know, if you apply what you know, then it works. 

If training is so important in other areas of traffic safety, why doesn’t driver 

education get the same attention? And I would even put in parentheses, respect. How 

much can you learn from 30 hours in classroom and six hours of applied instruction?

Would you have somebody change the plumbing in your house that had only gone 

through a plumbing apprenticeship program for 30 hours and six hours on the job, your 

brand new house? I know I wouldn’t. But here you are; we’re throwing the keys at kids 

that are taking that car down the street where my kids are playing on the side of the road. 

We need to take a more advanced, a more applied approach towards driver 

education in this country, and we need to elevate it to the level of importance it is. This is 

a skill that you will use for 50 years. Probably been doing it for 50 years already, so. 

And then, the other thing is, a lot of you parents are going to be teaching 

somebody to do it. So learning the basics is extremely important. We need to find out 

what’s being offered, what’s working, what’s working well, what’s not working. We

need to get rid of the bad and start to emphasize the new. 

54
And this is where I’m talking about this cooperation with corporate America, with 

private schools, with public driver education. None of those are going away. They’re 

going to be here. They’re going to stay. And you’ve got to realize in this country, you 

know, we’re going to educate these kids. There’s a little population boom starting to 

happen with the teenagers, and we’ve got to take a very serious -- a very active and 

proactive look at this. 

Who’s conducting the research? If you give me your card at the end of this 

presentation, I can give you a handout that was done up at the Graduated Driver 

Licensing Symposium recently authored by Dr. Hedland, Dr. Compton, and Dr. Schultz 

on graduated driver licensing research in 2003 and beyond. 

What is the future of 30 and six? This is something that I think we need to really, 

really look at now. Is it sufficient; does it need to be divided like it is in Michigan. I 

always say, when a kid is trying to remember that the brake pedal’s on the right -- on the 

left -- I didn’t remember myself. That the brake pedal is on the left, gas is on the right, 

and how to stay off of that sidewalk, they are not listening to safety stuff. It’s only after 

they get that experience and the stuff is starting to click that you can finally get 

something in safety to start to register. 

Does driver education need national attention? Does the federal government need 

to get more heavily involved in it? And let me tell you something, that we’re not going to 

come to you and say in the States, we think you need national direction. What is going to 

work is you’re going to come to us and say, you know what, we need national direction; 

we need national standards; we need something from the federal government that puts 

this and elevates this subject to a nationwide idea. And we’ve got to have the National 

Transportation Safety Board come forward like they are now and say bring them all 

together, let’s see what we need, and let’s go from there. 

Like I said, driver training is in transition. We’ve got corporate involvement, 

distance learning, home schooling, and private schools. Driver education isn’t going 

away. It’s not. It’s here to stay; I can guarantee you that. 

What can be done to improve it? We’ve got to think about that. 

How do we harness this techno-oriented group that we have now? We’ve got 

simulators out there. We’ve got people doing web-based design stuff. We’ve got people 

out there with great CD-roms that say if you just get the kids to click through this and get 

this prize and get this -- that prize that they’ll be more aware of the risk involved. 

The other thing we have to do is try to figure out, do we try to take the risk out of 

the kid? Can’t do that. How do we assess this child for taking risks. And you’ve got to 

ask yourself this question: is a risk-taker necessarily a bad driver? I think that’s a 

question we really need to consider. 

I was a great driver like all my friends I knew. They were all great drivers. But at 

some point in my life I jumped off a balcony onto an eight-by-10-foot trampoline and my

55
friend and I used to jump up and jump down. Those were the days before liability, I 

guess. But one day I almost broke my back. And the next day I was back up running up, 

jumping off that, you know, trampoline again. But I was a safe driver. 

Corporate America. We’ve got to get them involved. Private schools. Do they 

need to be regulated more heavily. I always say that when I talk to people about private 

schools in the United States that they’re driven by the bottom line. And it’s true. 

If kids find out that this particular school is very stringent in their curricula and 

their testing, they’ll flow to a school that isn’t. So I always say that School A, you will 

test School B students. And that’s kind of like one of those deals where if they keep 

failing and I’m going to that school, I’m going to go back to this school. 

And thank you. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Larry Lonero 

MS. BISHOP: We’ll move a little north now to Canada. And we have Mr. Larry 

Lonero. He has many years of experience in the human factors of collision prevention. 

Before entering consulting, he held senior government positions in research and 

development, primarily in transportation safety. He was responsible for development, 

regulation, and administration of driver education in Ontario and for liaising with the 

Provincial Education Department and commercial driving school industry. 

Mr. Lonero. 

MR. LONERO: Thanks, Jennifer 

I’d like to thank the Board for inviting me, and for thinking of looking to Canada 

either for a good example or a bad example, and I suppose I’ll leave it up to you to decide 

which we are as time goes on. I would also like to mention that there are at least three 

other people from Canada here who know more about some aspects of Canadian driver 

education than I do. I’d like to introduce them and ask you to call on them at breaks and 

whenever if you need to get more information. 

Barbara Sorbara from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation is here. John 

Svensson from the Driving School Association of Ontario is here. And Dan Keegan from

Drivers.Com, and PDE publications, is here. 

The situation with driver education in Canada is a similar in some ways to that 

here and drastically different in some other ways. The country is structured quite a bit 

differently, and that provides kind of a background to some of the differences. There is 

virtually no federal role at all in highway and driver matters within the provinces. Canada 

56
is kind of a loose federation of provinces, and there’s no federal highway funding -- 

nothing analogous to 402 funds, or any central kind of carrot or stick to influence the 

provinces. In this kind of field having to do with drivers and regulation, it’s strictly a 

provincial responsibility. The provinces all have some sort of function in terms of 

regulations for driving schools and instructors, and that varies quite a bit from province 

to province. 

There is one aspect of the situation in Canada that’s really quite unique, and it’s 

an interesting one. I don’t want to go into it in great detail, but it could lead to some

interesting considerations. Four of the provinces have government insurance. That’s 

where automobile insurance is a monopoly that resides in a state-owned company. So 

you have one automobile insurer for the entire province. And think of the implications of 

that for driver education. They’re quite substantial, as we will see in a moment. 

In Canada the population is about the size of California. The economy is about the 

size of the economy of Texas. So I don’t have to point out to you that, while it is 

considered a high-income country, and is very highly motorized, per capita income is a 

little lowers than in the U.S. Motor vehicle ownership is a little lower. We have 

somewhat fewer kids having their own cars. However, we end up parking the sled dogs 

for a good part of the year and mostly we use our cars, just like Americans do. 

In terms of the sociopolitical climate for driver education, there is little 

coordination in the road safety business in general. Within the provinces responsibilities 

are divided up through different departments perhaps to a slightly greater degree than in 

the U.S. 

Driver education, as I suggested, varies quite a lot from province to province. 

There is a core, at least in some provinces, that closely resembles what you think of as 

driver education in the States, somewhere between 25 and 30 hours in the classroom and 

six to 12 hours in the car. In some provinces this could take place in a high school. 

There’s a very wide range of one might call market penetration in driver 

education, and in some jurisdictions that have had high school driver education that has 

gotten to be very high, or was at least very high. It has probably drifted down a little bit, 

as it has in the States. 

Canada has never had university programs in driver education, and that the 

academic and higher-level training function that took place in the U.S. never happened in 

Canada. There are no Canadian degrees in driver education. 

To jump back to the issue of market penetration for a minute, as an example of 

how wide that can be. In a couple of the provinces that have government insurance, the 

insurance companies run driver education in the high schools. I’ll come back to one of 

those in more detail in a minute. But they have very high levels of market penetration. 

Almost everybody in the past has gone through those programs. 

57
In contrast, in British Columbia in the middle ‘90s approximately 10 percent of

new drivers had some kind of formal instruction. The other 90 percent did not. So you 

can see that there was little driver education in the province at that time. 

The programs are highly diverse. There are incentives for students to take driver 

education in many provinces in terms of an insurance premium discount. And where 

there are graduated driver license systems, there is often some kind of time discount 

associated with that as well. 

The private driving school situation in Canada is interesting. I’ll get back to that 

in more detail later, but we have kind of the best and worst of what you can expect out of 

the private driving school. 

While we do have graduated driver licensing, there’s not a great deal of 

coordination in the sense that we don’t have any jurisdiction, with a staged program

where the driver education is staged with the graduated driver licensing system. One 

province, Nova Scotia, when they first put their graduated driver licensing system in, 

tried to implement a staged training requirement, but that failed due to complaints from

the public who basically saw it as having to take a full driver education course, which in 

many cases might cost $600 there, and then have to go back a little later and take another 

course and spend money again. And so it may be that the structure was not perfect, or 

maybe the market wasn’t prepared adequately, or maybe there’s a lesson to be learned -- 

that staged requirement isn’t necessarily all that easy to implement. 

In terms of private driver education delivery and support, we have a relatively 

unique organization based in Canada. It’s Young Drivers of Canada, which is one of the 

biggest driving schools in the world. It has about 165 franchise and company-owned 

locations in Canada. It’s been in business for more than 30 years. It has also developed its 

programs over the years and invested resources back into continuous improvement. It 

represents a pretty good example of how you might have a private driving school 

organization that doesn’t just chase the bottom line, I think, as Sean mentioned. 

However, we also have some of the opposite in private driving schools. Barbara 

was telling me that Ontario has about 450 approved private driving schools who are able 

to provide a certificate that provides an insurance discount and a time discount on the 

graduated driver licensing system. There are apparently both the best and the worse in 

that system. There is a whole range from very excellent schools down to those that 

basically sell certificates out of the trunks of cars in parking lots. The province has been, 

for a number of years, trying to sort out a way to better govern and regulate that business, 

apparently without much success to date. 

We also have another relatively unique Canadian private organization in 

Propulsion International, which is a publishing company that produces textbooks and 

other materials. And they provide those on a custom basis to many jurisdictions, both in 

the United States and Canada. 

58
We have the Road Safety Educators Association, which is a national organization 

that has especially concentrated on instructor preparation and qualification, and the 

Driving School Association of Ontario, represented here by John, that has been very 

strong in developing systems for course and school approval and regulation, which 

represents a model that can be used in other jurisdictions. 

Manitoba Public Insurance (MPI) is one of the public insurance companies that 

provide driver education in the high schools that takes place in the school, mostly after 

school. - The people who deliver it are employees of the insurance company. So it has 

somewhat tighter control over how the program is delivered than would be typical of 

high school driver education, where you’ve got teachers that work for school boards and 

there are layers between the managers of the driver education program and the people 

who are delivering it. And MPI has also done some research on their program and a 

couple of generations of updates in it. 

Another major private provider is the Alberta Motor Association, which is the 

Alberta affiliate of the Canadian Automobile Association (equivalent to the AAA in the 

U.S.). And they are the major provider of driver education courses in the province of 

Alberta. 

The other relatively unique organization for Canada is Drivers.Com, represented 

here by Dan Keegan. 

In terms of trends in Canada, I think we also see privatization. There has been a 

considerable reduction in the amount of high school driver education in some provinces, 

and in a lot of cases where there is still driver education in the high schools it is basically 

contracted out to a driving school. There is perhaps something of a counter-trend to this 

that I’ve heard about recently, where some school boards being squeezed financially are 

beginning to see driver education as something not to back out of but to use as a kind of 

profit center, where they’ll charge a substantial fee and then contract the delivery of the 

program out to somebody who delivers it at a somewhat lower fee and then take a profit 

off the top of it. 

Another trend is what we might call integration. I might call it sort of vertical 

integration, where Ford Motor Company of Canada bought Young Drivers of Canada, or 

a controlling interest in it, and in that sense went into the driver education business in a 

big way. 

What we have not had in Canada, and that has taken place, as a business trend in 

the U.S., is the consolidation of the industry in the sense of some company going along 

and buying up driving schools as Top Driver has done. 

Another integration trend is that of integrating assessment and training, and the 

blurring of the line between, who is a driving instructor, and who is a driving assessor. 

And this seems to be going fastest, maybe, in the field of senior drivers, but at some point 

we’ll see something like that perhaps in beginner driver education as well, as 

privatization of driver testing progresses. 

59
There’s been a lot of talk about technology, and we’ve got a couple of trends that 

seem to be happening relatively fast. TeenSmart is being adopted by the Driving School 

Association of Ontario, and I think you’ll hear more about TeenSmart from Richard 

Harkness tomorrow. 

And Young Drivers of Canada is also using another kind of computer-based 

technology that addresses cognitive matters that comes out of human factors research in 

Israel. It’s part of a large package of things that come under what’s called CogniFit, of 

which Young Drivers is going to implement the DriveFit portion. 

There’s other interest certainly in simulation and computer-based assessment and 

training, and the training not just of driver performance per se, but also the assessment 

and training of the underlying skills, such as field of view and length of working 

memory. And that’s the sort of thing that DriveFit tries to address. 

In terms of extending the influence of drivers beyond the driver education 

program itself, we have a relatively new organization, the Smart Risk Foundation, which 

is a very broadly based organization that comes out of the public health/injury 

prevention field. 

And a relatively new development along that sort of health promotion/injury 

prevention kind of process is something that’s developing in Ontario called IDrive, which 

involved the province, and the Smart Risk Foundation. And we do also have a fair 

amount of chapters of MADD and Students Against Drunk Driving (SADD). 

In terms of R & D support for driver education, we have a strong history but a 

relatively small number of players. The Traffic Injury Research Foundation (TIRF) we 

heard about earlier, in the work of Dan Mayhew, Doug Beirness, and Herb Simpson, 

who have been very strong in DUI work and graduated licensing and also review work in 

driver education. They have produced what must be the ultimate for-all-time review of 

the analyses and reanalyzes forth of the DeKalb experiment. They did recommend in 

their review rather strongly against using time discounts in graduated licensing systems 

for people who take driver education, on the basis that, without some kind of proven 

effect, if you use the driver education to permit more exposure, then perhaps you’re not 

doing right the thing. 

Human Factors North, Allison Smiley’s company, has carried out a wide 

spectrum of R&D in human factors and road safety. We’ve just done with them a review 

of graduated license research, driver education research, and some other kinds of driver 

training, such as advanced training and driver improvement, for Foundation MAIF in 

France. That review should be available shortly. 

John Svensson’s company, TRIADD, has done various things in driver education 

over the years, and most in assessing the possible entry of another simulator company 

into the business. 

60
And the last one on the list there is my company. And we won’t go into a detail 

about that right now, but that’s the next slide. 

While we don’t have much of a central function in terms of support of driver 

education, Transport Canada has always had a rather strong research and development 

(R&D) function within it, and certainly in terms of problem definition research and other 

things, they provide strong input. 

The Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has always had a strong driver 

research unit, and it is involved in some work on their driver education program at the 

moment, as I understand it. 

The Ontario Ministry of Transportation has a long history of R&D and has always 

maintained an R&D unit, and it has provided some strong input to all kinds of driver 

issues over the years. 

We have in Canada some university-based researchers who have done various 

kinds of driver work. Jerry Wilde you may know as the inventor of the Theory of Risk 

Homeostasis. He is the person who pointed out to us that there’s more to life just than 

safety, and that we need to structure safety programs accordingly. 

Mary Chipman at the University of Toronto has done a lot of work on driver 

records and exposure to risk, and Peter Roth out in Alberta has done problem definition 

work and defined a bit of the sociology of driving and of driver education as well. 

In terms of my own recent involvement in driver education, it really started with a 

paper that Northport did for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation in 1993, which was a 

comprehensive review of behavior change as you might apply it to road users. And we 

did a broad review of driver education research there. 

And that led to the next opportunity, which was from the AAA Foundation for 

Traffic Safety in 1995, where we produced what was called the Curriculum Outline, 

which has had some influence in what’s happened in driver education since then. 

Because of that project, we had an opportunity to do some work in British 

Columbia -- to create a curriculum standard and then an administrative model for how to 

encourage and regulate driver education. 

Based on all these other things, we had the opportunity to develop the classroom

curriculum for Top Driver when they were getting started up. And then, after that, had 

the chance to do a broad review of the literature in support of the NHTSA project to 

produce a computer-based instruction module for young drivers’ decision-making. And 

that paper looks at cognitive development and quite a broad range of issues as they might 

be applied to driver education. 

For Manitoba Public Insurance, we have done what’s called a longitudinal 

evaluation study of their existing driver education program that consisted of a very 

61
comprehensive survey of their graduates and of people who learned to drive other ways, 

as well as parents and the general public. And that report should be available fairly 

shortly as well. 

We’ve also been involved in the integration and consolidation strategy in driver 

education with Top Driver, with the Ford Young Driver integration. On our own 

initiative we have tried to promote and implement a vision of a kind of cradle-to-grave 

driver education, which starts with novice driver education. It would progress through 

multiple stages of beginner driver education. We see a need for driver education for life 

because, whether we like it or not, technology is advancing so rapidly in the vehicle fleet 

that either in your next new vehicle or the one after that, you’re basically going to have to 

be trained how to use it. So we see the integration of driver education into a lifelong 

process that involves learning how to use new vehicles and also using those opportunities 

to advance other kinds of driving skills as the direction that driver education needs to go. 

And I think I’m going to stop at that point. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Stefan Siegrist 

MS. BISHOP: Our next speaker is Dr. Stefan Siegrist from Switzerland who 

studied at the University of Bern with the main subject of psychology, specifically 

focusing on social psychology, general psychology, and criminal law. He earned his 

Ph.D. there in 1992. 

From 1988 to 1996, he served as head of the Training Department at the Swiss 

Council for Accident Prevention, and since 1997 he has been head of the Research 

Department, which carries out safety-related research into road traffic, sport, and leisure 

activities. 

DR. SIEGRIST: Ladies and gentlemen, it’s a great pleasure for me to appear a 

presentation on driver licensing systems in Europe. I’d like to thank NTSB and mainly 

Jennifer Bishop for inviting me, and I hope I can give if not a comprehensive but at least 

a comprehensible picture on licensing systems, experiences, existing evidence, and 

perspective in Europe. 

Please be aware I’m not an European Union (EU) official, so I’m not a 

representative of the EU as it was announced in the program. 

But this presentation is based on a number of EU research projects namely on 

GADGET, BASIC and TRAINER, and I would like to thank the main coauthors which 

are namely Keskinen from the University of Finland. Then also, Neils Peter Gregersen 

from Sweden and Helen Groot from the Driver Testing Association Europe in Belgium.

62
Which are the contents of my presentation? First, I want to give you a typology of 

driver training and licensing systems in Europe, and then I talk about underlying or 

additional characteristics and reference models of European perspective. Then, the third 

step is the quality and effectiveness of European models. We have to choose the right 

outcome measure, and I’m going to talk about some studies. One of them already was 

mentioned this morning. The fourth step is then the future perspective; what should be 

done and what is planned on a European level. 

I’m not going to talk very much about crash and injury data, but only one picture. 

And I think from a public health point of view, it is a relevant picture. We see here car 

occupant fatalities per 1 million inhabitants in different countries. 

First of all, you see that 18- to 20-year-old drivers, the scale goes up to 350. On 

the other hand, you have the more experienced drivers, 25- to 64-years, and the scale 

goes up to 140. 

You see that all countries you would find on this line, which not have young 

drivers over risk. And the flatter the line is, the greater is the young drivers’ problem. 

You see here especially Germany had a relatively low problem, but on a high scale you 

find in Spain. Here, on the average, you find United States. But it is the public health 

point of view. It is not controlled by mileage. 

And if you ever have problems to separate between Switzerland and Sweden, I 

can tell you it’s even worse than you thought. You see here that both are at the same

point. 

So let me talk about the overall systems. First, there is the single-phase system

that is applied in about 10 European countries. In this model, a student takes his or her 

training at a driving school and private or by combining the two. After having completed 

the training, the theory and practical test is passed. This results in the acquisition of a 

driver license. 

After the acquisition of the driving license, there are no further restrictions. A full 

and permanent license is issued. One example is the Netherlands. 

Then we have systems with a probationary license. At the very beginning it’s 

about the same, but then, for a certain period of time immediately following obtaining the 

driving license, in most cases for two years the driving license is a probationary license 

without restrictions. This means that during the probationary period the student is subject 

to a number of special measures in case of violation of the traffic regulations. In some

countries this is done in form of a penalty point system, giving points or taking them

away from the driver when he or she commits traffic offenses. 

So this is an example of a second phase where we combine education and 

enforcement. One example is Germany; another one is France, where they also have 

restrictions mainly in speed. 

63
The next possibility is two-phase systems with a provisional license. This is a 

more and more popular system. Now it is applied in about six European countries, for 

example in Finland. 

Here, the very beginning of the system for the student is about the same as in 

those mentioned before. But then, within a certain period after having obtained a driving 

license, the student has to follow a second phase of theory and/or practical training. This 

training can consist of various elements. It might be skid training, nighttime driving, 

hazard perception, or new methods of self-assessment and so on. I come to this back 

later. 

The following of a training program is a precondition for obtaining a full license 

after a certain period of time. Usually it’s two; sometimes it’s three years. 

And then, you know, the graduated driving license systems. They are not applied 

in Europe. 

Further characteristics of European models. First of all, we can notice that we 

have a short education of professional teachers. I don’t know how it is in the United 

States, but only Sweden and Finland have full-time training for professional trainers, 

which exceeds one year. Usually it’s full-time training for about six months. 

Then, the combination of layman and professional instruction is very common. 

Sometimes these two elements are very well coordinated; sometimes they are parallel. 

We have few restrictions, like nighttime curfew, speed limits, and so on. Safety 

experts are in favor of restrictions, but in many European countries they are not accepted 

on a political level. 

The minimum age for practicing mostly is 18. Sweden, Norway, France, and 

Austria are an exception. You can start practicing there at 16, but the minimum licensing 

age in most European countries is 18. 

I’m not going into the details of basic training. I think they are quite the same

everywhere: theory training, traffic regulations, but later on also perception, as an 

example. Then the contents of practical training not very surprising: some basic 

maneuvering skills and mastery of traffic situations. 

In recent times the contents of driver training are being extended. For example, an 

extended training period under protected conditions. Then, mainly in second-phase 

training, new contents are being introduced. First of all, the analysis of dangerous 

situations while driving alone. This is a new post-test training content. 

Then, self-assessment, improving hazard perception, motivational aspects of 

dangerous driving, and in part -- depends on the program -- also improving driving 

techniques. 

64
This development was very much pushed by a model by Keskinen, and all he’s 

trying to show is that there are different hierarchical levels of driving. And usually, basic 

driving training covers vehicle maneuvering and mastery of traffic situations referring to 

knowledge and skills but also risk-increasing factors. 

The point he’s trying to make is that in driver training, we should focus much 

more on higher levels and on self-assessment. This means that your absolute level of 

performance is not as important as the driver’s awareness of the performance level he has 

reached. 

And additionally, he says, second-phase driving alone is a new experience after 

the test. Then of course contextual and motivational aspects very much influence driving 

and risks and therefore driver training in the second phase without a doubt has to deal 

with these aspects. But how to do that; we come to that question later. 

So once more, the trends in European driver training. There is a tendency to 

extend the accompanied pre-test driving period by introducing more layman instruction 

and lower minimal practicing age. This is a trend in about six countries. 

Then, multi-phase systems are becoming more popular, and professional training 

to prepare candidates to accompanied driving is increased. Furthermore, the integration 

of demerit point systems and driver improvement programs into the driver licensing 

systems is becoming more and more popular. 

There also is awareness that driving tests should be improved in the sense that at 

least they should cover the relevant and taught subjects. 

Now, the evidence. The quality and effectiveness of European models. We have 

the same methodological problem you have. It is nearly not possible to produce any 

prospective case control studies, so we mainly have before and after studies as new 

programs usually are introduced in a whole country. 

But there is a growing number of before and after studies referring to traffic 

safety outcome. Several studies did not sufficiently control for self-selection bias; some

did. Some studies insufficiently controlled for further confounding factors. And I would 

say that the description of an evidence-based best-practice model for Europe is not 

possible by now, but I’m going to try to make some recommendations that are researchbased. 

Before I’m going to present the studies, I want to talk about the relevant outcome

measure. You see, from a public health point of view, the relevant outcome measure is 

injured and killed per population and year. With this respect, changes in exposure are not 

relevant except if lifetime exposure is concerned. So whenever you compare a system, 

one starting at 14, the other one at 18, you have to be aware that the first group has a 

lifetime exposure that is four years longer than the other group. 

65
But in order to analyze a system’s potential to produce safe driving and to control 

for negative side effects, for example social inequalities if some people just can’t afford a 

new driver training system and you have less licensed drivers -- in order to control for 

these things, an additional outcome measure is needed, and it is injured and killed per 

license holder and year. In the different studies in the United States and Europe, and 

outcome measure is not always the same, which makes it also somewhat difficult to draw 

conclusions. 

First, I want to mention this Denmark study by Carstensen in 1986. They 

extended their driver training, and one of the relevant changes was they introduced new 

contents in driver training, mainly defensive training and hazard perception training. I 

can’t explain the details now. 

But the process evaluation showed that there were some problems in coordinating 

theoretical and practical parts. But on the outcome level, they noticed that there was a 

decrease in injury accident involvement of 18- to 19-year-olds by seven percent. They 

also controlled for confounding factors, which are general accident trend, population size, 

and so on. So I agree that this is quite a good study. 

Then, Glaad in Norway. It’s an old study, but it tells us something what we 

should not do. In a second phase, they added some technical training on a slippery 

surface and a dark driving course also. And the result was: no effect for females but there 

was some negative effects for males: an increase in accidents due to slippery surface 

course, a decrease in accidents due to dark driving course. But slippery surface courses 

seemed not to be an adequate measure in the second phase of driver training. 

Then Meewes and Weiss Brodf based from Germany, they analyzed a provisional 

system. Due to political reasons, they had no chance to introduce also a second-phase 

training. So it’s only that enforcement issue in a second phase, but nevertheless they had 

a reduction in crashes, not in injury crashes but in crashes by five percent. 

Then, Sagberg in Norway. This is a newer study. They lowered minimal 

practicing age from 17 to 16 and at the same time they had a removal of geographical 

restrictions on lay instructions. So they wanted to boost layman instruction, but the 

process analysis showed that there was only a modest increase in lay-instructed driving 

by about 10 percent. And the outcome was there were significantly more crashes while 

training during the first months of training. 

Then, in a Swedish study, they also lowered the minimum practicing age, but in 

Sweden they have coordinated layman training with professional driver training very 

well. The process analysis showed that 50 percent made use of early practicing, and there 

were social differences. Those who attended this voluntary possibility were of higher 

education. Private practicing increased by a factor 2.5. 

After controlling for most confounders, for example general accident trend and 

social background, they noticed that there was a reduction in accidents per thousand 

license holders by 19 percent. So there are some contradictory results if you look at 

66
Norway and then Sweden, but I think we can explain the difference to come back to this 

point. 

I’m not going to talk about Luxembourg, but then Finland because Finland in my

view has a very good two-phase model. They had new elements introduced, and I mainly 

want to show you what they did here. 

They introduced new contents as motivational aspects of driving false new 

methods: self-evaluation, feedback methods, and reflection upon personal experiences. 

There were some positive results on the accident level not in the first year after training 

but during year two to four. 

So I think there is some evidence that the following elements entail safety 

benefits. First of all, the introduction of a second phase including training and minimal 

restrictions seems to be positive. And then increased training under protected conditions; 

but only giving the possibility to have longer training by lowering the minimal training 

age is not enough. Contents in second-phase training besides mastery of vehicular and 

traffic situations should cover also driving motives, risky behavior, and self-perception is 

necessary and might have a positive outcome. 

Also layman-accompanied driving is important but it should be integrated in a 

training system. I mentioned that point before. And the integration of improved 

pedagogical measures is necessary. The different elements have to be coordinated in a 

sophisticated way, which is not always the case in European driver training systems. 

Nevertheless, there are some open questions. If we extend the training contents 

and if it comes to social aspects, motivational aspects, you all know that these are the 

relevant reasons for risky behavior and for a lot of accidents. 

But how should we teach it? And new methods like self-evaluation increase the 

demands on the instructors. And in Switzerland at least, we really discuss whether 

driving instructors are able to do that. Even if they are well educated they deal mainly 

with cars and the techniques how to drive a car. Maybe other professionals, like social 

workers, teachers, and so on, should work in this field. But it is only a debate starting 

now. 

Another question: which is the minimal amount of accompanied training? There 

seems to be a minimal threshold, as the Norwegian example shows us. 

Then, which is the effect of different second phase training contents and methods?

Only some knowledge is available here, but there are some European studies running 

now. 

Which are the requirements to an effective two-phase model? Let’s try drawing 

some conclusions, based on evidence as far as possible. 

67
In the first phase you need a structured learning of basic requirements of driving. 

You need accompanied driving, which is as long as possible and an extended training 

period under protected conditions. So we have to put there some restrictions as you do it 

in the U.S.A. 

And then you have the test, and the contents of the test must be extended and 

adapted to what was taught before, mainly a perceptions test should be adopted. 

In the second phase, it is very important to combine education and enforcement. It 

is much more important than only increasing the number of lessons. 

Referring to post-test experience in the second-phase driving lessons is very 

important. And the methodology should be more sophisticated. We have to change 

attitudes, and this may be achieved by self-evaluative methods and other meta-cognitive 

skills. So we need meetings, group discussions, and so on. Then, in a follow-up period, 

we need some further low threshold interventions. 

Now, to come to an end, I want to show you what is going on in the European 

Union. First, improvement of driver licensing system is one of the priorities of the EU 

Commission’s road safety action plan, though it is a statement and they also support 

some actions. For example, they want to improve the driver licensing directive aiming at 

standardized increased requirements on driving tests in order to influence contents and 

quality of driver training. And they want to develop standardized minimal requirements 

for driving instructors, also. 

Concrete projects that are going on. There is a big project in six new memberStates aiming at the evaluation of the second phase of driver training. And finally, the 

European standards for driver testing are being given out by now. 

That’s it. Thank you very much for your attention. 

(Applause) 

Question and Answer Session 

MS. BISHOP: Mr. Lonero, you mentioned several different programs that are in 

place in Canada to teach novice drivers. What do you think are some of the most 

effective programs, and what do these programs comprise of?

MR. LONERO: Well, that’s a tough question. The high school programs in 

Manitoba and Saskatchewan have been very well looked after in terms of reasonable 

administrative control and some attention to revising the curricula and so forth. So, 

they’ve at least had some kind of central management over the years. So I think they’re a 

model in that sense. Somewhat analogous to a few States that have done something 

similar, Oregon and Washington for instance. 

68
On the private side, Young Drivers of Canada represents a strong model. One 

person has run it basically for about 30 years. And I’m not sure how easy it would be to 

precisely replicate it elsewhere, because of the unique characteristics of that one person. 

But it’s a private franchise operation, and is therefore basically replicable. It has fairly 

tight control over the training, retraining and monitoring of the instructors, and of the 

curriculum, which gets updated and developed over time. 

So, if off the top of my head, I had to say that there were a couple of things that 

you could look to for possible examples of where to go, it would be those examples. 

MS. BISHOP: Dr. Siegrist, you touched on driving tests. Here in the States I 

know when I got my driver’s license, I had to drive around the block, stop at one traffic 

light, and pull straight into one parking space. It was pretty easy, and from what I’ve 

heard in some States, it’s not much more difficult now. 

Are the tests more difficult in the European Union or in some of the countries 

there? And if so, do you think that has an effect on the quality of drivers and the safety of 

new drivers?

DR. SIEGRIST: Yes, I think it’s not the test itself that has a positive effect from

safety but a test has an effect on the driver training because driver trainers and the 

administration is forced to have a minimal training in order to increase the possibility to 

pass the test. 

And the situation in Europe is that in fact most countries have driving tests, which 

are longer, and maybe more demanding. For example, 45 minutes driving is very 

common and you have to cover several traffic situations. In some countries, even 

nighttime driving is tested. And I think it is more comprehensive also. The theoretical test 

takes one hour. 

MS. BISHOP: Mr. McLaurin, you mentioned a credentialing program for driver’s 

education instructors in a national model for the non-commercial driving test. Are there 

any plans to require all driving instructors to be qualified? This is from someone in the 

audience. As they understand it, in some States almost anyone with no relevant training 

can simply set up in business as an instructor. 

MR. McLAURIN: You know, as many States as there are, there are as many 

requirements for training, certification, licensing. Sometimes within States you have 

different requirements from county to county. 

So are there any national plans for certification? I doubt it. Until the States come

to us and say, we need federal direction on this particular subject, it’s not going to come. 

It’s just not the political atmosphere right now with the current administration. 

But, having said that, I will say it’s needed because I talk with people every week 

that have this great new program that they’re going to march out and they’re going to 

69
teach kids and they’re going to save the world from all our problems, and all they need is 

that big check from the federal government. 

And the first thing out of my mouth generally is, well, what sort of qualifications 

do you have to instruct driver training? And they say, well, I’ve been driving all my life. 

And I say, well, you know, so have I. It’s one of those things. 

So we need certification. We need standards. There are standards for everything 

out there, and driver education certainly is no exception. And I think probably one of the 

biggest things that’s started to really drive us into a decline was trying to find football 

coaches or basketball coaches that had an open curricula for one hour, and they started 

teaching driver education based on no educational background or no training at all. 

Here’s the book. Everybody knows how to train. All you do is develop your lesson plan 

and go. 

So we definitely need it. We need the standards and we need State standards as 

well as federal standards, more than likely. 

MS. BISHOP: Dr. Siegrist, do you know why most European countries have 

selected 18 as the minimum driving age? Are there any other types of vehicles that 

people can drive under 18, and are there any accident involvement statistics on those?

DR. SIEGRIST: In most European countries people under 18 are allowed to drive 

small motorcycles. The reason why some countries lower the minimal practicing age for 

car is that they want to increase training under protected conditions. 

There are historical reasons why most European countries have 18 as a minimal 

driving age. Nowadays there are scientific arguments: age is a dominant time factor. 

Another reason may be that public transport in this mostly narrow countries is quite 

good. So there was just no need to have young people driving a car at 14 or 15 because 

they take the bus to school. 

MS. BISHOP: Mr. McLaurin, with regard to home schooling, many parents have 

indeed set a bad example of driving for 15 years. Isn’t it like smoking for 15 years and 

asking them not to smoke? Would it be best to have them augment a quality drivertraining program?

MR. McLAURIN: Oh, absolutely. I tell parents every time where I go and talk to 

them that you’re a role model. You’ve taught your child how to walk, how to talk, how to 

eat, and in most horrifying cases, how to dress. And certainly driver training is no 

exception. 

And I tell them they’re role models. They need to be considered, as a role model 

because, as my daughter Erin says when she pokes her head over the seat and says, Dad, 

isn’t that just a little bit too fast, they’re watching you the whole time. And when you’re 

screaming and cussing and driving aggressively -- especially males think that they’re 

70
better drivers than their fathers even at the ripe old age of 17 -- they’re going to learn that 

from you as well. 

They learn drinking habits, they’ll learn smoking habits, and they’re going to 

learn driving habits. So I think that is a very good suggestion. 

MS. BISHOP: This is for anyone. Are you aware of anyone doing an effective 

vision training program, cognitive training, or speed of recognition training program? 

MR. McLAURIN: Not to my knowledge. 

MR. LONERO: I think that going into that kind of field is what the DriveFit is 

intended to do. And in TeenSmart as well, so those are the two examples that come to 

mind for me. 

DR. SIEGRIST: When it comes to a vision-training program, for example, we 

discussed that some years ago. The idea of training effective visioning is -- is a good 

idea, but you can’t really train if as it develops according to experience and cognitive 

skills. 

The point is that you have to make them experienced drivers and then vision is 

going to be better. So I don’t think there is much sense in such programs. It is much more 

important to make them more accompanied experience in the car. 

MR. LONERO: Could I add a supplementary to that? I think it should be clear 

that this is sort of a second stage kind of issue. 

I also forgot to mention, the AAA Foundation developed a driver’s education 

program, which has some evaluation results on it as well. 

MS. BISHOP: Okay. Dr. Siegrist, what interactive or technology-based methods 

are used in evaluating or identifying high-risk or risky behavior in young drivers?

DR. SIEGRIST: At a driving test?

MS. BISHOP: Either in a driving test or through the education process. 

DR. SIEGRIST: In training mainly feedback methods in order to make them

aware which learning stage they are and where the problems are. Then self-evaluation 

and risk awareness meta-cognitive skills. In a driving test it is possible to integrate 

hazard-perception tests. 

MS. BISHOP: What additional opportunities are there for corporate America to 

support progress in driver’s education?

MR. McLAURIN: I think primarily partnerships, partnerships with the public 

schools. You’ve got a captive audience in the public schools. So I think that you’re 

seeing a little bit more involvement these days having high school-aged children and 

71
college-aged children in my family that the corporations are realizing first of all that they 

have a fairly fertile ground to harvest there. 

But I think the most important thing is to get these partnerships going with the 

State governments, with the Department of Education, and with the high schools. 

MS. BISHOP: And finally, when will the AAMVA curriculum and the TeenParent Guide be available, and how will it be distributed? 

MR. McLAURIN: We’re certainly hoping to have it done and available sometime 

in early ‘04. And it’ll be distributed, I’m hoping, through the motor vehicle 

administrators’ offices, through the high schools, and the American Driver and Traffic 

Safety Education Association, and available, hopefully, through the website at the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as well. 

72
State Programs 

Presentation by Elizabeth Weaver 

MR. VAN ETTEN: Our first panelist is going to be making a presentation is 

Elizabeth Weaver. Elizabeth was a graduate from Texas A & M University with masters 

in educational technology. She was with the Motorcycle Safety Foundation for over 18 

years. And during 13 of those years, she was the director of education. 

In that capacity, she was responsible for the development and maintenance of all 

motorcycle safety education and training materials for the novice and experienced 

motorcyclist, course delivery standards, and the training and certification of instructors 

and chief instructors. 

She is a coauthor of the 10th edition of the “Skills and Application Workbook” 

for the Drive Right textbook, and will be coauthor of the next edition of the “Drive Right 

Student Education Textbook.” 

Ms. Weaver is a past president of the Association for State Supervisors for Safety 

and Driver Education, and is president-elect of the American Driver and Traffic Safety 

Education Association. She is currently the State director for driver education in Idaho, 

where she provides support for over 350 driver education teachers, 110 school districts, 

and 35 commercial schools. 

MS. WEAVER: I am absolutely delighted to be here today, especially to be 

sharing this podium with my colleagues who, like I do, work with State programs for 

driver education and training. 

I’m especially delighted to be here, too, to talk to you about our driver education 

program in Idaho and to share with you some of our strengths and our success. I want to 

assure you that driver education and training is alive in Idaho. Unfortunately, many 

States lost their State funding and support back in the 1980s, but we have survived. 

Today I’m going to briefly talk with you about Idaho’s future training, our 

curriculum standards and improvements, our driver education laws and program

structure. Along the way I’m going to point out to you our strengths and our weaknesses 

with the 10 recommendations that I have that I hope would help to strengthen driver 

education and training not only in Idaho but nationally. 

73 Part 5
I’d like to start first by sharing with you a little bit about Idaho. Idaho is very 

much a rural State. Our average per capita income is just a little over $17,000. We only 

have 1.3 million people. That’s one-third the size of Los Angeles County. 

Our constitution requires us to have a balanced budget every year. And in spite of 

our economical struggles, the support for public school driver education continues to be 

very strong. 

Now, you probably have heard about one of our most popular products that we 

produce in Idaho. Last year our farmers produced 13.8 billion pounds of tasty spuds. 

That’s enough for two spuds for each living soul, man, woman, and child on the face of 

this planet. 

To give you some idea of the size of Idaho, we’re 497 miles long. So it would 

take you from the bottom of Oregon all the way to the top of Washington to travel the 

length of our State. And across it, it’s 305 miles. And we have very few interstates that 

connect us. 

During 2002, we had 110 school districts offer driver education and training. In 

our most rural areas we had 17 school districts that trained less than 25 students each in 

that one time period. And many of these rural areas have no signs, signals, or markings. 

They’re lucky to have one stop sign. 

Ninety-four percent of our roads are classified as rural. And this higher 

percentage of rural roadways in Idaho may account for the fact that Idaho’s fatality rate is 

unfortunately consistently higher than the national fatality rate. 

We are striving very hard in Idaho to improve our driver education and training 

programs, but without a national standard telling us what we need to do and what 

students must know and what they must be able to do to successfully complete driver 

education and training, States are left on their own to establish or not establish content 

and delivery standards. 

In 1995 when I was hired as the driver education specialist for this State, the 

curriculum guide that was in use at the time was developed in 1977. That’s when we had 

a lot of federal support for driver education and funds were going to the States and it was 

used to develop our curriculum guide in Idaho. It was updated a little bit in 1990, and 

when I took over the job in 1995, I retired it. 

Now existing teachers are trained and updated with what I consider to be one of 

the top driver education and training standards in the country. We’re using the zonecontrol curriculum that was developed by the National Institute for Driver Behavior -- 

many of you know Fred Mottola -- and also, ADTSEA’s and the National Institute for 

Driver Behavior’s standards for in-car performance. 

Idaho teachers are helping us to develop a model curriculum guide. It uses a 

lesson plan format, which they prefer to have, so that teachers can customize this 

74
curriculum guide for their use. The NIDB and the ADTSEA standards are helping us 

develop a good foundation for educating and training teachers and our novice drivers. 

You know, the traditional classroom lecture methods that we have used so long in 

our schools no longer work with teen drivers today. Our teens need to be visually, 

mentally, and physically stimulated and challenged. They need to be stimulated, excited, 

and turned on before they want to learn. 

However, unfortunately, there are still some teachers in Idaho, and I’m sure 

across our country, which is very comfortably set in their ways to continue to teach 

traditionally with out-dated information and techniques, and there are those who do not 

teach our best practices. But Idaho teachers are improving their classroom instruction by 

replacing the lecture and video format with classroom activities that engage our students 

and makes learning interesting, fun, and relevant. 

The behind-the-wheel laboratories are where our students demonstrate what they 

have learned in the classroom. The Skid Monster is used in two of our school districts. 

And we have two monsters in waiting for teacher training and placement. 

We recently adopted new rules for Idaho public schools that have resulted in the 

development of 45 essential knowledge and skills that public school programs must 

include in their curriculum. Topic 7 of these 45 skills -- knowledge and skills -- will kind 

of give you an example of what our essential knowledge and skills are shaping up to be. 

Commercial driving schools are not affected by the new rules, and teens are going 

through commercial driving schools that are not required to meet any minimum standards 

established by the State for passing or for failing. 

My first recommendation. I believe we need national standards for what youthful 

drivers should learn during driver education and all public and commercial driving 

schools should meet training with assessments for passing that. 

Forty years ago, the Idaho legislature established the Idaho Driver Education 

Program. The law created the Driver Education Program to be administered by the State 

Department of Education along with a full-time traffic safety professional, and I served in 

that capacity. 

In 1963, driver education was part of the regular school day. And today, like so 

many other places across our country, it is primarily a before- and after-school programs 

and during the summertime. 

Our 1963 standards: 30 hours of classroom. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Six hours 

behind the wheel, six hours of observation, and six weeks or 42 days was the standard in 

1963, and I’m sad to say it is the standard today. Nothing has changed, except for one 

thing. The new regulations that were adopted by law this year for the public schools, 

summer classes can be conducted in 30 days, but this is only during the summer. 

75
The issues of course content, length, and delivery have been discussed and 

reported upon by researchers, traffic safety organizations, and federal agencies for many, 

many years. During a January 2001 Transportation Research Board (TRB) meeting, Dr. 

Allan Williams of IIHS, said there should not be an expectation that brief inputs like this 

will be able to change the attitudes and the motivation that are known to be so influential 

in shaping driving styles and crash involvement. 

Secondly, teaching people how to drive necessarily takes priority over trying to 

instill safety motivation. And it is very likely that the audience is not very motivated to 

attend to admonitions concerning safe driving. 

You know what? Many agree with Dr. Williams. We have been living with 

outdated, ineffective standards for way, way, way too long. We’ve all known that the 

traditional 30 hours of classroom, six hours behind the wheel over a short period of time 

is woefully inadequate to change the behavior or motivate safe driving behavior of our 

young teen drivers. 

As a result, States are not motivated to improve driver education without a 

national effort directing that change. 

I believe we must treat driver education and training as a national priority by 

establishing national standards and support for driver education and training. 

Idaho’s commercial school laws were created in 1988. It provides an alternative 

choice for young drivers through the public schools. Youthful drivers in the commercial 

driving environment must again meet 30 hours of classroom, six hours of behind the 

wheel, six hours of observation, again in six weeks of instruction. 

However, I want to point out that the standards for the commercial schools as 

compared to public schools are very different. The State does not provide standards for 

adult students in a commercial driving school, nor is any information collected about 

commercial driving schools’ adult training. 

Since 1995, commercial schools have grown by 63 percent, from 13 to 35 

schools, and their student enrollment has increased by 59 percent. Funding for the State’s 

driver education program comes from driver licensing fees. With these fees we support 

the State program and the State reimburses the public school programs, and we do it this 

way. 

For the public schools, we will reimburse up to $110 per student. And for your 

information, because I know we all like to know these facts, the average cost per student 

is $224, which is a lot less than it is in many other States. The average fee charged is 

$77.40. The average State reimbursement is $106, and the average instructor hourly rate 

is $15.93. 

76
The commercial school fees range from anywhere from $199 to $395. The State 

reimbursement to the school districted makes driver education and training affordable for 

the majority who cannot afford the commercial school prices. 

Driver education and training costs have increased significantly since 1963. Free 

loan vehicles are a thing of the past. You very rarely ever hear of anybody getting free 

loan vehicles from their local dealerships. However, in Idaho we still have two 

dealerships that provide these vehicles to the local school districts at no cost. 

When schools are set with fixed budgets or reduced budgets, something’s going to 

go. And in the case of driver education, out with the new cars. New cars with technology 

that we would certainly like to see our teachers and our teens in those cars. Out goes 

updated textbooks. Can’t afford those when the budget is reduced or gone. And out goes 

the classroom technology. And you know what? Driver education and training cannot be 

dollar-driven. 

By increasing public school funds, we would be required to go back through the 

legislature to have those funds raised. And you know what? In these times of economical 

challenges, it’s just not going to happen. Not this year; maybe not next year. 

We now have 400 public school teachers teaching driver education within our 

State. And we have 69 commercial schoolteachers. And there are many of the 

commercial schoolteachers that come from the public school programs. 

During our fiscal year of 2003, we trained over 17,500 in driver education. That’s 

about 86 percent of the eligible students took driver education. Twelve thousand eight 

hundred of these kids went through the public schools, which is about 73 percent, and 

4700 went through the commercial schools, which is about 27 percent of the eligible 

students. 

And unfortunately, today only six school districts offer driver education during 

the regular school day. It is predominantly a before and after school and a summertime 

program. 

However, over the last two years, we have had two small rural school districts put 

driver education back into the regular school-day program. We only have one full-time 

driver education teacher within the public schools. Far cry from what it used to be. 

By eliminating driver education from the regular school day, driver education has 

extended the school day for our teachers and our kids. And it’s left this very critical, 

important program with less than desirable schedules. 

During the school year, unfortunately, classes will start at 6 a.m. in the morning 

and go till 9:00 at night, or even later. We have fatigued students and we have very 

fatigued teachers. And you know what? That’s not a good way -- it’s not a conducive 

environment for learning. 

77
I recommend, to improve the quality and delivery of driver education, driver 

education needs to be put back into the regular school-day program of instruction. 

Driver education in the regular school-day program provides the opportunity to 

link transportation safety to other risk-related prevention efforts, such as substance abuse 

or violence prevention. The opportunities are there within the public schools for us to do 

a much, much better job than what we have been doing in driver education. 

Kids in Idaho can be licensed at age 17, or earlier if they complete driver 

education. At age 15, they can complete driver education. We do have a GDL law, which 

I’ll talk about more in a moment, which requires an additional four months of practice 

with a supervising driver, 50 hours of which 10 hours must be at night. And it is 

considered that this early licensure is essential for the mobility of our youthful drivers. 

State driver licensing tests have often been used as the criteria for measuring the 

success of driver education. And you know what? If we don’t know what a youthful 

driver should learn and what they should be able to do, how in the world can we ever 

know what to test them for?

Youthful drivers trained and licensed in Idaho, and I strongly believe this, should 

meet the same performance criteria that is required by every other State in the country. 

Driver licensing tests should be tightly linked to driver licensing skills assessments. I do 

believe that every State’s youthful driver licensing test should measure what is taught in a 

comprehensive driver education program based upon national standards for the content 

and the delivery of driver education and training. 

And it’s my belief that the AAMVA should establish the standards for youthful 

driver testing for States’ use in the United States. And I see some shaking of heads. I 

know that would be difficult to do. 

We have teacher training standards in Idaho that are different whether you teach 

for the public schools or for the commercial driving schools. For the public schools, in 

order to teach driver education in the before- and the after-day program and those few 

instances where they are part of the regular school-day program, you must have a valid 

Idaho teaching certificate. The endorsement, unfortunately, only requires four semester 

credits to become endorsed in driver education. All other endorsements require 20 credits 

or more. Training is inadequate. 

If you want to be a commercial driving school instructor, you don’t have to have 

an Idaho teaching certificate. You can replace that with eight semester credits of training 

that is teaching-related, something that will help prepare you to be a teacher in the 

classroom and behind the wheel. In addition, a commercial driving school instructor must 

also have four semester credits in the same four credits that the public schools are 

required to have for driver education endorsement. We call it Driver Education I and 

Driver Education II. 

78
Again, teaching is inadequate to prepare our commercial driving schools to be 

good driver education teachers because, again, it’s only 12 semester credits. It doesn’t 

even begin to meet the national standards that have been established by ADTSEA. 

In addition, our law says that a commercial school can contract with a public 

school and offer the services of that commercial schoolteacher and replace the public 

school teacher. And yet, that commercial schoolteacher does not have to have the same

higher standards required of the public school teacher. 

Idaho’s rural environment makes it very, very difficult to obtain the required 

course work to become a driver education teacher. To overcome this problem, some

teachers have opted to take home correspondence for their teacher certification for driver 

education. Both public and commercial have done this. In fact, we have some commercial 

schools that have done all of their training, the eight hours of teacher training and four 

hours for behind-the-wheel and classroom instruction for a driver education teacher, 

through home correspondence. 

I do believe that we need national standards establishing the minimum

requirements for driver education teacher training, and we need much more diverse 

opportunities to obtain that training without sacrificing quality. 

We have some strong strength, I believe, in Idaho’s program. Fortunately, once 

our teachers are trained, we do have an opportunity to provide feedback and additional 

training, and we do this through our program reviews. 

The Department of Education conducts reviews of both the public and the 

commercial schools. We observe in the classroom and behind the wheel. We identify the 

strengths and the weaknesses, and we do one-on-one feedback with the teacher, going 

over the evaluation form, exactly where their strengths are and where their weaknesses 

are and what we can do to help them to bone up on those weaknesses. 

And then we also reinforce new technology and training methods during these 

reviews. And I think, if there’s anything we could do that would improve our programs, 

it’s the on-site review with our driver education teachers in the classroom and behind the 

wheel because it’s only then that you’re going to learn exactly what they’re doing. 

Then we do a comprehensive report back to the schools, whether public or 

commercial, outlining the strengths and weaknesses. And in some cases we may need to 

provide a system for them to come back into compliance with regulations. 

I do believe that every State should have a required program for audits and 

assessments for public and commercial driving schools. 

When we establish new rules in Idaho, it has to go through the rulemaking 

process, which is not a simple thing to do. First, we have to start with the State board, 

after we get agreement with the users; those are the people that are going to be impacted 

by the new rules. We go to the State board and get their approval. We go out for public 

79
hearings if they are requested, come back and make our edits and our changes, and take it 

back to the State board. And then it has to go to the legislature for approval. 

Public school standards are high. This year the legislature approved our new rules 

for public schools. They include the adoption of the essential knowledge and skills, 

which I spoke of earlier, 45 of them. A student passing a public school program must 

achieve a minimum of 80 percentile overall average to pass driver education. 

Our teachers are now required to complete 15 hours of professional development 

every two years. Driver education must be concurrent and integrated. You can’t do all 

classroom and then behind the wheel. It must be concurrent and integrated. 

We also have established within the public schools policies for parental 

involvement. Lesson plans are required. It’s no longer okay to open up the textbook and 

say, let’s read Chapter 1, do the end-of-chapter quiz, do the workbook quiz, let’s watch a 

video, and move on to the next chapter. Our driver education teachers in the public 

schools must have lesson plans. 

New teachers coming into driver education must pass the knowledge and the 

skills test with a minimum of at least 80 percentile on the knowledge test and seven 

penalty points; you’re allowed to miss 15 penalty points to get a license in Idaho, for our 

State skills test. So now we at least have an assessment of new teachers coming into 

Idaho. 

Our behind-the-wheel teachers only must complete a Department of 

Transportation Commercial Driver License (CDL) physical. 

We believe that our new rules give support where it’s really needed, and that is to 

our teachers, our administrators, and our students. 

Going along again with what I believe are our strengths are our teacher 

credentialing classes. We are fortunate to still have driver education teacher certification 

classes in Idaho. So many colleges and universities have dropped them. We have three 

universities, and through those three universities with adjunct professors, we train 30 to 

40 new teachers every single year. 

Idaho uses many resources for this training -- the standards established by 

ADTSEA and the NIDB and Mottola and Kline and Harvey, so many people that have 

helped us improve what we’re doing in driver education and training in Idaho. 

Another very strong strength that we have in Idaho is something that I know that 

doesn’t go on in a whole lot of States, and that is our professional development. Our 

professional development is for public and the commercial schoolteachers. We use the 

State funds that are provided through our financial funding through driver licensing fees 

to support workshops and our conferences. 

80
Idaho teachers are improving their classroom instruction by replacing that lecturevideo format with classroom activities that engage our students and make learning 

interesting, fun, and relevant. Every year eight to nine regional workshops are conducted 

throughout the State, or a State conference is conducted. 

Since 2000, we’ve had 310 teachers and administrators; public and commercial 

schools participate in these workshops or conferences where they can earn one semester 

credit or a Continuing Education Unit. They can also have their substitute teacher wages 

paid for in the public schools. Free meals and free lodging are given. How many States 

will actually pay for the lodging of their teachers when they come back for professional 

development? Through our State funding we are able to do that, and I think that’s 

absolutely wonderful. 

And they typically go home with hundreds of dollars’ worth of free materials that 

we are able to gather from all of those wonderful providers out there that are creating 

such wonderful things in driver education and training. 

Our workshop focuses on best practices and training techniques, and you know 

what? Not only are teachers learning but also the teachers are having fun as they’re going 

through these workshops. Teachers return to their classroom motivated to make 

improvements in their instruction. 

I do believe that continuing education focusing on instruction should be required 

of every driver education and training teacher, public or commercial. And what we need 

to do is support our teachers and administrators with extensive and affordable regional 

conferences and workshops so that they can keep their knowledge and their skills on the 

cutting edge. It’s not sufficient to train them one time, turn them loose, and then they do 

the same thing over and over again for 30 years. 

The support by so many organizations for graduated driver licensing has resulted 

in almost every State, if not every State at this point, adopting some form of graduate 

education driver licensing law. It just goes to show how a strong coalition of advocates 

can create change. 

Idaho’s graduated driver licensing law went into effect January 1st, 2001. It 

affected all drivers under the age of 17. It increased the eligible age to enroll in driver 

education to age 14 and a half from age 14. Some of them can barely see over the 

dashboard. 

One of the greatest things about our graduated driver licensing law is we now 

have parental involvement because Idaho has one of those laws that says, during driver 

education, the kids cannot drive with anybody but their driver education teacher. So for 

our six weeks of instruction, the parents have been shut out of their driver education 

experience with their young teen drivers. So now at least we have the opportunity to 

work with the parent, but again, they’re still not allowed to drive with them during the 

course of instruction for driver education. 

81
I know you’d be interested in what happened with our collision statistics from our 

Office of Highway Safety from our Department of Transportation. Fifteen-year-old driver 

collisions have dropped 77 percent. Fifteen-year-old licenses have been reduced 54 

percent. Sixteen-year-old collisions have been reduced 20 percent. Sixteen-year-old 

licenses have been reduced 26 percent. And sixteen-year-old fatal and serious crash 

involvement rate has dropped from 2.3 to 1.3. 

In support of the graduated driver licensing law and getting our parents involved 

with our young drivers and our teachers, we developed a practice guide, a supervising 

practicing guide, that parallels the good driving habits that we’re teaching in Idaho. A 

task force of teachers, administrators, parents, driver licensing, Office of Highway 

Safety, and law enforcement helped guide us on what needs to be included in this 

practice guide. It includes the drive objectives, good driving habits, common errors to 

coach, and easy-to-follow diagrams. 

Our “Road to Skilled Driving Practice Guide,” we have distributed over 53,000 

free since November of 2000 at no cost to any public or commercial driving school. This 

winter, we’re going to conduct a study to see just how effective this guide is being used 

by our parents, our students, and our teachers. 

We have many good commercial driving schools in Idaho, but we do have some

problems. Commercial school accountability. We have some commercial schools that 

have not complied with the requirements for commercial school standards and State laws. 

The legal process to bring them into compliance requires the States’ legal support. And 

some commercial schools have successfully delayed indefinitely or avoided completely 

any consequence of their action, and they do continue to operate. 

With the improvements to our standards for the public schools, the intent was to 

create improved standards for public and commercial schools. We have a driver 

education steering committee that used to be comprised of public schools and 

commercial schools. And for a period of about three years, this committee was the 

driving force for developing new standards for public and commercial schools for teen 

driver education. 

That committee took on the task of identifying what needed to be changed to raise 

those standards, and the intent all along with those standards was to ensure that the 

standards were the same for public and commercial schools. 

When we were coming down to the wire and had started taking the proposed 

standards out to our driver education community, to our workshops, putting them on our 

website, all the things that you’re required to do when you are going through a proposed 

rule-making, some commercial schools took exception to those proposed new standards 

and were successful in lobbying and stopping the rules from going forward for the 

commercial driving schools. However, the public school rules we continued with. 

There are efforts underway now to draft new rules again for the commercial 

driving schools, and I would really want to reinforce how important it is from the State 

82
perspective that our interest is not in how the commercial driving schools run their 

business, because they are a business, but it’s how they’re delivering the content of driver 

education because we want the highest quality, the best standards possible for Idaho’s 

young teen drivers. 

And unfortunately, because we now have two distinct, different standards for 

public and commercial schools, I believe that it has weakened Idaho’s driver education 

program. 

I believe we need national standards for the content and delivery of driver 

education and training by public and commercial driving schools. 

The question has been asked -- I’ve been hearing this a lot and where are we 

going? It was once said, “The significant problems that we face cannot be solved at the 

same rate of thinking we were at when we created them.” Albert Einstein. 

During the National Summit for Improved Youthful Driver Performance that was 

held in Crystal City, Virginia, September 16th through the 17th in 1996, major 

stakeholders recognized the need to improve youthful driver performance through 

educational efforts. It was often referred to as the “miracle in Crystal City.” And I know 

there are many of you in this room that were probably there. 

The major stakeholders recognized the need to improve youthful driver 

performance through educational efforts. It was hoped that this powerful alliance would 

make the difference. And you know what? The miracle didn’t survive. 

So where are we and where are we going? We’re all familiar with transportation 

safety that has traditionally worked for better communication and cooperation, and we 

look at them as being the three E’s: engineering, enforcement, and education. And most 

recently, emergency medical services have been adopted as the fourth element. 

However, over the years, research studies have been used to knock driver 

education out of this equation, and I think it’s past time to reestablish educating youthful 

drivers back into this cooperative effort. 

We know that driver skill development must be in place before youthful drivers 

can understand and appreciate the higher-level decision-making driving task. However, 

we’re not going to change any 15- or 16-year-old driver to think more about safety than 

the thrill of driving an automobile. Yet, research study after research study has 

incorrectly, in my estimation, stated that the principal goal of driver education is to 

reduce crashes, injuries, and fatalities. 

Why has driver education been measured so differently than any other standard 

for fatalities? In its current state, the definition of what driver education is expected to 

accomplish is not realistic. I believe we need a realistic measurement of what a quality 

driver education program should be. And the question is asked, when and what should we 

teach? 

83
At a Transportation Research Board meeting that was held in 2001, Mike Smith 

said this: “To be successful, driver education must start before the age of licensure and 

last throughout the driving years. There should be training standards developed and 

resources made available to prepare, market, and maintain programs and materials.” And 

Mike Smith, you were right on target. 

Driver education cannot be a one-shot effort over a few weeks of instruction. We

need agreement on what knowledge and skills must be included in driver education and 

training programs. 

I believe that risk management education and training needs to be an ongoing, 

integrated, public school, K through 12 programs. We need standards and we need the 

resources to make it happen. 

The question has been asked, who’s got the best delivery system? I sure can’t 

answer that. But you know what? I can tell you from working on the State level just State 

standards alone are not going to work. We have got to have national standards for driver 

education and training. 

We need partnerships with our parents, law enforcement, driver licensing, 

government, and other highway safety partners. And our public and commercial driving 

schools need to work cooperatively, seeking the highest of standards and quality 

instruction, rather than seeing each other as competition for student enrollment. 

Idaho has had a driver education and training program for 40 years. We’ve made 

improvements in our curriculum and our training and our standards, but boy, so much 

more needs to be done. 

Public and commercial driving schools. Both have a role, but they both need to be 

more effective. National standards are needed for the content and delivery of driver 

education and training. And both need to be at the table when these standards are 

determined. 

The strong coalition that emerged in the support of graduated driver licensing 

laws needs to occur for driver education and training for our youthful drivers. 

Enforcement and engineering alone is not going to fix this problem. And education is the 

missing link. 

My sincere thanks to the National Transportation Safety Board and Gary Van 

Etten for inviting me to participate on this panel. It needs to culminate with action and 

not be just another report that’s going to gather dust on our bookshelves. 

Thank you so very much for this time with you. 

(Applause) 

84
Presentation by Greg Lantzy

MR. VAN ETTEN: Our next presenter is Mr. Greg Lantzy. Mr. Lantzy is 

currently the supervisor for People Transportation, Driver, and Rider Safety Program. He 

oversees people transportation and driver education programs in the State of Michigan. 

Mr. Lantzy has a bachelor of science and a master of arts degree in education 

from Michigan State University, and has been in driver education since about 1987. 

His work experience includes teaching and coordinating driver education at 

various public schools in the Lansing area. He taught driver education full-time in the 

Lansing school district for five years. He owned a driver training school for a short 

period of time. He’s hired been hired as a consultant for traffic safety for the Department

of Education in January of 2000. 

He is also president of the Association of State Supervisors of Safety and Driver 

Education (ASSSDE), the Michigan Department of Education representative to the 

Governor’s Traffic Safety Advisory Commission, as well as the chairperson of the Driver 

Education and Licensing Action Team in Michigan. 

Mr. Lantzy. 

MR. LANTZY: Thank you, Gary. 

That’s a tough act to follow. I’m exhausted just listening to her. But you know, 

the enthusiasm that she (Elizabeth Weaver) showed and that Dave (Huff) and John 

(Harvey) and Barry (Ford) and all the rest of those that are involved, whether it’s 

administering programs for the State or teaching, it just shows the passion that’s out there 

for those that are involved with traffic safety and teaching our youthful drivers. 

Unfortunately or fortunately, I do not have a PowerPoint presentation. I learned a 

painful lesson relying on my hard drive to be there every morning. So I will not be using 

a PowerPoint. 

I will make some references to a GDL program; laws, rules and regulations in 

Michigan and Michigan’s performance objectives. Those are all available online at our 

Michigan.gov website. So if you don’t want to take a lot of notes, you can just visit that 

website some time and be able to download all the references that I’m making. So it’s 

www.michigan.gov/mde for Michigan Department of Education, and then search for 

“driver education” or “driver training,” and you’ll be able to get to our home page. 

In Michigan, as well as the rest of the country, driver education is at a crossroad, 

and we need to decide which road we are willing to take. I am pleased that the National 

Transportation Safety Board has convened this forum to take a look at driver education in 

the United States, although the circumstances surrounding the reason were unfortunate. 

85
One outcome of this meeting may be to recognize that the status quo may not be 

working, and if so, now is the time for all involved in traffic safety to step up to the plate 

and get involved with the education of our youthful drivers. 

In 1955, in a special session of the legislature, Michigan became the first State to 

require driver education prior to licensing young adults under the age of 18 -- that was 

mentioned this morning -- and also the first State to mandate driver education be offered 

in all public schools. 

Drivers up to the age of 18 were and are currently required to satisfactorily 

complete a Michigan Department of Education-approved driver education program. The 

purpose of this legislation was to educate novice drivers and thereby reduce accidents 

through a safety-oriented course of instruction. 

In 1996, Michigan again led the way by becoming the first State to pass a 

comprehensive graduated driver licensing law which included two segments of driver 

education and three levels of licensure. I’ll give you a quick outline of how the whole 

GDL system is set up. 

Students who have attained the age of 14 years and eight months may enroll in 

driver education. There is a vision and health screening prior to their behind-the-wheel 

experience. The classroom contains 24 hours, two hours maximum per day. They must 

span at least three weeks. 

The behind the wheel is a minimum of six hours, and in Michigan we do allow up 

to, on a one-on-one basis, three hours of range driving to account for three hours of onthe-road. So at least they will have at least a minimum of three hours on the street. 

The only required assessment for a student to complete driver education 

successfully is a 100-question written test, multiple choices. 

Once a student has received their Segment 1 certificate, they must apply for a 

Level 1 license to be allowed to drive on the streets of Michigan. They can do that at age 

14-9. 

There’s a vision exam that’s given at the Department of State when they go down 

to apply for the license, and they must meet health standards there as well. 

Written approval is required of parents, and once a student has obtained the Level 

1 license, they may drive only with a licensed parent or legal guardian or someone who 

the parent has designated age 21 or older to give that young person driving time. 

At this point, they are now preparing to take Segment 2 of driver education, 

which you found out, is not been offered by other States. Hopefully States will be looking 

at it, but Michigan is one of I believe the only State that has a Segment 2 driver education 

program. 

86
That consists of six hours of classroom; maximum two hours a day, so minimum

of three days. There is no behind-the-wheel experience required. However, there are 

some programs that do incorporate into their Segment 2 some behind-the-wheel. 

Also, in order to get into Segment 2, there must be at least three months since the 

end of Segment 1, and the student must have completed or received at least 30 hours of 

driving time with a parent or designee, and a minimum of two hours of nighttime driving. 

Once a student has completed Segment 2, they must finish up now the mandatory 

50 total hours of driving with at least 10 hours of nighttime driving in order to apply for a 

Level 2 license. To get a Level 2 license, obviously Segment 1 and Segment 2 has to 

have been completed and the student must complete a road test. Private third-party 

examiners who are licensed by the Department of State administer the road test. And 

once a student verifies 50 hours, Segment 1, Segment 2, and they’ve been on a Level 1 

license for six months, they may be allowed to take the road test. 

To get a Level 2 license, they have to have been on a Level 1 for at least six 

months or have attained the age of 16. You have to be at least 16 and on Level 1 for six 

months. They have to be 90 days crash -- at-fault-, crash-, or violation-free prior to 

applying for a Level 2 license. And with a Level 2 license, they may drive on their own 

except between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. unless they are driving to and/or from

employment. And of course, they still may drive with their parent or a designee between 

those hours as well. 

So the restrictions are gradually being lessened. However, we’re still hoping that 

the parents will still be involved somewhat in their driving. 

Once a student has attained the age of 17 years of age, been on a Level 2 license 

for six months, and has 12 months -- 12 consecutive months of violation- and crash-free 

driving prior to applying for a Level 3 license, they can apply for that. And basically, 

now they are on an unrestricted license. 

Once someone has attained the age of 18, wherever they’re at in the graduated 

license process, they are out of it and they have a full, unrestricted license. 

Michigan’s public school driver education programs. As previously noted, public 

schools were required to offer driver education. However, a year after GDL went in 

effect in 1998, that requirement was eliminated. As of April 1st, 1998, public schools 

could opt out of offering driver education and they were also allowed to charge a fee at 

that time for driver education. Prior to that, they had to offer it at no cost. 

The thought at the time was that many public schools would just drop driver’s 

education, reasons being they couldn’t afford it; they didn’t want to be a part of it, etc. 

However, this year right now, there is still approximately 80 percent of the public schools 

in Michigan still offer driver education, whether it’s through themselves or with a 

consortium of other public schools. 

87
Unfortunately, there are only a few districts left that offer driver education as part 

of the regular school day. As mentioned, I taught in the Lansing School District for a 

number of years. And actually, prior to coming with the State, that’s where my stint was. 

And as of this past August, Lansing School District dropped driver’s education. 

As Allen Robinson had mentioned earlier, we’re not doing a real good job in 

offering driver education to special needs. The nice thing about our program was we had 

two hours in the afternoon where we actually had two classes of special needs students 

intermixed with the regular education students, and we were able to give the special 

needs students some one-on-one instruction. Now, since the school doesn’t offer it, as in 

most after-school and summer programs, what are these students to do?

We had counselors and special education instructors on staff during the day to 

help these students out. Now we’re basically just throwing them to the wolves. It’s 

unfortunate. 

Just for comparison between public schools and driver training schools, I’ll be 

using fiscal year 2001. In that year, 460 public schools offered driver education, Segment 

1 and Segment 2, and the breakdown was about, of the total students taking it during that 

year, about 64 percent of the students took driver education through the public schools 

for Segment 1, and approximately 58 percent for Segment 2. So even as recent as two 

years ago most schools still offered it and most students still did receive driver education 

through the public schools. Those numbers are gradually leveling out, with more schools 

dropping driver education and more driver training schools coming into place. 

There’s a funding mechanism in place, just as Beth (Weaver) had mentioned for 

Idaho, in Michigan, and $4 for each driver license fee goes into a driver education fund to 

help support driver education. In fiscal year 2001, that fund totaled just under 7.6 million, 

of which public schools received on average about $96 per student. 

The problem, similar to Idaho, is that the average cost for a public school driver 

education program per student was about $250. So about a third, a little over a third of 

the cost for the program the State helped fund. The rest of it was passed on to the 

students, or could be. A lot of the schools in that time did not charge; but again, with the 

way the economy is, a lot of schools are now passing those costs on. Fees on average 

range anywhere from $15 for a textbook up to $300. 

As mentioned, driver training schools are out there in Michigan. In fiscal 2001, 36 

percent and 42 percent of the students, Segment 1 and Segment 2 respectively, took 

driver education through the driver training school setting. 

When I refer to driver training school, you can use that interchangeably with 

commercial schools. In Michigan, a commercial driving school is a truck driving school. 

We don’t have too many teens taking truck driver lessons, so in Michigan we try to 

handle that by calling them driver training schools. So if you hear “driving training 

school,” “commercial school,” it’s the same thing. 

88
When I started in the department in 2000, there were about 110 driver training 

schools. Currently there are 154 driver training schools offering teen driver education 

programs. The average cost, $250 to $300. 

In terms of a curriculum, Michigan’s driver education program is divided, like I 

said, into two segments, the first being 24 hours of classroom and six hours of behind the 

wheel. When I received my approval to teach driver education in 1987, at that time, 

actually, in Michigan there was a competency-based program where a student who 

showed a satisfactory level of achievement could receive a certificate after 10 hours of 

classroom and two hours of driving. One week, in and out. Again, those were only those 

students who comped out, so to speak. If they did not, then they had to be given the full 

30 and six before the determination was made if they would pass or fail. 

Currently, there is no standard curriculum required or provided for either 

classroom or behind the wheel in Segment 1. There are, however, 100 classroom and 27 

behind-the-wheel performance objectives that students must demonstrate achievement at 

a satisfactory level to acquire a certificate of completion. And again, these are available 

on our website. They’re probably pretty standard across the nation. However, we do not 

have at this time a curriculum that we can give Segment 1 instructors to use. 

The goal of the department is to adopt a national curriculum adapted to fit 

Michigan’s needs and make that available to driver education programs. Segment 2 of 

driver education again consists of six hours of classroom, and we do provide a Segment 2 

curriculum for that. When GDL first came into play, Segment 2 was looked at, and with 

the help of ADTSEA and Terry Kline authoring it; Michigan was able to provide to every 

program a Segment 2 curriculum.

As Allen Robinson had talked about earlier, the reason behind Segment 2 is the 

students have gotten out on the roads and have done some driving. You bring them back 

in and now, hopefully, you don’t talk about too many of the bad experiences they’ve had 

on the road, but you’ll have a learning experience opportunity to work off of the things 

that they have actually experienced. It’s safe driving practices, defensive driving, risk 

awareness, acceptance, perceptual awareness, to again get the students back into a 

controlled setting, talk about things, and then send them back out on the road again. 

To teach driver education in Michigan, there are a few requirements. You must be 

at least 21 years old, have a driving record with no more than six points current on your 

driving record or have a four-point operating while impaired, and you must have 

completed eight semester or the equivalent of eight semester credits at either a university 

or college that offers the teacher preparation courses. 

From there, we diverge a little bit. For public school teachers, they must also 

possess a Michigan teaching certificate. For those that teach in the driver training school 

setting, they don’t need a Michigan teaching certificate, but they must receive a license 

from the Department of State. And there they have a few other requirements in terms of 

continuing their license every five years a background check and a medical report every 

two years. 

89
Currently, there are three universities in Michigan that offer the teacher 

preparation course work. In addition, Bethel College in Indiana, that course work is 

recognized by Michigan, and the National Teacher Credentialing course work is 

recognized. So if someone came from another State and had taken that course work, they 

would be automatically eligible to be approved to teach in Michigan. 

Strengths of Michigan’s program. Again, Michigan has been at the forefront of 

driver education reform, from mandating driver education in public schools in 1955 to 

passing the GDL law in 1996. As research shows, GDL in Michigan has had a substantial 

impact on lowering crash rates of teen drivers. In an initial study conducted by the 

University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute in 2001, it showed that crashes 

involving 16-year-olds dropped 25 percent from 1996, the year before the licensure 

changed, and 1999, the first year all 16-year-olds would have been through the new 

licensing requirement. 

An updated study, I believe, just this past year has also confirmed those numbers. 

So GDL is working in Michigan. 

Currently, there are about 1800 instructors qualified to teach in the public school 

setting and about 500 instructors teaching in the driver training school setting. Many of 

these instructors are both active in State and national organizations, and Michigan is 

proud to boast that they had the first ADTSEA Teacher of the Year Award recipient. 

Another strength that I feel is the requirement for eight semester credits. It just 

shows the commitment that the State has to education. 

Michigan’s needs. Right now we need a strong Segment 1 curriculum that will 

assist providers in Michigan to offer consistent and statewide presentation of driver 

education throughout the State. That is one endeavor that we have embarked on this past 

year. Like I mentioned, it’s to get a Segment 1 curriculum and make it available to the 

programs. 

Many of the current driver education instructors are nearing the age of retirement. 

There is a need for younger, dedicated individuals to enter the profession. We’ve heard 

that. We need to emphasize the virtues of being a driver education instructor. 

I recall back in the early ‘80s when I was going through my teacher preparation 

courses just to become a Michigan certified teacher that one of the questions that we 

were asked is: What are you going to do during your summers. And one individual spoke 

up and says, I’m going to be doing some traveling. I’m not going to waste my time 

during the summer teaching driver education. Well, when I got my say, he heard from

me.

In the past, many looked at teaching driver education as a necessity to supplement 

their meager teaching wages. However, with teacher’s salaries coming up, I think we’re 

not getting a lot of the young professionals out there because they don’t see the 

advantages of teaching driver education. 

90
We need to ensure that newly approved instructors are being given the tools to 

become effective teachers through the instructor preparation courses and support from

both the State and national levels. 

Innovative funding sources need to be located to possibly provide grant dollars to 

help schools upgrade their programs. You look at some driver education programs that 

don’t use a textbook or some that, if you look at the driver education cars on the road, 

you shudder. We need to make sure that all students are being provided the best learning 

environment. 

Sure, schools could just raise their fees, but if the fees get too high and lowincome students can’t afford it, well, we know what they’re going to do. They’re either 

not going to drive until 18 or they’re just going to drive without a license. Is that what we 

want to happen?

There is currently no continuing education requirement for driver education 

instructors. For someone who was approved in 1970, they can start teaching tomorrow 

after 30 years and have gone through no continuing education. Once approved – they are 

basically approved for life. 

With the profession ever changing, new technology and teaching techniques, we 

need to address this issue on how to keep instructors up-to-date, and that’s one thing 

we’ll also look at when we’re opening up our laws and rules and regulations. We need to 

get that in there, continuing education so that teachers can be updated. 

We need to take a closer look at K-12 education -- that has been mentioned a few 

times already -- and to ensure that a traffic safety component is supported throughout the 

curriculum. We need to ensure that there is a local support for safe means of 

transportation for students to and from school. 

Just this past school year -- I live in a district where a student was killed walking 

home from school. She had to cross a busy four-lane highway and was struck and killed. 

Now the district and school local leaders are all stepping up to brainstorm how to make 

students safer. Ironically, this is one of the districts that dropped driver’s education as 

soon as they had the option. 

So we need school districts to focus on student safety, whether it’s driver 

education or pedestrian safety. 

We need to take a look at the funding mechanism for driver education to assure 

that all eligible teens have the opportunity to receive a quality driver education program. 

Just recently, beginning this month, the fee for driver licenses went from $12 to $25. 

How much of that went into the driver education fund? Nothing. The State is $1.9 billion 

in debt. I guess they had to find some way to raise a few dollars. 

91
Parent participation needs to be increased. Parent meetings prior to or during 

driver education are not mandated by legislation. However, every effort should be made 

to require parents to become more aware and participate in the learning process. 

And we need legislators who are willing to support strong traffic safety 

legislation. The one component in Michigan that’s lacking right now is passenger 

restrictions. However, there has been a bill that’s gone through committee and is on the 

house floor that would limit passengers -- non-family member passengers to one. 

Hopefully, that’ll pass. A lot of States have gone that way, and as we know, research 

shows, raise the number of passengers, risk goes up, too. 

So an important question we need to address as traffic safety advocates is, are we 

satisfied with the current state of driver education programs that do a fairly good job of 

preparing youngsters for licensure, or should we aspire and strive to provide those same

youngsters with the background that may show positive results in truly reducing teenage 

traffic collisions, injuries, and fatalities. 

They have been a part of a system for many years already, the education system. 

And hopefully, that education system they have experienced over the last 10 or 15 years 

has prepared them to become a more active participant when they get behind the wheel. 

Driver education should not be simply a three-week course during the summer during 

which time we have to probably expect a major attitude overhaul from all the bad habits 

that they have learned over the past 10 years. As findings show, it probably will not 

happen. 

Traffic safety education, on the other hand, should be a lifelong learning process, 

which starts in the early years. And since it is a lifelong learning process, we should not 

only be looking at teaching two-, three-, four-, five-year-olds but their parents as well 

because, as we know, those are the ones that the habits will be identified with. 

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported that in 1999 the category of 

“Unintentional Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes” was the number one cause of injury death 

for individuals ages one through 64. Those under the age of one and over the age of 64, it 

was number two. As with any learning, parents need to support the education process by 

modeling proper behavior and reinforcing their children’s good habits. 

Yesterday’s USA Today on the front page showed that for children age’s three to 

five, 61 percent in two-parent households and 48 percent in one- or no-parent households 

are read to every day. Every day the parents are reinforcing their kids reading habits. You 

know, I always spend time at home reading to my children, working with their math. But 

then, what happens when those kids leave that home? Do they go out and ride their bikes 

without helmets, not look where they’re going?

Reading and math are reinforced from early on, but what about traffic safety, 

something everyone needs as soon as they step out of their house?

92
Just a quick story. I remember when I was teaching driver education. Right near 

the Lansing School District where I taught, Lansing Everett, I think it was the student’s 

first drive. We came up to a four-way stop. Being near the school, you need the enter 

section to stand out so they had a flashing red light. So we were the fourth car there. I did 

not know who was one, two, or three, but I knew that we were going to be the fourth car. 

So Car No. 1 goes. Car No. 2 goes. At that point I know it’s that car and then us. 

So that car goes. And then that one. And then that one. And we’re sitting here after three 

or four cars go. And I asked the student, what are we waiting for? That student’s 

response, we’re waiting for the light to turn green. That’s kind of scary coming from a 

15-year-old. 

Two weeks ago, as we’re driving down the road, I’m trying to explain to my son 

the meaning of the point of no return, having gone through a yellow light, that there’s a 

certain point you need to keep going. He’s seven. 

So here’s a seven-year-old who’s trying to learn the rules of the road, and if you 

teach him at an early age, by the time they get to be 15 that should already be ingrained 

in them and, hopefully, that’ll have prepared them to be safe highway users. 

Encourage a youngster to wear a helmet when riding a bike. Look both ways 

when crossing the street. Respectful on a school bus. These will all go a long way to 

creating a positive attitude. 

Are the current widely accepted standards of 30 hours classroom and six hours 

behind the wheel working? It appears not. Recommendations have been made to expand 

driver education to 45 hours or more of classroom, 10 hours or more behind the wheel. 

Divide those hours proportionately between both Segment 1 and Segment 2. Give them

classroom; give them behind the wheel; let them practice; bring them back in both 

classroom and behind-the-wheel to reinforce. And to lengthen the time between the two 

segments up to a year or more. 

If driver education is expected to produce safe drivers, it is the format that first 

must change, not the content or curriculum or teaching methods. Those will fall into 

place. 

When discussing traffic safety, there’s often the reference to the three Es, and 

Beth had mentioned it: enforcement, engineering, and education. I’ve often noticed 

advancements in engineering, road construction, intersection layouts, car design, and a 

push for enforcement, i.e. the Click It and Ticket. 

Now, these are all good, but are they not responses to driver attitudes or 

shortcomings? Education seems to be far behind in receiving support, especially 

education for youth. 

Driver education in Michigan is producing fairly good drivers, but we can do 

more. Graduated driver licensing is working, but it can be enhanced as well. Now is the 

93
time to take a serious look at the educational part of the process. As reported in the 

“Traffic Tech,” the NHTSA publication, in May 1999, a large majority of Americans, 89 

percent, consider driver education courses to be very important in training new drivers to 

operate on the roads. Do we? If so, what are we going to do about it?

In the March 2003 issue of Good Housekeeping entitled “Driver’s Education Gets 

an F,” safety experts identified key steps to take to improve driver education: certify 

teachers and then certify them again, and spread out the learning process. Instructors 

need to keep up on new safety techniques, and cramming doesn’t work any better for 

driver education than it does for English literature. 

To those who question the effectiveness of driver education I ask, if driver 

education isn’t working, do we accept the current statistics or do we overhaul the system

so that newly licensed teens are better prepared to become motorists in the highway 

transportation system. 

I see the potential for good things to come out of this two-day forum, and 

Michigan driver education professionals and traffic safety advocates are ready to help 

make them happen. 

Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by David Huff 

MR. VAN ETTEN: Our next presenter is Mr. David Huff. Mr. Huff is direct the 

traffic education programs for the State of Montana through the Montana Office of Public 

Instruction. In the fall of 2001, he completed his master of science in education from

Montana State University at Northern with an emphasis on learning development and a 

focus on traffic safety education. 

In 1992, he became the pupil transportation director for the State of Montana, and 

in 1995, he co chaired the Special Needs School Bus Committee for the 12th National 

Conference on School Transportation. 

Mr. Huff is presently the past president of the Association of State Supervisors of 

Safety and Driver Education, and has a progressive 20-year history of leadership in State 

and national roles, including published articles on pupil transportation and driver 

education. 

MR. HUFF: I’m very happy and pleased to have been invited here to participate 

in this forum. I’m very happy and pleased to see the National Transportation Safety 

Board convene a forum such as this. 

94
I’m saddened that this kind of national attention had to wait until a tragedy 

occurred, and it was in my State on my watch that the tragedy occurred. So I have a 

strong vested interest in what occurs here, hoping and believing that this tragedy will 

result in something good for all of the children in the United States who are learning to 

drive and will become in some way a befitting memorial for those whose lives were lost. 

Their names have not yet been mentioned. I would like to mention their names 

and take a moment of silence to remember them. It is because of them that we are here. 

Would you stand with me as I read their names?

(Pause) 

MR. HUFF: Eric Eekhoff, age 14. Matthew Lucht, age 14. Alex VanEgmond, age 

15. Bob Selles, instructor, and age 49. 

(Moment of silence) 

MR. HUFF: Thank you so much. Not to diminish the importance, the anxiety, the 

fear, the threat of anything that is going on in Iraq, I find it very interesting that we spend 

a lot of national attention and focus on dealing with the loss of one or two lives on a daily 

basis in Iraq when, if we were to bring them home, we would see approximately 10 lives 

a day lost on our highways if they were our teenagers. 

A very important question we need to ask ourselves: does United States society 

prefer a driving culture characterized by survival of the fittest or a driving culture marked 

by civil adherence to agreed norms?

Driving is a very complex social, cultural system. As such, solutions must span, 

excuse me, and span the matrix of the system. Senge has said, “It should come as no 

surprise that the unhealthiness of our world today is in direct proportion to our inability 

to see it as a whole.” Where does driver education fit into this whole? 

Driver education and training is the foundation upon which a safe driving culture 

and crash reduction interventions are built. How can crash reduction efforts be successful 

if individuals do not know what is expected nor possess the skills needed to perform the 

expected behavior? And if the beginning driver has been immersed in a less-thandesirable driving culture since the time he or she was aware, how can it be expected to 

quickly overcome that individual’s predisposition to an inferior culture?

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in 1999 printed that kids drive like 

their parents. The National Research Council in a book on how people learn, a 

compendium of research, basically says because learning involves transfer from previous 

experiences, one’s existing knowledge can also make it difficult to learn new 

information. Is that not what we’re hoping to do?

95
Therefore, solutions for the necessary educational foundation must address both 

driver education for teens and it must address lifelong education for the parents and the 

neighbors who define and perpetuate the culture. Most importantly, effective education 

efforts cannot be engineered and delivered until we as a society agree upon the desired 

knowledge, skills, and behaviors. In other words, what’s the model driver? 

And further, building a new foundation for a safe driving culture through 

education and training is a long-term commitment for and with a long-term solution. Up 

to this point, most highway safety measures have focused on relatively short-term but 

quick return fixes, like installing air bags or straightening out corners. 

Montana is one of the few States that still invest in foundation building through 

driver education in the public school system. While newer materials and techniques have 

been developed for building stronger foundations, the Montana program still remains 

somewhat tied to older technology. The program has changed little since 1968 when it 

first began providing financial assistance to public schools for driver education. 

The one major deviation has been the unfortunate migration from in-school 

instruction to after-school and summer programs. Tighter school schedules, increased 

costs, and reduced funding are the primary reasons for this shift. In many cases, wages 

for after-school instruction are less than during the school day. 

In order to focus on what I think are the most important points of this 

presentation, I’m going to summarize briefly the driver education program in Montana. A 

more detailed description of the program can be found in the text of the prepared report 

and its appendices, or you can go to Montana’s home page, which is 

www.opi.State.mt.us, and the reports of Montana’s program are on there. 

In Montana, students can get a license at age 16 without driver education, but 

with driver education they can get a permit as early as age 14 and a half and a license as 

early as age 15. 

I think it’s important to note that this was not a reduction in age with driver 

education; it was an extension of age without driver education when it was implemented. 

Approximately 78 percent of eligible students in Montana take an approved driver 

education class. I think that’s probably one of the highest percentages in the country. 

An approved program consists of at least 60 hours. You’ve been hearing 30 and 

six. Now you listen, 60. Sixty hours of education and training, six hours of which must be 

behind-the-wheel in-traffic instruction. The program must occur over at least 25 student 

contact days, and behind the wheel must occur over no less than six student contact days. 

Also in that 60 hours, they can have up to 12 hours of observation as a passenger 

in the car, and 12 hours of simulation can substitute for two hours of the six hours of 

behind the wheel. Again, it’s a minimum of 60 hours, any combination however, they set 

it up. 

96
Montana State reimburses public school programs for each student. The 

reimbursement and the program administration are funded through a percent of the driver 

license fee. Reimbursement in 2003 was $73.66 per student, approximately 26 percent of 

the average statewide cost, which was $290.29 per student. Schools make up the 

difference by charging parents. 

Some of Montana’s program strengths include established standards for programs 

and teachers. There is State staff to administer the program. Some States don’t have any 

State staff. There is active and viable professional development going on for the teachers. 

There is a positive professional culture amongst teachers and other traffic safety 

professionals, including law enforcement, Department of Transportation, and other safety 

advocacy groups. 

There is a cooperative driver-testing program whereby Montana driver education 

teachers act as authorized agents of the Driver License Bureau to administer the skill test 

and the written test. 

Unfortunately, there are also many weaknesses. Reimbursement is now only 26 

percent of the cost, down from 50 to 60 percent of the cost only 10 years ago. This 

translates into higher costs to parents, up to $340. When costs are this high, some parents, 

and this is an important thing to grab, some parents expect their children to pass even 

when they are not ready to drive. They view it as buying a license. 

Our higher education training institutions -- another weakness. Our higher 

education training institutions rely on adjunct staff for training. Long-term vision and 

leadership comes from outside teacher preparation institutions. Driver education research 

and development is missing. 

The driver license is issued based on an exam that is inadequate to measure driver 

readiness. This is a big point of my presentation, and I’ll be talking about that more 

lately. We need to deal with determining when a student is ready to drive. 

Our youth can get a license at too young an age in Montana, and the driving 

culture does not appreciate the value of proven crash reduction interventions. We have 

yet to adopt a graduated driver license. For the experienced driver, there is insufficient 

opportunity and little incentive for lifelong learning. 

Compared to other States, Montana is in pretty good shape. Missouri is one of 

several States that has no State direction driver education staff and hence no State 

administration of programs and collection of data. Are there driver education programs in 

these States? It’s understood there are, but beyond that, no one knows much. 

With so much disparity in State programs and with huge lapses in data collection, 

it is nearly impossible to gather sufficient information to develop a comprehensive 

national picture of driver education, let alone try to understand what it’s doing and what 

value it has to research. 

97
I am on record as stating that driver education in the United States is deplorable. 

A copy of that paper is found in the appendix to the report I gave to NTSB. If you’re 

interested in seeing a copy of that paper, let me know and I’ll be glad to get you a copy of 

it. 

We usually focus on the unacceptable teen crashes when we talk about driver 

education, but the issue of this forum is driver education. Is it all it can be? The answer is 

“no,” not in any State. 

The question that I keep asking myself about this discipline is, what will it take 

for individual States to adequately address the novice driver safety challenges? The 

answer to this question is the same answer that it will take for Montana to adopt a 

graduated driver license program consistent with the recommendations of the NTSB. 

So I want to look at the national picture, understanding that Montana’s future is 

tied to the same answer. There are a couple obstacles I’d like to look at before we go to 

answering that question. I’ve identified two. The first one is, we don’t admit to or 

understand the problem. 

We underestimate the significance of those things with which we are most 

familiar. Most Americans drive. Most drivers think they are fairly good drivers. At 

Montana’s Advanced Driving School, I consistently hear from seasoned, experienced 

drivers that they had no idea that they had so many bad habits. 

This translates to State legislatures that fail to provide the support, policy, and 

resources needed to provide the educational foundation, especially when dollars are tight, 

as we have seen in recent years. Effective and credible advocacy ceases in the absence of 

educated, informed driver education leadership in all States. 

And the second obstacle. The normal refining dynamics of free enterprise are 

absent. This is an important, important concept to grasp. It’s my observation that the 

driver education training business suffers from a lack of timely and healthy feedback. 

First, customers are not very knowledgeable consumers when it comes to driver 

education; and second, driver education as it is today is not a return business venture. 

Hence, driving schools do not experience dissatisfied customers taking their business 

elsewhere. This is true for public and private schools. Public schools, however, are more 

accustomed to submitting to standards as a means of improvement. 

But when standards and necessary monitoring are lacking, the same deleterious 

effects prevail for both venues. Without standards and monitoring, the only real feedback 

is the driver license test and teaching to this inadequate assessment of driver readiness 

has become the norm of success for the driving schools. 

Sean McLaurin said the States must come and let them know that we want help. 

I’m from Montana. I’m not speaking for the governor, but I’m saying we need help. 

98
To overcome and improve educational efforts, there must exist -- and I’m drawing 

heavily here upon the National Research Council’s book on how people learn for these 

recommendations -- there must exist a definition of model driver in terms of knowledge, 

skill, behavior, and habits. We have to know what we’re shooting for. 

There must exist a learner-centered curriculum that pays careful attention to the 

knowledge, the skills, the attitudes, and beliefs that learners bring to the educational 

setting, and is designed and aligned with the expectations of a model driver. 

It must address content, methods, and formative student assessments congruent 

with learning goals. There must exist standards for teacher preparation programs that 

fully prepare instructors to model and teach the knowledge, skills, and behavior and 

habits needed, and which includes requirements for ongoing professional development. 

I’m quoting the National Research Council here. “Both subject matter knowledge 

and pedagogical knowledge are important for expert teaching because,” according to the 

National Research Council, “knowledge domains have unique structures and methods of 

inquiry associated with them.” In other words, we’ve got to understand what’s going on 

with driver education to teach driver education, and we’ve got to have pedagogical 

knowledge, which is how to teach effectively, in order to get it across. 

There must exist a licensing process that measures driver readiness as defined by 

the model driver and which employs a process that facilitates the safest means to merge 

the learning driver into mainstream driving, such as the graduated driver license and a 

defined and appropriate parent component. 

There must exist program standards that apply to every driver education-training 

program, school, whatever you call it. And there must exist State oversight and 

management standards. 

There must also exist accountability measures and standards. In other words, a 

feedback loop. Since it doesn’t exist for this business, we’ve got to create one. A 

feedback loop that encourages quality, requires adherence to standards, and answers the 

questions, are teachers prepared to teach what is needed; do they teach it; and did the 

students get it? And finally, this accountability must employ appropriate corrective 

measures and/or consequences if standards are not met. 

And I can’t stress this next one enough. There must also exist lifelong learning 

opportunities for adult drivers with periodic assessments of driver knowledge, skill, 

behavior, and habits as defined by the model driver. We will never change the culture if

we don’t change the parents and the neighbors who define and perpetuate that culture. 

There are also other good education-based measures that contribute to reducing 

injury and death on the highways, and these must also exist. 

My last point in this section is the answer to the question I posed earlier, what 

will it take. This is very essential. 

99
Sean (McLaurin), I hope you’re listening. 

There must exist federal policy and fiscal support that ensures that every State 

participates and facilitates approved standardized programs for every eligible teen and 

assures the eligible teens complete the program before they are fully licensed. 

Well, how do we do that? I have an idea for you. In order to implement the above, 

there needs to be a completely new model to license drivers. Some things are so broken 

they cannot be fixed and need to be replaced. 

For this model, the author -- that’s me -- proposes the present commercial driver 

license model be improved and expanded to all drivers. Any driver who wants to have a 

license that is valid in States other than his own State of residence must obtain an 

interstate license. For those who do not want or need to cross State lines, they can obtain 

an intrastate license. Federal policy will govern the standards for the interstate license, 

and State policy will govern the intrastate license. 

In this model, if a new driver wishes to acquire an interstate license, he or she 

must meet age requirements set by the national standard. He or she must pass an 

approved driver education class that meets national standards of best practices. He or she 

must participate in a graduated driver license process that meets national standards of 

best practices, and he or she must pass a rigorous comprehensive driver readiness 

assessment based on the model driver. 

In addition, if an existing driver or an experienced driver, whatever you want to 

call him, wishes to keep his or her existing interstate license, he or she must submit to a 

periodic reassessment of their knowledge and skills. The periodic cycle should be 

appropriate and determined by the frequency needed to update drivers on changes in 

vehicles and the highway transportation system and to assure adequate retention of 

desired driving knowledge, skills, and behaviors. 

What’s that frequency? Some people say as frequently as three years. Others say 

five years. I’m not saying I know the answer, but I’m saying we’ve got to do it. 

This periodic reassessment is critical in assuring appropriate lifelong learning. 

These assessments must be based on the model driver and be age-appropriate. The test 

must assess driver scenarios and conditions found in every State, assess knowledge, safe 

driving habits, and skills. In other words, for Montana, my assessment is going to test me

on whether I can survive in New York City driving or Texas hot weather driving or 

plains-boring driving, you know, straight highways. Whatever happens? If I’m going to 

go across the State line, I’m going to have some idea that I’m prepared to deal with what 

I might find there. 

Such a periodic assessment will stimulate opportunities for lifelong learning 

which will build a more appropriate knowledge and skill foundation for the whole 

population, and this is the important point, and will thereby fuel a shift toward a safer 

driving culture. 

100
Much interest has emerged relative to the abilities of aging drivers. The need to 

deal with this issue continues to increase as the baby boom generation enters their silver 

years. If an appropriate driver readiness test is developed, it can be used to determine 

whether a senior has sufficient skills for the many various driving conditions experienced 

in the many States. If the skills are deficient, the assessment will guide the States in 

deciding whether an intrastate license with restrictions is appropriate. 

An interstate license can also help with identity issues associated with homeland 

security. And there can be a lot talked about on that, but that’s all I’m going to mention 

on that. 

Now, the key to making this all work is the assessment tool. It has to be a 

comprehensive assessment tool that looks at the system-wide thing, not just driver 

education. 

The reason most States provide license renewals without periodic assessments is 

the cost associated with reassessing the entire driving population during the period of the 

renewal cycle. This cost hurdle must be overcome. 

It is therefore proposed that this assessment be computer-simulator based and 

administered at approved third-party licensed test stations. Many professions and trades 

depend upon this third-party assessment process now. The results of the assessment can 

be transmitted electronically to the State driver license bureau. 

The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) the one who gave us 

the Internet, are working on a system built from off-the-shelf computer components that 

will train judgment under stress. Very interesting. Maybe it’ll judge my stress up here so 

I can know ahead of time whether I’ll be an effective public speaker. 

Personal computer-based simulators have come of age, and their present 

capabilities are ready for the assessment challenge this model proposes. Simulators 

designed to provide assessment of driver readiness can assess knowledge, skill in all 

levels and kinds of driving conditions, eye movements to ensure appropriate vision skills, 

adherence to defensive driving principles, and just about anything determined to be an 

appropriate component of the model driver. 

And if it is determined that different aged drivers have different driving 

challenges, the computer can provide an age-appropriate assessment. In real time it can 

adjust the questions based on the skill level of the person being tested to provide a more 

precise measurement of their abilities and, if remediation is required, it can provide a list 

of needed improvements. 

Basing these in approved third-party testing facilities will keep the resource 

burden at the driver license office minimal. In other words, we don’t necessarily need to 

overly inflate the driver license-testing budget to do this. 

101
Conclusions. Montana’s driver education program is a commendable program

when viewed against many State programs. However, present-day American society is 

capable of so much more. Most of the research studies done to date are assessing a driver 

education system that is archaic and rife with inconsistencies. 

These studies must not be the basis of determining the value of education in the 

complex matrix of highway safety. Indeed, it is futile to expect significant crash 

reductions on our highways without a knowledgeable, skilled, and safety-committed 

driving populace. 

It takes key leaders who have the keen sense and vision to understand this 

important fundamental concept. It takes key leaders like the National Transportation 

Safety Board to stimulate the revolution needed to shape a civil and safe driving culture. 

That culture is only possible with the right foundation, and that foundation is a 

knowledge and skill base obtained through education and training. 

The proposed interstate licensing model will provide the platform to establish 

uniform standards for driver education and training, a rigorous, comprehensive 

assessment of driver readiness, and the tools needed in this era to build that foundation. 

Those are my points. I feel strongly about it. I felt strongly about it before four 

Montanans gave up their lives. It’s been distressing to me. I’m relatively novice to the 

driver education leadership. I took over the position in 1998. Before that time, my

experience was in training school bus drivers. The moment I became a part of this 

discipline, I knew something was wrong. I just felt it; I could see it everywhere I went. 

We have to come together on this. There are many different personalities involved 

in this. There are many different institutions with a long history with a lot of mass and a 

lot of inertia, and that’s why I say this thing has to be changed. We cannot fix the old 

system. 

We need to come together and do something for our kids. It’s a tragedy our kids 

are dying in the war in Iraq. It’s a greater tragedy that we turn a blind eye to the greater 

numbers that are dying on our highways here. 

Education alone is not going to fix it, but it’s a key component in a system that 

must address a change in a culture. It begins with education. We’ve made a big stride in 

the seat belt usage. We’ve made big strides in infant seat use seats. We can shift some of 

the cultures and ideas about our driving skills if we just put our mind to it as a nation. 

Thank you for your time. 

(Applause) 

102
Presentation by John Harvey

MR. VAN ETTEN: Our next presenter is Mr. John Harvey. Mr. John Harvey is 

presently the program manager of driver education in the Transportation Safety Division 

(TSD) of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). He holds a bachelor of arts 

degree in health education with a minor in driver and traffic safety education from

Slippery Rock State University and a masters of arts degree in safety from Central 

Missouri State University. 

He has been a driver’s education instructor. He was an instructor in driver’s 

education for eight years, and he was also preparing to teach instructors to be driver 

educators. In 1979, he became a driver and safety education consultant for the Vermont 

Department of Education, and in 1990 he joined the Washington State Office 

Superintendent of Public Education and was the editor of the Washington Traffic Safety 

Education quarterly journal. 

He has served as the president of the American Driver and Traffic Safety 

Education Association, and currently serves on the executive committee of the 

Association of State Supervisors of Safety and Driver Education, and is the president of 

that organization. 

We had one of our panelists who was unable to make it today, Mr. Barry Ford 

from Vermont. And Mr. Harvey has graciously volunteered to take his presentation, so 

he’ll be doing a couple of them here back to back. 

MR. HARVEY: Thank you. And thank you, David (Huff), for that enlightening 

presentation of the big change of restructuring driver education. 

I’m pleased to be here, especially with my esteemed colleagues. When you think 

about the issues that we’re faced with, David (Huff) discussed those issues; the fact is we 

lack standards. We also lack driver behavior curricula and teacher competencies. We also 

lack State supervision and leadership and lack of funding to support quality driver and 

traffic safety education. These are all of the themes my colleagues have described, and 

it’s no different in Oregon. 

I’d like to build on three areas, in the Oregon overview. One area is things look 

different in Oregon. I’m not from the Department of Education. I’m with the 

Transportation Safety Division, which is the Governor’s Highway Safety Office for the 

State of Oregon. And another area I’m going to share is the Oregon’s driver education -- 

the future is bright there -- and the final area is to share with you that we need to have the 

vision, “the vision for reaching more,” more students, more parents, better curricula, and 

making sure that we’re promoting lifelong driver learning. 

So the expectation in Oregon, it’s under the magnifying glass. And do we have 

the pot of gold? I don’t know if we have the right pot of gold in Oregon, but certainly, 

103
NTSB, with their guidance, can provide the leadership and support to really restructure 

what really needs to be done to improve driver education in this country. 

But in Oregon, our theme is that “transportation safety is the way to go,” and you 

know, our mission, no different, we want the safest transportation system in the world for 

our State. 

And what we really need is the public support, that public support the driver 

education as a public policy. So we must prepare our students to compete, contribute, and 

cope in a high-tech society, and that’s what David was alluding to. 

What are our goals and objectives relative to driver and traffic safety education?

We’ve got to have preparation for lifelong learning. We’ve got to have survival skills, the 

ability to cope, and the social sensitivities. That’s certainly goals of a driver and traffic 

safety education program not only in Oregon but also throughout the country. 

So when you look at the highway transportation system, driver education in 

Oregon, you know, we’re with the Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation 

Safety. And so when we think about competent and responsible users of our 

transportation system, we also have to think about this systems partnership, just as my

three panelists discussed the importance of the systems approach, and you look at 

education. And certainly, that’s where driver education has been and focused. And when 

you think about driver education, it is that shared partnership. 

And when you look at the systems approach, we look at motor vehicle crashes. 

And if 93 percent of our crash causation factors are the driver, we really need to take a 

look at driver performance improvements. 

And so what improvements do we need to make? We need to look at this 

inexperience issue. We want to reduce the representation of inexperienced young drivers 

involved in crashes. And so in Oregon, it’s no different than anywhere else. We definitely 

feel that driver education is important and should be mandatory. 

We also look at a performance-based outcome of driver education. We support 

the fact that graduated driver licensing is a key, and parent-guided practice as well. 

So the economic costs. When we look at motor vehicle crashes in Oregon, $1.08 

billion. That’s too costly. We’ve got to do something about that. So, our Oregon driver 

education program, things look differently here. You bet, because, as a part of our GDL 

law, what had occurred was that the leadership and the statewide administration was 

transferred from the Department of Education to the Transportation Safety Division. 

And so as a part of that transfer, we created this action plan for change. And so 

for the last four years, we have really worked hard at looking at what is this action plan 

and what do we need to do to support it. Then we also created a dedicated funding source 

for driver education. 

104
So none of these solutions to the problem are going to be very effective unless we 

have the resources capable of implementing those solutions. 

Before 1999 if you wanted to be a driver education teacher in our public school 

system, one had to be a certified teacher, and you didn’t have to go through any 

formalized training. That’s pretty scary. When driver education was transferred to the 

Transportation Safety Division, we established a partnership with ADTSEA and Western 

Oregon University, and we created a Trainer of Trainers program. Things are different 

because we went to the national model, that being ADTSEA, and created a trainer of 

trainers system for all Oregon driver educators. 

One of the other things that we did, too, that was a little bit different, we conduct 

a public opinion poll. And for the last four years, we’ve asked several questions on driver 

education. We’re getting public input relative to what we need to do to make changes that 

will be effective. 

One of the questions we had asked was on the traffic safety requirements. Do you 

believe that driver education should be required in all of our public schools? The public 

opinion survey indicated that 92 percent of Oregonians say, yes, driver education is really 

important. 

Other questions we asked. How much involvement should that student be, how 

much time? Is it 30 and six, or 60, or what? And the mean average of the question was 

saying, John Q. Public in the State of Oregon says that that driver education program

should provide at least 70 hours of instruction. 

And here’s another question. Now, before ‘99, if you wanted to be a classroom

teacher in the State of Oregon, the only requirement was to have teaching credentials and 

no formalized driver education training. And so we asked the question: how much 

training do you believe should be required of driver education instructors?

Between 200 and 400 hours. Forty-seven percent of the people surveyed said that 

to be a trainer of young people, preparing them for lifelong driver learning, you should 

have between 200 and 400 hours of preparation. So certainly, things look different here 

in Oregon. 

We do most everything in our Transportation Safety Division by looking at 

Oregon’s data-driven issues. We wanted to take a look at Oregon’s youth traffic safety. 

And so we were the second State in the country to go through the NHTSA Youth 

Assessment. 

And one of those things that we are looking at is the effectiveness of various 

traffic safety countermeasures, and one was graduated driver licensing and its elements 

and components. And it’s so exciting that that became one of the top 10 priorities of this 

youth assessment. 

105
ODOT-TSD has various advisory groups providing support, review, and 

recommendations. These are just three of those, that being the Driver Education Advisory 

Committee. And there is a group of individuals that provide support specifically to the 

driver education program, but to the Transportation Safety Division there’s a support 

agency as well as the Oregon Department of Transportation has also an advisory group. 

So here we’re getting support and input in the direction of what we need to do. 

One other thing also is pretty earth shattering, that we don’t have driver education 

as a requirement to obtain a license in the State of Oregon. And so one of the things that 

we did was say that if people are going to obtain a driver’s license without formalized 

driver education, we need to provide them with the tools necessary. And we do that 

through our DMV, and it’s a “Tuning Up Manual” that our division pays for helping 

parents gain some competence as it relates to, preparing their son or daughter to learn 

how to drive. 

As you can see here, things look differently in Oregon. 

One of the things that we did was an analysis of crashes before GDL and after 

GDL. In 1998 we had 1196 16-year-olds who were involved in serious or fatal crashes. 

And look at the success that we’re having, a 24 percent reduction in the first year. In the 

second year, a 32 percent. And just recently, we reviewed the stats. Since our graduated 

driver licensing, and this deals specifically with 16-year-olds only, concerning their crash 

rates and involvement, we have a 36.3 percent lower injury and fatality rate as a result of 

graduated driver licensing. 

That lends itself to the fact that we’ve got close to 46,000 drivers and only 16,000 

going through formalized driver education. 

So what do we need to do? The future is bright in Oregon for driver education. 

We do have dedicated funds, and that’s licensing money, $6 per renewal, this financial 

support will carry us through 2008. We also have a performance plan, and I, along with 

other program chairs in my agency, submit a performance plan that has and reviews the 

driver education performance measures with specific strategies. So there are specific 

strategies that we’re trying to look at and make improvements in. 

And one of the things is that since we didn’t have any formalized training for 

teachers we said we’ve got to do that. And so our agency is helping defer the expense of 

some 750 teachers to meet a deadline that we created as a part of administrative rules. 

That’s exciting, but that’s also challenging because people don’t want to be asked to go 

back and get retraining because they already know how to drive. 

And the other thing is, as we are looking at data-driven issues, two research 

projects are being conducted in the State of Oregon relative to graduated driver licensing, 

and specifically, elements of the graduated driver licensing dealing with driver education. 

There is a NHTSA study underway, as well as the AAA Foundation and TIRF company, 

looking at Virginia, Ontario, and Oregon. So we’re going to be under the magnifying 

glass to say, what’s working or what isn’t working. 

106
So a couple of the other things the future is bright. We’re saying that we need to 

engage parents. And I think everybody on this panel said, yes, we’ve got to do a better 

job of that. 

And so one of the things that we did was partner with the Oregon Traffic Safety 

Education Association. We created a parent involvement resource guide to support driver 

education programs in helping and engaging and communication with parents. And some

that particular model resource guide we will be reviewing as a part of the two research 

studies that we’re participating in. 

So the future is bright. We’ve helped individual programs by creating a specific 

assessment tool. We also are saying that we need lifelong learning as a priority. And so 

when you look at the teacher competencies of a role model, planning instruction, studentteacher interaction, administration, evaluation, professional development, we do have a 

new standard that’s going into effect that will say that teachers need professional 

development and they have to do that every two years. 

One of the things that we’re also proud of is that we will be hosting the National 

American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Conference next July. And so some of you 

here that are participants, we’d love to have you there. We’re certainly going to open up 

the doors and have you have a wonderful experience in the great State of Oregon. 

Now, the other good news is -- the NIDB Driver Risk Prevention Curriculum. As 

a part of our goal of restructuring and supporting driver education, what is it that we want 

students to know, feel, or be able to do? We not only are using the ADTSEA model but 

the National Institute for Driver Behavior. 

So our graduated driver licensing, what’s the difference between a formalized 

driver education program and this parent-taught program? For a person under the age of 

18, if they go through a formalized driver education program, they are required to obtain 

50 hours of parent-guided practice as well as formalized driver education. 

One of the problems is we don’t have a similar standardized program with our 

commercial schools and our public schools. But one of the things is if you don’t go 

through a formalized driver education program, the parent has to certify and sign a DMV 

form that they’ve provided their son or daughter with 100 hours of instruction. 

Wow. That’s over a six-month period of time. You know, that’s 17 hours a 

month. Now, how many of our 30,000 parents in the State of Oregon are using the magic 

pen and just saying that they’re doing it, as compared to monitoring their performance?

That’s one of our challenges. 

One of the things that when we changed the rule, we said, we’ve got to partner 

with our education community and say, you’ve got to be enrolled in school to be able to 

obtain a license. So that’s one of the new administrative rules. 

107
In our Oregon Performance Plan, that’s what we set up to measure. Our goal is to 

standardize and require driver education for all Oregonians. And so if that’s the case, 

we’ve got change the role of driver education. We need lifelong learning for lifetime of 

risk management. 

This action plan certainly created a variety of issues to support this vision for 

reaching more. We had task forces, we had town hall meetings, and we’ve had 

administrative rule changes, legislative emergency board rules, and other impacting 

legislation. 

When you come right down to driver and traffic safety education, what do we 

need? We need some standards. We need a curriculum that’s student-centered. We need 

graduated driver licensing and parents. We need quality teacher training. We need 

ongoing professional development. We need program standards, training standards, as 

well as that partnership with the professional associations. 

It ultimately comes down to when you look at driver education, if we want 

students to change, guess what we have to do? We’ve got to train those teachers. And so 

that’s what we’re attempting to do to reach that 750 teachers and providing them the 

guidance necessary. 

We’ve come up with a process through an action plan that provided 

recommendations, and what we do we have are three courses based upon the national 

model of ADTSEA. And we’ve got the foundations, the classroom, and behind the wheel. 

So you can take either two or three courses. So if you’re going to teach both classroom

and behind the wheel, you have to take the foundations, the behind the wheel, and the 

classroom course. 

And these standards are taking place next year. So they aren’t in fact in rule yet. I 

mean, they’re in rule, but they aren’t effective as of September 1st, ‘04. And so how 

many teachers have gone through this training out of 750? It’s about 300. So we’re on the 

fast track with those 30 trainers of trainers. 

Same standards for driving school as it is for public school. So it’s no different. 

So when we look at improvements what model of improvement are we looking 

at? What are we trying to accomplish? What’s the current knowledge, and how do we 

plan, act, study, and finally do? So when you look at that standpoint, it’s got to go to have 

a development. David (Huff) said that we need knowledge and skills; we need attitudes 

or that motivation. And so when you combine those two, certainly that is habit formation. 

And so what we have done is, as a part of our teacher training program, is looked 

at the National Institute for Driver Behavior that provides the guidance because it has a 

philosophy that’s student-centered, it has specific goals and objectives, it has a scope and 

sequence for habit development of these key driving behaviors. And as a part of that 

curriculum, it provides instructional activities as well as teaching strategies, resources, a 

108
student and a program evaluation. So as a part of what we’re looking at to assist those 

teachers, is we provided them with that particular model. 

The good news -- it’s certainly absolutely marvelous news that we have reduced 

16-year-old fatal and injury crashes by 36.3 percent. And then when you look at it 

comparing our 15- to 19-year-old fatality rate, we’re 51 percent lower. Now, that’s pretty 

incredible. But that’s what we’re attempting to do. We’re moving in this change process, 

you know. We’re leaving the old; we’re entering the new. We’ve got the resources. 

We’re studying. 

We have the administrative support; I have the Governor’s Highway Safety 

Office manager that is in fact supporting what we need to do. I would hope that all of the 

other 49 States have that same type of commitment. We have peer support. We’re doing 

teacher training. And so we’re into that change process. 

But in reality, I’m in the transportation area as compared to the educational area. 

And so how do I fit in when we talk about leaving no child behind? I really believe that 

as we restructure we’ve got to look at characteristics of high-performing schools, and use 

those same characteristics of high-performing schools with driver education. And so what 

are they? A clear and shared focus. And we’re coming to a clear and shared focus at this 

event today. 

We also have got to have some high standards and expectations. And we’ve got to 

raise the bar. We have to raise the bar. 

In addition to that, we have to have effective leadership. Where is it going to 

come from? The NTSB, NHTSA, ADTSEA, Governor’s Highway Safety Association?

We’ve got to have high levels of collaboration and communication, and 

sometimes we don’t do either. We don’t collaborate; we don’t communicate; it’s my way 

or the highway. 

We also have to have these curriculum standards and assessments aligned with 

those standards. So, we’ve got to say, this is what is a model driver should be. And 

certainly, the National Institute has created a model, as well as ADTSEA. We need to 

really make sure that, what’s the agreement between planned and actual. I’ve got this 

wonderful curriculum, but am what you’re actually doing? So planning instruction is so 

critical. 

We’ve got to monitor teaching and learning. And if there’s one failure of driver 

education, it’s we don’t monitor what we’re teaching and what the student is learning 

because if we’re using the sole example of the driving test as the end-all, we’re missing 

the boat. I don’t think that we should be financially supporting just preparing a person to 

pass the minimum competency of a DMV test. 

We really need to look at monitoring how we’re administrating programs, and 

what is that student -- what does he or she know, feel, or be able to do. 

109
We’ve got to have a focus on professional development. We’ve got to really 

change what we’re doing. We’ve got to support the learning environment. Support the 

parents, and try to bring them along. And so community awareness and saying, yes, 

driver education is important, but we’re all involved in competitive education and 

convince me that driver education is important as compared to other areas. 

And ultimately, when we think nationally, driver education needs leadership and 

funding. That’s what really needs to happen. We need teacher training and credentialing. 

We need program administration. We need curriculum standards, technology and 

methods of instruction, and then ultimately the evaluation of what we want individuals to 

know and be able to do. And parents have got to be an integral link. 

As we look at the issue, and I’d like to close, we’re here in the wonderful country 

that provides leadership and guidance. And I look at the State capital of Oregon, and we 

have on top of the Oregon capital the gold guy. He’s a pioneer, a true pioneer. And I 

think of us in we’re looking at paradigms and shifting. Most of you are aware that 

paradigms are patterns of behavior, of rules and regulations used to construct those 

patterns. 

David (Huff) wants to change the paradigm. And I support him. And we in 

Oregon support that and look at it this way, that when we look at the Oregon paradigm

pioneer, it’s intuition. And when you look at intuition, it’s the ability to make good 

decisions with incomplete information. Is that we? You bet, all right. 

Courage. We’re taking a risk. We’re all taking a risk, but we know that there’s an 

issue out there and commitment for the long haul. I believe that my 30-some years in 

supporting quality driver and traffic safety education. I’ve been there. The intuition, 

courage, and commitment for the long haul. 

So that’s a little bit of perspective of the Oregon driver education program. 

Things look different here. The vision is to reach more, and driver education in Oregon, 

the future Is bright. 

Thank you very much. 

(Applause) 

MR. HARVEY: Now, this was kind of like an “oops, Harv (John Harvey), will 

you help out?” I got a phone call this morning at 5:00 a.m. from Barry Ford. Now, Barry 

Ford is a colleague of mine who is the State supervisor of driver education in the 

Vermont Department of Education. He’s been trying to get here since yesterday as well 

as today. And he doesn’t arrive until 5:30 p.m. tonight. I have not seen what Barry (Ford) 

prepared, except for about five minutes ago. And so I just quickly glanced over it and I’d 

like to pinch hit. 

MR. HARVEY: Let me tell you about Vermont. Vermont is really unique, and I 

had the great opportunity from 1979 to 1990 to provide leadership in driver and traffic 

110
safety education with the Vermont Department of Education. And some of the things that 

really -- and I’m just ad-libbing and I’m not reviewing specifically what he has as a part 

of his paper, but his title was, “What’s Right with Vermont’s Driver and Traffic Safety 

Education; What’s Needed to Improve it.” 

What’s right relative to driver education in Vermont is their teacher preparation 

program. They require six (three graduate, three-credit) college courses, and so that’s 

over 270 hours of preparation to be able to teach in Vermont now. 

Let me just give you some facts and figures. There are 75 public high schools in 

the State. One hundred two active licensed driver educators; 40 are full-time. Forty fulltime because Vermont is unique in the fact that it requires driver education to be offered 

as a part of their free public education. That’s the only State that requires driver 

education as a part of the Department of Education’s mission, requiring it to be not taken 

but available. 

Sixty-two hundred students in those 75 schools. Commercial schools complete 

about 1000 students. Public school teachers teach in at least 13 of the commercial 

schools. 

John’s here, and Freddy (in the audience). He’s smiling because he’s one of those 

individuals who not only works and teaches in Vermont but also works in New 

Hampshire as a commercial school operator and owner. 

Driver education in Vermont is free. Free. Pretty incredible. 

Teacher preparation. Their strength. They have relicensing requirements; they 

have undergrad activities, graduate activities; and these are the requirements for teacher 

preparation. Only public school-licensed teachers may teach in the public school. 

One of the things that Vermont prides itself is driver education relicensing 

requirements. You have to complete 9 credits every seven years go through continuing 

education. And as you can see here, three of those have to be specifically in driver 

education. 

When graduated licensing passed in Vermont, additional revenues of about a 

quarter of a million dollars. And so there have just been a variety of activities occurring 

in a classroom. We have teacher training, digital photography, and web-based instruction. 

One of the things is that they’ve purchased a skid monster, and it goes around to 

the 75 schools and actively supports the curriculum that the State has adopted, which is 

the National Institute for Driver Behavior. As a part of a curriculum process, they 

reviewed a variety of curricula and supported that process through Fred Mottola and the 

National Institute. 

111
But as a part of their training, dealing with mentors. It’s unique in the fact that we 

have teachers coming back into the summer program that help these new beginning 

teachers, a model that I’m not too aware of for the rest of the country. 

Student teaching. We do have teacher preparation activities in the United States 

that don’t have any classroom or behind-the-wheel instruction but just theory. 

Let me just mention the curriculum, which supports the Vermont framework and 

standards and vital results. It’s an electronic format, and a variety of training has occurred 

in those 75 schools. 

The curriculum folder. There are student assignments, teacher content, and it’s 

mirrored. The scope and sequence is based upon classroom and in-car. It’s integrated and 

correlated, and there’s both entry and exit quizzes, student-centered activities based upon 

in-car performance. 

As a part of that curriculum, there’s transparency, supportive activities, model car 

roadways, in-car vehicle activities, all supporting the curriculum.

As a part of the curriculum specifically for the individual student, he or she is 

provided an overview, what is expected, an in-vehicle performance set, supporting 

content, as well as student-centered activities. And probably the most important is the 

key behavioral patterns as a part of that student resource. 

As a part of the teacher training, that being its strength, they’ve provided a variety 

of audio/visual supports. They create route plans that are based upon what has the student 

experienced in the classroom, and it’s the changing role of the learner in the fact that they 

need to demonstrate what that student needs to be able to perform.

As a part of the requirement, like I said, all schools have to offer driver -- make it 

available. It is the 30 and six basic program. And then the alcohol and drug component 

identified. 

Here are the money issues. You’ve heard everybody else talk about money and 

how much it costs. The State is reimbursing in Vermont $71. That’s the same as 1966. 

Eighty-seven percent of the school costs in 1996. It’s only 21 percent of the actual cost in 

2000. I think that’s exactly what Montana is. 

Their parent involvement really supports the NIDB curriculum. They’ve got 

student-centered activities where students actually prepare lessons. 

And some of the things relative to measuring the in-car effectiveness of their 

program. You can see some of the things that are there. 

I think planning for driver development. I think it’s critical that you look at route 

plans to support what the student should be demonstrating. 

112
There’s a collaborative effort-taking place. All of these agencies work together. 

There are all kinds of partnerships. 

And Barry did some reviewing of the Swiss study and their literature review and 

how closely what they are doing supports the quality elements that we heard earlier, and 

that’s using the NIDB activities, and that information is not based upon, as you see this 

last element, on the license exam. But it is, what are those knowledge, skills, and 

behaviors for lifelong learning. 

Many programs in Vermont require the 20 to 40 hours of parent involvement. 

That’s a part of their graduated driver licensing. 

Where do we go from here? How many times do we have to say that or hear it?

National standards for curriculum and teacher. Making commercial schools accountable; 

public schools lose funding; private schools often cut corners to increase profits. 

Increase teacher-credentialing requirements nationally for public and commercial 

schools. Mandate teacher professional development. So I think that all five of us have 

said the same thing. 

National standards for content and delivery for both public and commercial. 

Increase standards of instructional time, both classroom and in-vehicle. 

Establish a national definition of driver education. The other issue in Barry’s 

(Ford) paper, he says, put an emphasis on K-12 curriculum. At fifteen- and 16-year-olds, 

it may be too late to change risk-taking behavior. 

Saving lives is a national priority as compared to issuing a license. Make 

resources available and saving teens’ lives are more of a priority than financial benefits 

of instructors and owners. 

And I believe in closing he identified the magnitude of the crash problem. 

Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Question and Answer Session 

MR. VAN ETTEN: If anybody has any questions for Mr. Ford, he will be here 

tomorrow morning, so we will give him an opportunity to come and make a few 

comments tomorrow. 

We have heard of the problems or the needs of driver education nationally and 

we’ve seen through some of the presentations today the reduction of driver education’s 

status reflected in reduced requirements and funding and the removal of driver education 

113
requirements for obtaining a driver’s license. What does each of you see that are the 

major obstacles to improving driver education in the arena of public policy? In other 

words, what is government in general -- what are the problems that we see with that?

Ms. Weaver, we’ll start with you, and I think we’ll just go right down the line. 

MS. WEAVER: When it comes to public policy, I think we need to do a better 

job of communicating with our legislators regarding the need for driver education and 

training. I believe we need to do a better job of working with the policymakers within our 

States so that they will see the value of driver education and training. 

Without having national standards and having a way in which we can say we have 

the content and delivery identified, and we all are striving to work toward that, it makes it 

very difficult at a State level to establish those standards because it’s so easy to brush it 

underneath the seat and say it’s not important. Something else always is much more 

important. 

MR. LANTZY: I agree with Beth (Weaver) with the communication. All too 

often when we go before legislators with best practice for driver education, we do have to 

understand that legislators are voted in by their constituents, and if their constituents 

don’t agree, it’s hard to get that passed through. 

With this new bill on the passenger restrictions, one thing that came to light or 

that was proposed was to, yes, have passenger restrictions of no more than one nonfamily member but not to have that in place for travel to and from school, of which we 

know that’s when the highest risk-taking is. However, fortunately, the legislature did 

understand the driver education end of it and the licensing, and that was taken out. So the 

bill as introduced did survive, but understanding that, obviously, legislators may 

understand what is right but politically that could be another story. 

MR. HUFF: One word: narcissism. We all seem to think in terms of how it will 

affect me. And in Montana, we have a pretty “leave me alone” culture. If my kids die, 

that’s my business. They don’t look beyond that and see that if their kid dies, they may 

be taking somebody else out on the highway while they’re in it. 

Politics. I think our nation as a whole, and Montana is no exception, is suffering 

from lack of Statesmen who will stand up for what’s right. It’s become partisan politics, 

and it’s getting worse and worse. It’s very frustrating. 

And that’s why I say that what we need to have is a national policy that overrides 

all that. How we get that established, whether we can sell that to the national leaders is a 

big challenge, but it goes back to the statement I made in my speech. We don’t 

understand or admit to the problem. 

We will continue -- in fact, in that paper I alluded to I made a very strong 

statement and I stand by it. Novice driver education and how we deal with it is like a 

dysfunctional alcoholic family. We continue to abuse our kids on a regular basis and 

114
don’t admit we have a problem and won’t do anything about it because we don’t see that 

it’s a problem. Yet we can look around and see other situations where fewer lives are at 

risk and we do something about it right away. It’s okay for us to abuse our own people, 

and that’s what we do. 

MR. HARVEY: I think, when you look at the characteristics of effective schools, 

I think that’s the same thing that we have to do relative to public policy relative to driver 

education. Timing is everything, and it needs to be data-driven. And that’s the one thing 

that, in my last 13 months with the Oregon Department of Transportation, I’ve seen as 

compared to, just pouring my heart out and saying, oh yes, we need driver education. 

It has to be data-driven, number one, and number two, we’ve got to support and 

communicate the magnitude of the motor vehicle crash problem. Because motor vehicle 

crashes are the number one unintentional injury factor of our young people, and people 

don’t perceive that. We’re in competitive education as a public policy issue. And motor 

vehicle crashes become a concern only when it comes close to home and it becomes 

personal. 

MR. VAN ETTEN: This question comes from our audience, and this is for 

anybody that would like to answer the question. It says, “In some States, or maybe in 

most States, driver’s education falls within the Department of Education, yet the Federal 

Department of Education has no role in driver’s education. Do you think that they 

should?” 

In other words, do you think that the Federal Department of Education should 

have a role in driver’s education, “or is this role sufficient within the Department of 

Transportation? Or should driver’s education be within the State Departments of 

Transportation as it is in Oregon?” 

So, where does this driver education belong, within the education realm or within 

the Department of Transportation realm?

MR. HARVEY: When you look at the highway transportation, we’ve got to 

develop competent, responsible users of the system. And how do you do that without 

education? So it’s this partnership that has to take place. 

Now, what is the role? I think that when you model good behavior and understand 

teaching and learning, driver education fits there because we’re looking at teaching and 

learning. However, Leave No Child Behind, but where is driver education as it relates to 

a priority? 

When you look at we’re testing at the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, 

eighth, ninth, and tenth, and then giving a certificate of mastery. Let’s do that with being 

a responsible user of our transportation system as a pedestrian, as a passenger, as a 

vehicle operator, you know. Let’s look at those competencies and measure them. 

115
MR. HUFF: I think if we’re going to assume that driver education should be a 

part of a child’s basic education, and there has been some advocacy for that, and mobility 

certainly is a basic issue related to our society, then I think it would benefit from a 

stronger partnership with the Department of Education. 

One of my concerns of this forum is that there would be a recommendation that 

would come out of here saying that we need to reenergize our schools to provide driver 

education, and this is like how we would like to do it. And those who control education 

would then say, but, but, but we’ve got enough to deal with this No Child Left Behind, 

because they do have their hands full. 

So we could come up with a good idea here and education may be closed to it. 

This also happened with -- with the school bus industry. The school bus industry and 

driver education, these agencies all used to be a part of the school system and they were 

under the umbrella of the national administration groups back in the 1960s and 1970s. 

And those who actually run the schools, the superintendents and those groups, they 

wanted to focus more in on the basic issues of education. So they helped the school bus 

industry spawns off and has its own association. The driver education folks did that. And 

then it was off the table; it was not an issue anymore. 

I think that’s part of the problem. If we want to have it funded by education, then 

they need to be involved. But I certainly think that the other partners have to be a part of 

it because the CDC’s charged with the health of our nation and the Department of 

Transportation and NHTSA is charged with the highways and the safety. 

So it’s a system. We’ve got to think in terms of systems-wide or, as Senge says, 

we’re going to continue to have ill in our society. 

MR. VAN ETTEN: I have three questions here for Mr. Huff. All three are 

addressing your point on the interstate/intrastate CDL type of driver’s license. So maybe 

I can combine all of these questions into one question with three parts. 

Would your interstate driver’s license replace the intrastate driver’s license? In 

your proposal of the interstate license, who will provide the reassessment services, which 

will provide the tune-ups that the licenses can be renewed? And the big question is, who 

pays for all of this?

MR. HUFF: All good questions. All issues that have to be dealt with. If you take 

my model and look at it with a critical eye at this point, the obstacles to achieving it are 

so overwhelming we would be tempted to lay it aside without even considering it. But the 

solutions are there. The ability to overcome can be done. 

It would not replace the intrastate license. You would only be required to have 

one, as with a commercial license now. In Montana, for instance, if I can’t pass the 

interstate license physical, I can still get an intrastate commercial license and I’m limited 

to mobility within the State of Montana. The same would occur with the intra- and 

interstate regular license. 

116
So the model is already in place. The database that holds all of these is already in 

place. There are problems associated with it. I have learned that one of the problems with 

the commercial driver’s license database now is that citations in one State don’t match up 

with citations in another State. So a lot of them where there’s no direct correlation 

between these violations, they drop them. They don’t even get entered in the database. So 

those kinds of things still need to be solved. 

The question about tune-up, who pays for it, who pays for the teacher’s license?

The teacher does. Who pays for the barber license? The barber does. Who pays for the 

lawyer’s license? The lawyer does. Well, the customers. Thank you, John (Harvey). 

(Laughter) 

MR. HUFF: We have to pay for our own license. Mobility is important. We’ll 

pay. How much do we pay for a Super Bowl ticket? It’s all a matter of understanding the 

priority. It goes back to my point. We don’t understand or appreciate the problem. If we 

understand I would be willing to pay a couple hundred dollars every five years for a 

license if I knew that I’m dealing with a shift in the safety culture, and I think most of

what John Harvey said about the parents and how strongly they feel about that being a 

part of their education supports public opinion. 

But we’ve become so gun-shy about this kind of thing that we back away from it 

in the areas we should not be backing away from it. This is one of the areas we should 

not be backing away from it. The idea that the tune-up, the assessment, would be thirdparty testing in Montana, for instance, now an eight-year license for a commercial 

driver’s license is about $80. So it’s $10 a year. 

I envision if I were to go to, say, like Sylvan Learning Systems to take a 

computerized assessment of my driving skills every four or five years, it would probably 

cost me another 50, 60 bucks just to go in and take the test, plus my license. So I’m going 

to be increasing cost to me. But that’s nothing compared to what we pay in increases in 

our home taxes or what we pay -- I mean, how many of you are paying that much a 

month for cable TV?

I mean, come on, and let’s get real about this. Let’s look at the priorities in terms 

of what’s important in our lives. How important is your kid to you? How important is 

your neighbor’s kid to you? It’s certainly worth the extra cost. It’ll be borne by me. It’ll 

be borne by you in this model that I propose. 

MR. VAN ETTEN: The next question we have is for Ms. Weaver. How many of 

the 113 school districts and schools are you able to audit per year, and where do you get 

the money to do it?

MS. WEAVER: It’s 110 school districts that offer driver education. The other 

three school districts are elementary school districts. 

117
The funding for auditing reviews comes from the driver licensing fees. That pays 

for the driver education program. We do not use any public funds for public education. 

And of the public schools, we try to review about one-third of them every year. 

So about every three years we try to get to the public schools. And with the commercial 

schools, we’re now at 35. We attempt to get to every commercial school every two years. 

And when there is a problem or an issue in either, an initial problem with either one, we 

do go to those schools. 

MR. VAN ETTEN: This next question is also for you, Ms. Weaver. You 

mentioned the skid monster, but earlier speakers said the skid pad experiences increases 

crashes. Why do you use the skid monster and what have your results been?

MS. WEAVER: Well, we have the auto control skid monster in one particular 

school that actually is in the regular school day. That teacher teaches driver education all 

day long. The teacher says that is the best way in which to teach initial skills of vision 

control, to teach the ability to target. 

The very first drive will take you less time in an auto control monster, if you will, 

or the skid monster, than it does to actually take them out on the street and try and teach 

them the same skill. 

Again, the funds come from the State driver licensing fees. And the results; we 

don’t actually have any results. We’ve never actually gone in and tested them. It would 

be wonderful to be able to do that. 

MR. VAN ETTEN: The next question is for Mr. Lantzy. You mentioned vision 

and health screening required for licensing. What does health-screening entail?

MR. LANTZY: Basically, when one goes into a secretary of State branch office 

to get their license, whether it’s an adult or a teen, they must pass a vision screening, 

which is, I believe, 20/40 corrected in one eye. And then in our secretary of State branch 

offices there’s basically just a health form that you fill out that you indicate that you do 

not have any health concerns that would affect your driving. 

In driver education programs, we do require that the student does show that they 

do meet the vision requirements and also that the school somehow verify. And it may just 

be a statement from the parent that, you know, the student does meet the secretary of 

State requirements to operate a motor vehicle. So in order to get in the behind-the-wheel 

phase, they must show that they do meet the same requirements as they would when they 

go to the secretary of State’s office to actually get a license. 

MR. VAN ETTEN: Our next question is for Mr. Harvey. A $6 licensing renewal 

fee funds driver education in Oregon. How difficult was it to pass this funding 

mechanism?

118
MR. HARVEY: I was not there when the law was passed. I was in the State of 

Washington. 

But, Troy Costales, do you want to just stand up and make a comment how 

difficult it was to pass? 

MR. COSTALES: As memory serves, the vote in the chamber was 85 ayes and 

five nos. 

MR. HARVEY: Data-driven support. 

MR. VAN ETTEN: This is for any or all of the panelists. I heard you all agree on 

a national standard for driver education. How will this standard be evaluated; who will 

evaluate it; and again, the big question is, who will pay for it? 

MS. WEAVER: I think that’s the problem. We don’t know what driver education 

is or should be. We don’t know what kids should be learning and what the outcome

should be. So I think we need some good solid research to point us in that direction. The 

delivery system needs to be evaluated as the best way in which to deliver it. 

When I talk about delivery, I don’t talk about, is it going to be public schools or 

commercial schools? I’m talking about the delivery of the teachers, the quality of the 

teachers, and the training of the teachers. I’m talking about the delivery over time. How 

much time does it take for these teen drivers to learn the skills and the knowledge that we 

want them to learn, and especially, changing their attitudes. 

I think the researchers are the ones that need to help us in this regard. 

MR. HARVEY: One of the items in the performance plan was looking at the 

National Institute for Driver Behavior and taking the three different types of program

providers that we have in Oregon, and that being commercial schools, community 

colleges, educational service districts and the public schools. And we wanted to take a 

look specifically at these different providers, and I’m hoping that when we try to promote 

quality driver education as a mandate that we will have the same outcomes because we 

have the same delivery because we’ve standardized the program. 

Once that has occurred, once we agree upon the standard of performance, then we 

could take a look at, who are we going to pay for driver education and how are we going 

to continue to monitor this program. That’s a challenge. And do we look at private 

partnerships; do we look at the federal government; do we look at the State government 

and saying, yes. Because you’ve heard five different models here, and we’re similar but 

different. 

MR. HUFF: My proposal probably has the greatest dollar associated with it, and 

so it’s only fair that I address that issue. 

119
We do what we want to do. That’s the bottom line. As a nation, we do what we 

want to do. Until we have a threat against our kids, we seem to take it for granted because 

we underestimate things that we’re most familiar with, and we’re familiar with our kids. 

We’re familiar with that car. So we don’t think it should take a whole lot of money to do 

it. 

But we set up we make decisions to pay for things as a nation, and we do it. When 

we understand the need, we do it. And I’m thinking that this has to be funded nationally. 

And my proposal said there has to be policy and fiscal support to make this happen. It’s 

going to take an educational effort just to sell our population that we need to do this. It’s 

going to take time. I don’t see it happening overnight. 

Who would evaluate? There are different kinds of evaluation models. I would see 

it being done basically at the State level with some monitoring by the federal policy to 

make sure that, if my model were adopted, we had an interstate license. The models for 

monitoring are already in place with all kinds of federal programs where the states 

actually perform the leg work but assurances that those things are being met are required 

by the federal government as part of the grants that go to fund that. 

I think part of the cost is borne by you and me in the increased cost of the license, 

but I think there has to be some federal support that goes along with it. I think we saw a 

lot of innovation take place when the federal government was involved with this back in 

the 1960s and 1970s. When that money dried up, the innovation and the growth dried up. 

So it takes some seed money. And I envision that needing to take place. 

One thing that was asked earlier, how do we do the tune-ups. Part of that model 

would stimulate all kinds of business because if I’m going to go in on a regular basis to 

take a simulator assessment of my knowledge and skills, I’m going to want a refresher, 

whether that’s delivered over the web, whether I go down to a local driving school, 

wherever I go. There’s going to be business stimulated. There would be residual revenue 

streams for driving schools, which would create more of that self-correcting kind of 

commercial enterprise where if they don’t do a good job, I don’t go to them next time 

because if there is a rigorous assessment that I have to pass, I’m going to select the 

school that’s going to give me the ability to pass that test. 

So there’s some really interesting dynamics here that will come to play that’ll 

help with this. There’ll be support because there’ll be some private businesses being 

generated out of it, too. It won’t just be all tax-driven. 

MR. VAN ETTEN: I’d like to thank our panelists for very informative and very 

challenging, very stimulating presentations. And I’d ask you to give the folks a hand in 

appreciation for what they’ve done. 

(Applause) 

120
Presentation by Barry Ford 

MS. BISHOP: The first thing we’re going to do today (Wednesday), I’d like to 

invite Barry Ford up here. He is from Vermont and was unable to make it here yesterday 

afternoon. John Harvey did a great job of giving his presentation, but he wants to make 

sure to touch on a few points. 

Mr. Ford is a driver and traffic safety education consultant with the Vermont 

Department of Education. He is a member of the Association of State Supervisors of 

Safety and Driver Education Board, Vermont Governor’s Highway Safety Policy 

Council, and he is president-elect of the New England Traffic Safety Education 

Association. 

Welcome, Mr. Ford. 

MR. FORD: Thank you. 

First off, I’d like to thank the National Transportation Safety Board for allowing 

John Harvey to fill in for me yesterday. I can’t think of an individual that could do a 

better job than John Harvey, who through the 1980s probably laid the foundation for 

what is Vermont’s program right now. And I’d like to thank John (Harvey) for filling in. 

In my PowerPoint presentation yesterday, I touched upon many of the highlights 

for the State of Vermont, including teacher preparation, which involves 270 hours of 

preparation before any of our instructors actually get into the field. That would both the 

public school instruction and the commercial instruction. 

I also touched on the professional development that is involved for our public 

school educators in the State of Vermont. They are required to have the same

professional development as any other discipline. 

I also wanted to highlight the fact that over 90 percent of our driver education 

students that complete programs in the State of Vermont are done free of charge in the 

State public school system with public school educators. 

I believe this is because Vermont is a small State, but what I like to refer to as is a 

large community. And for that reason, we are able to do a great many things that I know 

the higher-populated States across the country are not able to do. We’ve been able to 

standardize the curriculum; we’ve been able to deal with the workshops and presentations 

across the State of Vermont in a Driver Education Association that is extremely strong. 

I only have 102 licensed driver educators in the State of Vermont, both public and 

commercial. Over 90 percent of those teachers are full-time, active members of the 

Driver Education Association, and very supportive. 

In the presentation I also mentioned a lot about the partnerships that go on in 

driver education in the State of Vermont, those being the Department of Motor Vehicles, 

121
the Vermont Rider Program with motorcycles, the Truck and Bus Association, and it 

goes on and on through all of the areas of law enforcement. 

So being, as I said, the large community in Vermont, I feel that we have a very 

strong program. It has a long way to go, and I think that we can improve upon it. 

Without taking any further time from your presenters today, I just would like to 

thank again the opportunity to say a few things this morning. If you have questions 

specifically about Vermont’s presentation yesterday, pass the cards in and we can address 

that at a later time. Thank you very much. 

(Applause) 

MS. BISHOP: All right. We’ll go ahead and start with the program. And our first 

session today is some teacher and student perspectives on driver education. The 

moderator is Mr. Peter Kotowski from the Office of Highway Safety. 

Driver Education Teacher and Student 

Perspectives 

MR. KOTOWSKI: Good morning. Today’s morning panel, we’re going to 

discuss teaching standards, techniques, and the use of simulators, and a perspective on 

the program effectiveness from recent graduates of the driver’s education program. 

Dealing with teachers and students, this is the point where -- in the driver’s education 

program where the rubber meets the road. 

Presentation by Debbie Cottonware 

MR. KOTOWSKI: This morning we’re going to begin the presentations with Ms. 

Debbie Cottonware, a driver education instructor. Ms. Cottonware has received 

numerous traffic safety awards, including the American Driver and Traffic Safety 

Education Association, ADTSEA’s, 2003 Teacher of the Year, and the Washington 

Traffic Safety Education Association’s 2002 Teacher of the Year. 

Currently, she is a teacher in the State of Montana, and she is an adjunct faculty 

staff member of the Montana State University, Northern, and the Central Washington 

University as a driver education teacher trainer. Recently, she has been selected as a 

reviewer for the newest edition of “Driver’s Education Manual.” 

122
At this time, I’d like to introduce Ms. Cottonware. 

MS. COTTONWARE: Good morning. I’m excited to be here today because I get 

to speak for teachers. And one of the things I do when I talk about driver education is I 

speak from my heart, and you’ll probably notice that this morning. 

Car crashes, the number one killer of teens. Seven thousand teens die as a result 

of automobile crashes every year. That’s twice the number that was killed as a result of

the attacks on 9/11. Our country went to war over 9/11. What are we doing about driver 

education and about teens involved in car crashes? One element that’s already in place 

yet needs improvement is driver education. 

Driving is considered a privilege. However, in today’s society with all the talk of

school-to-work transition, driving is an essential privilege. For this reason alone, driver 

training should be a part of basic education. 

Driving is a social task, and new drivers must be given skills to interact 

appropriately and safely within the highway transportation system. Lowering high-risk 

behaviors and good habit development is what quality traffic safety education programs 

are all about. 

As ADTSEA Teacher of the Year, I have the privilege of speaking to you on 

behalf of teachers all across the country. I have a unique perspective, having taught in 

two States with teens and training teachers, that of Washington and Montana. 

In Montana, although the crash last winter involving a teacher and his students is 

very disturbing, the driver education program is going strong. Dedicated teachers 

continue to offer quality programs. 

In the Washington State program, it’s been a model for States all across the 

nation. Their curriculum, their parent involvement guide which came along about six or 

eight years ago, a guide to help parents, which was one of the topics that came up 

yesterday. We have one of those that we’ve shared with many States, along with our 

supplemental materials. They’ve been used and duplicated in several States. Teachers 

from Washington, myself included, have presented at workshops and conferences all over 

the country. 

In tough economic times, the legislature in Washington is slowly dismantling the 

public school driver education program, in part because the perception of what we do and 

the reality of what we do are so misunderstood. Thus comes one of the challenges that we 

face as driver education teachers that I’d like to share with you: the misperception of 

what driver education is and should be. 

Parents want mobility. They want it cheap, they want it convenient, and they want 

it fast. The public perception of driver education is that our purpose is to prepare teens to 

pass the written and driving test at the Department of Licensing. And if they get a few 

safety tips along the way, that’s okay, too. 

123
However, where public school driver education training programs exist, that’s 

where the teens are going to get their training because parents know and trust their 

schools. A quality program attempts to do much more than simply prepare teens for the 

licensing exam. 

I want to go into teacher mode for a moment and demonstrate, and that’s what 

these questions are all about. 

For every session that I do with teens, I hold a parent’s information night. And at 

that parent information night, I ask the parents these four questions. 

What color is a “yield” sign? I’d like for you to answer that question silently to 

yourself. 

What is the correct hand position on the steering wheel, and why do we put our 

hands there? Even five years ago, how would you have answered the question? What did 

you learn in your driver education program?

What is a reference point, and how and why is it used?

And if the ABS light comes on in your car while you’re driving, what does it 

mean? 

Parents are going to make the same mistakes that you will. 

The State driver’s guide will tell you about yield signs, but there are still signs out 

there that are the wrong color. How many of you answered in your mind “yellow”? Teens 

need to be prepared for those signs that are the wrong color and know what to do. 

Some, but not all, State driver’s guides will talk about hand position, but the 

information is not consistent nor is it always correct. They do not go into the reasons why 

certain hand positions are used on the steering wheel. 

There is no information in the State driver’s guide regarding reference points, yet 

it’s a practical application that has tremendous effect if taught and used correctly. 

Take note where the center of the hood is in relation to that curb line. Very visual 

skill that we can give the students. It shows the students where that car is in relation to 

the curb. And the selling point that I give parents is that it saves on the sidewalls of their 

tires. 

And the information regarding antilock braking systems (ABS) will be found in 

the owner’s manual of any car, but parents more often than not don’t know the answer, 

nor do the salesmen that sell the car. The answer is not consistent from make to make or 

even from model to model. 

124
From these few examples, you can see that driver education is much more 

comprehensive than basic car control. You can also see that the adults that are practicing 

with the teenager probably need a little refresher themselves. 

Another serious challenge that we as driver educators face is time. We have a 

tremendous amount of material to cover in an incredibly short amount of time. 

In Montana, students are to receive 60 hours of structured learning time. Six of 

those hours are behind-the-wheel instruction. Simulation can be included as a part of 

those 60 hours as well. 

In Washington State, the minimum standard is 30 hours of classroom instruction 

and four hours of behind the wheel. Until just recently, most public school programs 

went way beyond the minimum requirement. In Washington State in 2001 before the 

implementation of GDL, the fatality rate for the 16- to 20-year-old age group was 42.8 

percent below the national average. We need to ask why was this true. Were the cars in 

Washington any different than they are anywhere else in the country? The laws?

Enforcement of those laws? Were our roadways any different? Were any of those things 

significantly different than anywhere else in the country? No, they weren’t, but our 

training program was. 

Learning takes place when behaviors change. How many gold medal ice skaters 

or world champion Little League pitchers or even National Basketball Association 

(NBA) All Stars were created with only six hours of practice and instruction? Yet driving 

is a lifetime skill. 

Precision driving skills and good habit development are essential. We cannot 

effectively accomplish that in only six hours of instruction. This is the reason why 

research shows that driver education doesn’t work, because behavior is not changed over 

the long term. 

The main reason why we’re seeing the success we are with graduated licensing is 

not because of the extra driving time kids are putting in. It’s because it’s a longer period 

of time before they can be involved in those high-risk behaviors, like driving with their 

friends and driving at night, that get them into trouble. 

This does not mean that the additional practice and additional experience are 

developing good driving habits. Forty thousand people in this country die every year in 

car crashes. The number one cause of crashes is driver error. Those errors are often a 

result of poor habit development. 

Perfect practice makes perfect skill. In our current way of doing things, the 

perfect practice needed is not taking place. These facts not only tell us that teens need 

more time to learn, but again, that the adults, the ones that are doing those additional 

hours of practice, need a periodic refresher as well. 

125
We spend millions of dollars educating children. What is the point if all of that is 

squandered away in a moment when a child is killed in a car crash? 

Another weakness in driver education is the lack of consistent standards for 

content and delivery. You’ve heard this before. Yesterday every one of the State directors 

told you we need consistent national standards for content and delivery. It can be 

different from school to school, from teacher to teacher. Generally speaking, public 

school programs have much higher expectations for their students than do the 

commercial for-profit programs. Consequently, a national standard must be developed, 

implemented, and expected for all new drivers. 

To be truly effective, a comprehensive program must be developed, of which 

driver education is only a part. Automobile collisions are the nation’s most serious health 

problem, especially where teens are concerned. For this reason, this comprehensive 

curriculum needs to be K-12 and it must become a part of basic education. 

Then, a challenge for teachers is evaluation for the purpose of improving 

instruction. In our current structure, there is a lack of monitoring and therefore a lack of 

meaningful evaluation of curriculum and instruction. I have 24 years of teaching 

experience. Even I as a veteran teacher in a new school district have been assigned a 

mentor to guide and assist me through the year. That does not exist for traffic safety 

education teachers. 

Administrators are required to evaluate teachers on an annual basis. This does not 

happen in driver education, justified by the idea that it’s either part-time or 

extracurricular. Truth be known, the majority of administrators don’t have any idea about 

this specialized field of instruction and so they’re unable to effectively evaluate. 

So now we come to the State staff, which are the experts. In 1990 when 

Washington State was serving 244 schools and approximately 48,000 students a year, 

there were seven State staff to administer this program. They had the time and resources 

to go out to schools, evaluate curriculum and instruction, and help implement 

improvements. 

Today, with the loss of funding, we still have 200 school districts offering driver 

education, but we only have one State staff assigned half-time to administer that program. 

Montana is primarily a rural State. We serve 147 school districts, and there are 

approximately 303 teachers serving the teens of Montana. David Huff that you heard 

from yesterday is also a one-man show. 

Public school driver education teachers are clamoring for professional 

development and meaningful evaluation of their programs and instruction. Lack of 

personnel and limited resources affect the ability of State staff, the experts, to provide 

these valuable tools to teachers. 

126
I’ve covered the idea of mentors for new teachers. I’ve also talked about the fact 

that we need meaningful evaluations that we clamor for professional development 

opportunities that are few and far between and adequate funding is also an issue. But 

notice I put that at the bottom of the list. 

We spend millions of dollars on education in this country. Millions of dollars are 

spent on research to determine what works in education. Driver educators already use and 

believe in many of those proven theories. Let’s designate some of those research dollars 

to find out what does work, what does work, in terms of learning and therefore changing 

behavior regarding driving. 

We have a captive audience in the schools. A research project done recently at 

Washington State University showed that students attending public school driver 

education programs showed less participation in high-risk behaviors, not just driving 

behaviors but activities such as smoking and drugs as well. This is another indicator that 

public education in our public schools works. It’s doing the job. It’s indeed valuable and 

effective. We must work together to maintain and improve our driver education 

programs. 

There are many stakeholders. Public health organizations, insurance companies, 

law enforcement agencies, judicial bodies, and highway administrations as well as 

educational agencies that should have and have a vested interest in seeing the 

improvement of not the elimination of driver education in schools. 

Again, car crashes are a serious public health concern. The private interest is in 

mobility. However, the public interest must be in safety. 

As a teacher who’s been recognized as one of the best -- and I feel really nervous 

up here. And there aren’t very many of you so it shouldn’t be scary, but it still is. 

Someone told me, though, that if I lost my edge, I needed to get out of education. So I 

think I’m okay. 

I would like to leave you, though, with this thought. Good teachers. Good 

teachers seek out ways to increase their knowledge and improve their instruction. Good 

teachers do not fight regulation that will truly improve instruction. A good teacher needs 

to be paid what they’re worth, but a good teacher is not doing it for the money. They do it 

because it’s good for kids. And driver education teachers are no different. 

Thank you for your time today. 

(Applause) 

127
Presentation by Steve Cebulka 

MR. KOTOWSKI: And now I’d like to introduce Mr. Steve Cebulka, a driver 

education instructor for the Colonial School District in New Castle County, Delaware. 

Mr. Cebulka has a B.S. in social studies with a driver’s education certificate from

Millersville University in Pennsylvania and a masters of education from the University of

Delaware. 

He has been a driver education instructor since 1972 and a department chair with 

the Colonial School District in New Castle County, Delaware, since 1978. He has been 

involved in the development of the curriculum standards for driver’s education in the 

State of Delaware. 

MR. CEBULKA: Thank you for being here and giving myself an opportunity to 

tell the Delaware story, and more specifically, my story teaching driver education at 

William Penn High School with a heavy emphasis on simulation. 

I’m a teacher in the Colonial School District, and we are the largest school district 

in the State in terms of landmass. And I want to go over a few things on the history of 

Delaware. 

In 1934, Delaware driver education was created with the Delaware Safety 

Counsel starting a program teaching class work only. And in 1935, they added road 

instruction after school hours. In 1937, the first full-time driver education teacher in the 

State of Delaware that taught the program during school hours was Gladys Hall at a small 

high school north of Wilmington. 

Delaware driver’s education has enjoyed a strong support by the State legislature 

from the very beginning. In 1944, a law was passed allowing driver education students to 

drive with their instructor without a permit. Before then, they had to have a permit. In 

1947, the legislature granted special reimbursement funding to high schools, which 

provided driver education to their students. 

And everything stayed the same until 1967, when the State legislature passed the 

mandatory driver education law requiring everybody under the age of 18 to successfully 

complete a high school-only driver education program, prohibiting commercial schools 

from teaching people under the age of 18 and setting the limits of teacher load at 140 

students for every driver education teacher with a 30-hour classroom and six-hour 

instruction behind the wheel. 

And that went along till 1987 with the 16-, 17-year-old accident involvement rate 

in the low- to mid-20 percent range for Delaware. Now Congressman Castle, who was 

then governor, convened a task force, which I was a member of, to look at and examine 

how effective driver education was in the State. 

128
As a result of that task force, former Governor Castle signed legislation to lower 

the student-teacher ratio to 125 students to every teacher, increase the behind-the-wheel 

time to seven hours of instruction, and he established the first what we would like to 

consider a mini graduated driver’s license that required every new driver to drive with 

their parents for the first 60 days. 

This new law reduced our accident involvement rate between 16- and 17-year-old 

licensed drivers from mid-20 percent in the 1980s, so when the new laws went into effect 

in 1992, our accident involvement rate for the 16- and 17-year-olds dropped to 16 

percent. The next two years it dropped further to 15 percent each year. 

During the mid 1990s, driver education was examined more closely because of 

the school accountability laws that were emerging across the country. The Delaware 

Department of Education increased the number of credits a student needed to have to 

graduate, and the Department of Education considered moving the program to out-ofschool hours. 

And at a series of public hearings, the Delaware Driver and Safety Education 

Association presented arguments about the low crash rates for Delaware’s 16- and 17-

year-olds. Instead of moving driver education out of the school day, the State legislature 

unanimously passed a graduated driver’s license, which mandated that driving during the 

first six months a new driver could only drive with their parents at any time. The second 

six months, they’re allowed to drive without supervision during the day from 6:00 in the 

morning to 9:00 at night. And they’re allowed to have two passengers in the car. 

However, there is an exemption during the second six months, that when the new 

driver is going from work, school, or a church-related activity on a direct line between 

that activity and the driver’s home, he’s allowed to drive without supervision, but they’re 

not allowed to have any other passengers in the car with them. 

Also, in 2001, the State legislature passed a law saying that in order for a student 

to get into our program, they had to have passed five credits, two of which had to be 

math, science, English, the major course subjects, before they were allowed to take the 

program, and they must move on to the 10th grade year. And then, once they were in the 

program, they had to pass five more credits in order to get their license. So even if they 

pass our course, if they don’t have the five credits they’re not allowed to have their 

license. And the State only gives them until the conclusion of the next marking period to 

obtain those five credits. If they don’t receive those credits, they have to wait until 

they’re 18 to get their license. 

The driver education program in Delaware has several highlights. The State 

provides the program free of charge to 100 percent of the 10th grade students no matter 

where they attend school. We have several small schools in Delaware, and the State will 

provide each school with one-fifth of a teacher that teaches the entire driver education 

curriculum until the course is done for every 25 students the school has. And of course, a 

full-time teacher in the larger schools for every 125 students. 

129
We also have a thing called Inflation Index Funds that have been provided by the 

State for the teacher to obtain and maintain their driver education car and purchase 

supplies and other driver education-related items. 

In addition, for the last 36 years, the driver education teacher, not a one-time 

tester at DMV, determines whether a student is ready for their license. 

The first question I ask my students for discussion the first day is: “Is your driver 

license in the State of Delaware a privilege or a constitutional right?” And from that 

moment, I start working on their behavior and why they need to be a solid driver working 

with everybody else on the highways. 

On my road test, it is a fairly simple test. It’s 20 minutes long. My two rules that I 

tell them beforehand is that if they do anything that would result in points on their driving 

record or if I have to take control of the car, they’re going to get a retest. My test covers 

city driving, parallel parking with real cars, driving on a major urban street, and getting 

on and getting off expressway ramps, or I tell them the direction they need to go and then 

they have to evaluate that request and determine the proper exit. And if they can’t go to 

the proper exit, they’re retested again. I like to think that my comprehension test results 

in lower accident rates. 

In Delaware, the percentage of 16-year-old drivers involved in accidents is much 

better than the national average. The green chart shows the accident involvement rates for 

all licensed drivers in America. You’ll notice that it’s a low of 10 percent in 1999 to a 

high of 16 percent in 2002. 

The purple chart represents all 16-year-old drivers in the United States, and you’ll 

notice that goes from a low of 34 percent to a high of 58 percent in the year 2000. 2000 

was the first year that Delaware’s graduated driver’s license was in full effect, and there 

was a lot of publicity: billboards, pamphlets to the parents, special meetings. The blue 

chart shows the accident involvement rate for 16-year-old drivers in the State of 

Delaware. As you can see, in the first year of the graduated driver’s license, our accident 

involvement rates for our 16-year-olds was 8 percent. 

But I like to think in the attitudes and behavior that we stress in our classroom is 

carried out to our 17-year-olds. Again, with the green you see the accident involvement 

rate for all drivers in the country. And with the purple, the accident involvement rate for 

all 17-year-old drivers in the country. 

And you can see that for our 17-year-olds, we had a high of 19 percent accident 

involvement rate in 1998 and a low of 15 percent last year. 

So with our strong State support from the legislature, in fact every major driver 

education piece of legislation that was passed in Delaware has been passed unanimously, 

that we like to think that we have a world-class driver education program and we’re quite 

proud of it. 

130
Specifically, at William Penn High School, although our program is similar to 

those across the State, I want to share with you some of the specifics about the William

Penn program. 

We have five full-time driver education teachers serving approximately 650 to 

700 students each year in our day, our evening program for adults after hours, and our 

summer school program. In fact, in a nationwide study conducted by Dr. Darrell Jones 

from Texas A & M University in 1992, we were selected as one of the eight exemplary 

driver education programs in the country. 

Our program consists of 36 hours of classroom instruction, 12 hours of simulation 

instruction, and with me, at least four and a half hours behind the wheel and four and a 

half hours of observation time. 

I emphasize many techniques in my class, with two major areas consisting of

alcohol education unit, which the State legislature has mandated that I provide at least 

five hours of alcohol education, and the class project. 

The class project is approximately a 20-page paper. One time my students had to 

write a position essay on being a member of a jury that has to decide the outcome of a 

civil case where alcohol was involved by a young driver. In another essay there was a 

judge of an alcohol case in a criminal trial where another teenager killed eight people. 

The last essay or position they have to take is, why do I think I’m going to be a safe 

driver. And that needs to be 350 words or more. 

We’ve used simulation at William Penn High School for 28 years. This is our 

third set of simulators. We started out with the old Link simulators that were bought with 

federal grants back in the late ‘60s. And then in 1988 we upgraded those. And today we 

have the simulator system from Doron that’s on display in the back. Not the virtual 

reality one, the other one. 

Simulators save time and money. In Delaware, we can substitute four hours of 

simulation instruction for one hour of behind-the-wheel instruction. Because of our 

simulators, students are only rotated out of each of their academic classes twice for 

behind-the-wheel instruction. With all the academic accountability, we have worked out 

a rotating schedule that allows students to meet all their requirements besides driver 

education. 

They also help us reduce fuel costs and maintenance costs of our driver education 

cars and allows us to give extra road time to students who need it. 

With the credit requirement and other factors, if a student is not meeting our 

minimum standards, they are not allowed to drive. And obviously, there are a small 

percentage of students who don’t have the credits. And the time that they would have had 

to drive, we give to students who need the extra time. 

131
Emphasis of our instructors. We like to think they’re an integral part of our 

simulator system. We use a comprehensive curriculum to provide solid driving concepts 

in a safe, controlled environment with measurable results that we can get instant readouts as the students are going along. We can monitor what the students are doing 

individually and all together. So if we come across a scene in the sequence that 

everybody got wrong, the instructor can stop and repeat the scene over until the students 

understand it. 

But the one thing about our simulators that I really appreciate is the wide screen 

undistorted view so the students can master scanning techniques easier because 

everything is the same size exactly like they would see it in real life. 

Simulator training provides our novice drivers with the knowledge, attitude, and 

opportunity to become safer drivers as they develop an increased awareness and 

enhanced skills that can be better applied when they’re behind the wheel. 

Perceptual skills are critical and must be applied in order for students to become

safer drivers. Our novice drivers are required to make sure their intended path is clear 

before changing lanes. We use real footage with actual traffic images used for the blind 

spot check. This is something that we emphasize a great deal, about looking over your 

shoulder before you move out of your lane, and it’s repetition, repetition, repetition. 

Our simulators also have the capability that if we want to set up right turns, we 

can use bar coding to go over right turn after right turn after right turn. So when they get 

out behind the wheel, they’ve seen that situation several times. 

The simulator permits the instructor to develop decision-making skills by 

teaching proper scanning along the driver’s line of sight and path of travel so that 

students can recognize and deal with potential hazards before they become immediate 

threats. 

Yesterday I was talking to Pete (Kotowski), and his daughter just completed our 

program and this month received her Level 1 learner’s permit under the graduated 

driver’s license. And he was telling me how pleased he was that as he sat in the back seat 

the first time that she drove with the mother in the front seat that she constantly used her 

mirrors, looked to her side, and scanned with her eyes to both sides of the car and behind 

the car and in front of the car looking for hazards. As a teacher, that makes me feel very 

proud that our system works. 

But another thing about our simulation is as much as every driver education 

teacher would like to give each student experience in all driving situations, we all know 

this is impossible in real life. We use our simulator to give our novice drivers experience 

in these types of conditions. In fact, four hours of our simulation instruction is devoted to 

accident avoidance. And I feel this is very important because it puts our students in 

various situations where we can stop the program, explain it, and explain where they 

went wrong and how to correct it. Then we can re-run it. 

132
But the jewel of our simulation system is the driver analyzer. This is the part that 

all our students show the most interest in. It’s a system of measuring your recognition 

distance, your reaction distance, and your braking distance. 

The instructor can demonstrate the effects of various adverse roadway and 

weather conditions, including rain, snow, ice, and their effect on students’ ability to stop 

a vehicle. It is also part of our alcohol program where we can dial in times and distances 

by various levels of alcohol involvement, and it leads to lively discussions in class. 

Our simulators, or the analyzers, give instant feedback. On the right, you’ll see a 

number of 241, and on the left 437. The right number tells the student what they would 

have done in this situation of stopping their car under a normal condition. The left is what 

it took the driver to stop the car under whatever the condition was. I think in this case it 

was rain. 

And then we can talk among ourselves about who got lower scores and why did 

they get lower scores. The number on the right in the bottom picture is 196, and on the 

left 342. 

And we talk about why it’s important to recognize something, because the sooner 

you can recognize it, the sooner you can avoid it. 

I have been teaching driver education in my area for 32 years, which has a varied 

driving environment. I’m very fortunate that within eight miles of my school I can show 

my students urban driving. We take them through the second-worst intersection in the 

State of Delaware. Dupont Highway, which is one mile from the school, is the busiest 

road in the State outside the interstates. 

I also have my students practicing getting on and getting off expressway ramps in 

front of the Delaware Memorial Bridge, one of the busiest bridges across the Delaware 

River. 

I take them into downtown Wilmington. And for a change of pace, I take them on 

country roads, which happens to be the worst type of driving for a Delaware student 

because they’re not used to no cars on the road and narrow roads. They’re all used to 

very urban driving. 

We also take them down the lane that William Penn first stepped on when he 

came to America. And one of the drives we have, because in Delaware it’s a rite of 

passage, the day that that new driver is allowed to drive to the beach by himself or 

herself. 

So our goal of safe and competent teenage drivers has been worked on for the last 

70 years. Right now with the parent involvement we have, the Delaware’s comprehensive 

driver education program, we think that we can maintain the low accident rates and 

maybe even improve upon them in future years. 

133
Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Kayla Craddick 

MR. KOTOWSKI: Now I’d like to introduce Kayla Craddick. Kayla Craddick’s 

senior year of high school she served as the South Central representative for the National 

Student Safety Program, which is a youth group of ADTSEA. She presented a workshop 

to talk about the youth summit at an anti-alcohol/drug program that she put on for her 

high school. She is now attending college and in the future plans to pursue a career in 

public relations. 

MS. CRADDICK: Hello. How are you guys doing today?

First of all, I just want to say I’m so thankful to be here. It was an awesome 

experience getting to come and be a part of this forum. I was asked to give a student’s 

perspective on driver’s education, and that’s what I plan to do today. 

I would say my driver’s education experience was probably not the norm, not the 

usual. It seemed like I’m focusing more on my negative, but I think looking at what went 

wrong in driver’s education you know how to fix it and which areas lacked in my part. 

My first driving experience was sitting on my dad’s lap in his 1965 Chevy truck 

helping him steer down the road. I live out in the country in west Texas, so what that 

meant for me was that Kayla got to run up to the store and go get ice for Mom or do 

anything before I actually had my actual driver’s license. I did have a little experience 

before I was probably supposed to. It actually did help out later on just knowing -- having 

Mom in the car driving up to the store. It was always so exciting to get to do that. 

It was kind of ironic. This weekend I went on another trip up in the mountains and 

I was with another teen driver, a girl. And I almost lost my life three times. This girl was 

a horrible driver. I had never been with someone that was so horrible. And it was kind of 

ironic that I was planning for this session here, you know, and thinking, well, driver’s 

education is needed. After being in that car, I truly realize it is needed, so let’s begin. 

As a student, I think the purpose of driver’s education is to teach an individual to 

become a defensive driver, to inform and educate the student on laws, skills, and prepare 

them for the test and the license. It seems like everything in the State of Texas, to me, is 

tested. You do this to get tested; you read this, and it all equals out to a test. So to me, 

entering driver’s education was, I’m going to go to this class to pass the test so I can 

drive, and that’s what amounted to my first response. 

My experience with driver’s education was quite unique, like I’ve already said. It 

was fun to me. The instructor was very humorous, and I enjoyed going. We had it every 

134
morning at 6:00 in the morning, six to eight. And then we had our driving time after 

school. 

And also, since I was in track and basketball, we drove to the extra meets, like to 

the track meets, to the basketball games. So we got our extra time in there. So if you’re 

an athlete, it was kind of an advantage to you because he was a coach, he had to go 

anyway, so we took the driver’s education car and just went. 

He was a funny guy. He would sing songs every morning and just real humorous. 

He was always singing, “Shake the sugar off the honey bun” and just funny things that, I 

mean, you enjoyed going. You had to be there at 6:00 in the morning anyways; you 

might as well enjoy yourself. 

I passed that test with an 85, and that isn’t a great score for a straight-A student 

that does well in academics. But you know what? It got the job done, and that was my

thing. I wasn’t disappointed that I got a B on my driver’s education test, but it probably 

should have been a little bit higher. 

I took the class through my high school. It was offered at my high school. I was 

talking to some people before I came finding out how their kids took it or other teens in 

my classes, how their kind of their experience on it. And a lot of the classes in Lubbock 

aren’t offered at their high schools anymore. Mine, a smaller high school, about 600 kids. 

And so they still do it there. But mainly it goes through the community. You go and you 

pay and you take your kids into town and do it that way. 

It cost $190 for me, and it was kind of nice. It was very convenient. Mom just had 

to get up early. You just had to make it there in time, didn’t get counted off, and be there 

for your required time after school. 

I know this might sound horrible to you guys, but I was not required to do all my

driving time. I think we were required six hours, and I lacked an hour. And so I don’t 

know if his logs were wrong or if he was just sick of me by the time it was done and 

over, but he signed me off to go and get my license. So I lacked probably close to an hour 

of my driving time. 

I didn’t have my permit on my first driving experience. He threatened us and 

scared us in the first class and said, I’m going to check for permits when you all get in the 

car. I’m going to do this; I’m going to do that. But not being a very intelligent teen at the 

time I hadn’t had it yet, but I went ahead and drove and he never checked. So that was 

one thing that would probably be frowned upon by you guys, I must certainly say. 

I learned more about the teacher than the curriculum some days. Like I said, he 

was a funny guy. Lots of hilarious personal stories, lots of hilarious stories about former 

students driving, almost getting him killed, which was funny to know, great to be there, 

but, hey, I’m here to learn to drive. I was at first kind of like, hey, this is good, I don’t 

have to sit through and hear this stuff. Sometimes it was a little rush for us because he 

spent most of the class telling the story and then he had to get to the materials. 

135
Was it effective for me? Yes and no. I did pass the test, like I said, with an 85. 

Not a great score, but it did the job. I haven’t gotten a wreck, and I must say that is a 

plus. I have not gotten a ticket or even pulled over. 

I have used several things from the course. I’ve driven in several weather 

conditions, like my first time driving when we first went out was in fog. It was so foggy 

you couldn’t see anything. And I barely passed the eye exam test, so that didn’t make it 

any easier at all, either. 

So we’re driving. I’ve used it several times with weather. He really focused on 

weather, and I thought that was a really good job because in Lubbock it does ice over a 

lot and I’m petrified to drive on icy roads because I do have to commute 30 minutes to 

school sometimes. So he did focus on that and I did get to use that. 

If you pay attention, you also have a better understanding of things you didn’t 

have before. Like I said, doing a bare minimum of reading the material and just looking 

over and paying attention, I think most students could go in and pass that test. It wasn’t 

very hard. And like I said, you don’t have to do too well, but you still can pass. 

The hands-on was very effective. The actual driving was what you might ask any 

student. I asked around and they said how would driver’s education be more effective for 

you when you guys took it. Well, I probably would have preferred more driving time, 

more driving time, more driving time. All the students said that I asked. They wanted to 

become more familiar with the road helped. 

I’ve never come in contact with a simulator before and I’m real anxious to try this 

one out here, but that wasn’t an option for me. It was only hands-on driving, like I said, 

after school to track meets and what not. 

Was driver’s education effective for me? No, in some ways it wasn’t. I had to 

learn a lot of stuff through experience and through scaring people half to death because I 

was doing something wrong. Mainly I was in the car alone and just had to fix it myself. 

Had to learn the basics later. 

Parking wasn’t so great for me. I couldn’t quite get in that parking spot so 

straight. Probably took up a couple a couple of times just because I was too frustrated to 

try again. 

I’m ashamed to admit this. I still do not know how to parallel park. We worked on 

it in driving time, but like again, he did get frustrated with me and said, “we’ll try again 

later,” but we never did. So I guess that’s one thing I’ll have to go home and work on. 

Braking was horrible. Braking was absolutely horrible for me. The first time I was 

driving, I was the first one to pull out in that fog, and I guess my seat was too far back 

because I was pressing that gas and slamming on the brake because it just did not feel 

right. 

136
I’ve always had a little bit of trouble like if you’re not familiar with a car, once 

you get familiar with your own car, it’s a lot easier, but the pressure, the brake, and the 

gas, I had trouble with that. So that’s one thing he did help me focus on, but I probably 

did need a little bit more help than what I did get. 

Like I said, some areas were covered quickly and they were assumed that they 

were already known in the instructional part. We kind of ran through the sign and what 

color is a yield sign. At first it was yellow, no, it’s red. So we ran through that part kind 

of quickly, I thought he assumed that we would already know. We had driven with our 

parents, you know, so many times; we’ve been in the car; we know our city. Well, I still 

get lost, and my town is 200,000 people. 

We never actually went out on the busy highways, which is very important. In my

town, there is a loop and then an interstate that runs off of it. And so we went a couple of 

times. Nothing major; merging or anything like that. I mean, Lubbock doesn’t have a 

whole lot of traffic, but we never went straight where we had to go, not on and off type 

practicing. 

And then my mom was also very scared to take me on the heavy trafficked areas. 

There is a road I go to work every day on the same road, and it’s one of the roads in 

Lubbock that has the worst traffic fatalities on it. It’s an intersection with a lot of traffic. 

And I rode with my mom on it one time and she about passed out because it is very busy. 

And we never actually went to that during driver’s education. 

We traveled around where he went to high school. We went and saw the stadium,

went and saw who was playing football, practicing on the field that day. He wanted to see 

Lubbock High, who was practicing out that day and what not. So we ran his errands. We

went to his house, picked up his dry cleaning. So we take care of our coach in driver’s 

education; we sure did. 

How could driver’s education be more effective? More driving time required with 

parents and/or instructor. In Texas, there isn’t a certain amount of time after you get your 

license that you have to drive with your parents. You get your permit; you drive with 

driver’s education; you drive with an instructor. You complete that; he signs the form off; 

you get your Texas Education Agency (TEA) Form which is saying you’re passing 

classes; and you go and take the test. And then you have your license. You’re free to go; 

you’re free to drive; you’re free to explore with all your heart’s desire. 

Well, I would definitely say I would have probably been better off if my mom

was with me a couple of times, if she had a certain amount of hours she had to drive with 

me. Definitely, definitely would have been more effective. Even though you scare your 

parents half to death, it would have been more effective for me. 

Another thing is, if a child is having trouble in driver’s education, I think it would 

be very important to contact the parent and let them know what is going on, let them

know Kayla’s having trouble in braking. She’s not doing too well in that; do you think 

whenever you guys drive that you might let her work on that. 

137
Even though I know a lot of families are working nowadays and it’s hard for the 

parents to be there and it’s hard for kids to do it, but if that kid gets in a wreck and if that 

kid gets hurt, it’s back on the parent. The consequences do go back to the parent. 

My little brother has just finished driver’s education, but he was driving with just 

his permit. He didn’t have his license yet. And he got in a wreck, and he called me and 

said, Kayla, I’ve gotten in a wreck. And I was at home. My mom hadn’t come home yet. 

And I was like, well, do you need me to come? What do you need me to do? He was like, 

no, I don’t think they’re going to call the cops. I was like; don’t let them call the cops. I 

was like, don’t do it. But that was just my first response. I was so scared to death for him

because I had never been in a wreck, and he had rear-ended someone. 

So we got home, and I told my mom. And of course she’s freaking out. We had 

just got done with my sister’s wedding. She’s so stressed out. And so we go up there and 

the cop is there. And so we’re standing there, and Kirk is just like, it was an accident, it 

was an accident. And my mom was like, why were you driving? He had already had his 

truck beforehand. But he got two tickets that night, and they went to court the next week. 

And the only thing that happened to my little brother was he had to pay $191 for the 

ticket and nothing went on his record. And the insurance paid for the wreck. 

He’s my little brother. Of course I didn’t want him to get in trouble, but does that 

sound like maybe he should have gone through a class? Maybe he should have had 

something, besides driver’s education. There should have been something else there to 

help him out. I mean, money solves things, obviously, but I mean, I definitely learned 

from the experience, but I do think something past just paying that money. He should 

have been able to go to a class and helped him out. 

I think it would actually be helpful if kids were tested on actual situations. We

can’t have the simulators. Not all of us, like Dr. Robinson said, have the money for the 

stimulators. And just recognizing that there are situations that are going to come out, 

written on paper. “A dog runs in front of you; what do you do?” “This wreck has 

happened; you’re right behind it.” You know, different things like that. If you can put out 

some areas in your mind and answer them how you might think, maybe when you’re 

actually in that situation you will go back to that and think, maybe this is how I can solve 

it, maybe this is what I’ll do. 

I think you must pass with a higher score. I’ve focused on this whole time, if the 

score was raised higher for passing and kids actually knew they had to work harder and 

pay attention more in their driver’s education class, they might able to work at this a little 

bit more; I have to get a job; I have to help my family; I have to do this or I have to do 

that, you know. And they realize that this isn’t playing around. I actually have to get this, 

or I need to get this. I have to get home from football practice. 

Make it clear that driving is a privilege and easily be taken away. They did a fine 

job about talking about this, but it is a privilege and we really don’t realize that it is. And 

back on No. 3 there dealing with the weather and what not. I wanted to go back to that. I 

missed something. 

138
I wanted to tell you all about two friends who were driving. They were both 16 

years old. And they were coming home. Alcohol was a factor. They had both been 

drinking and they were about one mile away from Kelsey’s house. Well, Kelsey was 

hanging out the window throwing up. She had gotten sick she had drunk so much. 

And Nicole was reaching back over to pull her in the window when she 

overcorrected, went this way, overcorrected, went back this way, and then flipped the car. 

So Kelsey was killed in that crash, and Nicole survived. She -- she’s alive. 

And at first I was thinking, oh, drinking, kids drinking and driving. But when I 

actually started thinking about it, and a couple of teachers made the comment that she 

probably wasn’t the safest driver. Had she ever been taught about overcorrecting? She 

was in an SUV, a Blazer that is more likely to roll when overcorrecting. 

And we never actually covered that in my class. I mean, she was actually in my

class, Nicole. And I mean, it’s sad to say. Of course, alcohol was a factor, but when 

covering something like that, it’s so important. I mean, you can’t cover every situation, 

like you said. You can’t cover sometimes when things are going this way or when things 

are going that way, but I think that is one thing to actually implement and put in their 

head and just keep at it that, you know, driving is very dangerous. You have to be alert. 

You have to be able to know where you’re at, what’s going on, know what’s going on 

around you. 

And I think a lot of teens today have their music pumped up. They’re rolling. 

They’re going. They’re cruising. They’re changing their CDs. They’re putting on their 

makeup in the rearview mirror. It’s not a good situation. If you actually tell the stories -- 

down on the bottom I have that you -- real-life videos, real-life scenarios, real-life stories. 

Actually, I can remember that only one video was shown to me, but it was 

actually about victims and drunk drivers, showing their stories together. And I can think 

back and remember those stories and think it’s a longer lasting impression to me than 

what Coach Soliz talked about that day in class. 

I know there are a lot of materials out there. Whether it’s open to us or not, I’m

not sure, depending on which State you’re from, depending where the funding is. But I 

think videos and actual life stories. Kids are most likely going to listen to their peers 

more than they would an adult. You put a kid on the video saying, I’m made a mistake, I 

messed up, but you know, learn from me, learn from my mistakes, I will -- you can do a 

better job. You know, encouraging them. I definitely think it would keep a lasting 

impression on the kids. 

I definitely think the instructors need to be made more accountable. Like she said, 

they’re surveyed and what not, but whenever I was in driver’s education, no one ever 

came into my class. The principal, the policeman on campus never came in the class, 

observed, or what not. Never came and talked to us about new laws or what was going 

on. I definitely think that something like that needs to be done. People in there 

accountable to other people and what not. 

139
The instructors have an extremely important job to teach kids this stuff, and of 

course, every teacher is most likely to get off on the little rampage and they can do that 

every now and then. You’re good if you got the teacher off subject today because we 

don’t have to learn what we’re supposed to. But when made accountable to the principal 

or whoever is above them and make sure the curriculum is being taught and what needs 

to get across that day would be very beneficial to driver’s education. 

And we already talked about the certain amount of time driving with a guardian. 

And this is just a few ideas from my perspective. It might be different than others 

kids and what they actually went through. I had a great time in driver’s education and 

though it might not have been the best experience that a kid could have had, I believe I 

am a safe driver and I do what I’m supposed to and I follow the laws of the land. But 

there are certain circumstances that kids will be in and things will happen. 

But I just want to thank you guys for hearing my side of the story today, and I 

appreciate you all letting me be here. Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Brad Wells 

MR. KOTOWSKI: Now I’d like to introduce Mr. Brad Wells, a student. Mr. Brad 

Wells is a student at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah. He has served as the 

northwest regional representative and then the president of the NSSP, a youth affiliation 

group with ADTSEA, and he still continues to help out his NSSP chapter even after 

moving on to college. 

MR. WELLS: Hello, everybody. Glad to be here this morning. It’s a great 

opportunity to be here and to be able to kind of give you a perspective on my views of 

driver’s education and what I experienced. 

First of all, I’d like to start off today by giving my perspective. Its kind of what 

I’ve seen. I was kind of in a different format. My high school was 800 kids, or 800 

students, ninth grade through 12th grade, we’re in a rural community. 

So to start off, I had been driving probably since I was about eight between 

driving tractors and farm -- we could always get away with it by saying it was farm use. I 

had just had that much experience. And sometimes that was good, sometimes that was 

bad. But I had a very early start, you could say. 

I want to start off, actually, by talking about my overall experiences in driver 

education. When I went into driver education, I went in there for one thing. I knew this 

from the start. I went in there to get my license. I was 16. I was going to get my license. I 

kind of took that as I that was what I was going to do. 

140
My license was my life, my goal, and I think, from what I saw in school, that was 

everybody’s goal, was that they wanted the license because they could drive. That was 

their sign that’s what they were going to do and that’s what they had to do. 

When I know that I could drive, I had a couple things come into play. I had to 

learn the laws. I learned the skills. I had practical experience. I got my license. And I 

think the part that’s most important about this is what I take from driver’s education I’m

going to use for the rest of my life because this is something I’m going to do for the rest 

of my life. 

Everything that is in driver’s education is whether you just drive around town 

because you’re just going to the grocery store, that’s the only driving you do, or whether 

you drive around the lot. 

Now I’m going to go into what I liked about my driver’s education, what I 

thought was good about it. 

I got my license. That was an over exempted point, but I think that’s still in high 

school. They go to driver’s education because they want their license. They could really 

care less about the laws and that. I can see that firsthand from some of the friends I’ve 

had. They don’t care what happens just as long as they can drive that car. So be it. 

I had fun. Yes, driver’s education was a fun class. It’s not like it won’t put you to 

sleep quite like math and English. It’s a plus to listen to it. I learned a lot of information. I 

took that all in. 

But now the question is, I’m starting to get on to college and into life, where did 

that information go? As I’m doing things, I don’t remember everything that I learned. 

Where did all this go? Did it just go back somewhere and then go other places, or what 

happened?

Now, what I didn’t like. It seemed to me that the book and the material were out 

of date. It couldn’t quite relate to what was happening. It seemed like an ‘80s-type book 

that was like you could read one thing but something seemed different. 

And also to this point, the things that were presented in an easy format so we 

could comprehend them, but for some reason they seemed so easy for something so 

important. 

And I also didn’t like the way the material was presented by the teacher. I know 

my teacher had a hard time because we had a short amount of time for so much material 

to get through, and it doesn’t help when you’re -- I took driver’s education through high 

school as a class. It was a class on the schedule. So she had things to compete with such 

as assemblies and everything else going on in the school, and it was so hard for her to get 

through all this information. 

141
The thing I missed the most was I would have liked to have seen more of a 

question-and-answer thing where she could have gone through kind of getting an indepth perception of what we liked and what our knowledge was so far. She just kind of 

had to take some assumptions and go from there and get through it so she could get 

through the curriculum.

Now, this is what I went through in high school and now through college, this is 

kind of what I’ve seen as different things. Students will actually try in this class, unlike 

math. At my school, most of the kids, they went to class. That was it; they didn’t want to 

do their homework, they didn’t want to try, they just went to class because basically their 

parents made them come to school. Driver’s education, they came, they did the 

homework mainly for the fact that they got their licensed, and that was the only thing. 

This class was popular to attend. We had -- in school a lot of kids slept. They 

don’t get caught, they get caught. Oh well. This class they actually wanted to come just 

because of the license factor, once again. 

The next most important thing is that what happens when Mom and Dad aren’t 

watching what they’re doing. In the State of Utah, you start off during your driver’s 

education you have a learner’s permit, and that has you drive with your parents. And also 

what’s happening there is you have to have 20 out-of-class driving hours with your 

parents, 10 night and 10 day hours. 

It’s a pretty good program. I like it because it’s kind of helping you get a feel for 

driving. But when Mom and Dad aren’t watching what you’re doing, what are you 

doing?

I noticed myself, as my parents would get in the car, I would do things differently. 

I’ve seen kids that I think this has a lot to do with drag racing, which was a pretty good 

problem. When Mom and Dad aren’t watching, we’re out hot-rodding our cars. We’re 

out doing whatever we want. We don’t really care. 

Next goes with the GDL. What are our influences inside the car. We change how 

we drive when we have different people in the car. It’s just like with Mom and Dad in the 

car. We’re good drivers when Mom and Dad are in the car. We’ll use caution, we don’t 

speed, things like that. When we have our friends in the car, we want to be cool. 

It’s just like when you take a date out. What are you more interested in watching, 

the road or your date?

So it’s a problem and as you’ve seen with most GDLs, during that phase where 

they’re under those restrictions, it’s helping. But once they’re out of those restrictions, 

they’re going back to these things and they’re getting back to it. 

And the last part on this slide, most of the kids that I’ve known that have been 

those drivers think they’re immortal. It’s never going to happen to them. They basically 

take the assumption that they’re the good driver. Nothing’s going to happen to them. 

142
They do a good job. But I think what they fail to realize: what about those other drivers 

out there? Because just because you didn’t cause the wreck, you were still in the wreck. 

And you have to -- that’s part of driving, is watching out for those other things. 

Another part is the lack of experience that the teens don’t have. I know from the 

situations I’ve seen that what I would have known then what I learned from it, it 

wouldn’t have happened. It’s just like most of them sometimes it just takes the hard way 

to learn. 

Then, back again to the “it will never happen to me” philosophy. I’m a good 

driver. I don’t do this; I don’t do that. It can’t happen to me. It won’t happen to me. They 

don’t want to recognize it. 

The impact that the parents have on them as model drivers. Ever since they start 

in a car, they’re learning what driving is. They watch their parents drive. They watch 

their grandparents drive. They watch siblings drive if they have older siblings. And that 

kind of shapes what they comprehend about driving. 

Just to say like they have a family that tends to get places faster than they should, 

chances are those students are going to do the same thing because they don’t see any 

that’s where their right and wrong come into play. They don’t see that because that’s how 

I’ve grown up, that’s how I’m going to do it. 

Now, the last part I’ve seen especially a lot, and that’s some don’t think the law 

should apply to them and they can get out of anything. Recently, I think it was in 2001, 

Utah applied their GDL, and also they had a seat belt law come into effect. Now, I was 

one month away from being enforced by that GDL, and everyone in my class was so 

enthused that they didn’t have to do that and then laughed at all the other kids that did. 

But also what happened is, on this seat belt law, we’re in a rural community. 

Everyone knows everyone. Our seat belt usage is way down from where it should be. It 

has come up, but it’s still down. And it’s not really enforced. They’ll enforce it on Labor 

Day campaigns and such, but you can drive around, you wave, and anyone seems like 

some kids fill up the back of their truck with kids and that because they know they can 

get away with it. They know their parents are going to go down to the courthouse, they’re 

going to go talk to somebody, and they can get away with it. 

Now, what I would like to see changed or what would have made it better is, I 

think now that we’re getting into the 21st century, we’re here, we have all this 

technology. All the kids grew up on the technology age. They know how to use it. They 

go home and they use the computer. Why not try to incorporate some of this, try to make 

them feel that it’s better for them. 

I’d also like to see parents more involved. They have such a tremendous impact 

on what they’re doing and how they’re shaping these things. It’s just like how they 

discipline these things. If the student’s getting tickets and they know they’re an unsafe 

driver, are the parents still letting them drive? Because I think some are starting to realize 

143
that this is their right. They have to give their kid this right to drive because somehow it 

seems so important in the school and social standings that they are able to drive. Just like 

with cars. Most kids think it’s right for them to have a brand new car for them to drive 

around school and they don’t have to do anything about it. 

Parents need to be more involved in their students’ driving, especially in the first 

16 to 18 years when they have control, because when they go off to college -- I’ve seen 

this a lot. You have your kids that you can tell took the driver’s education, but you did 

well and understood it and had their parents there basically telling them right and wrong. 

You can tell the kids that their parents gave them everything, they let them just go free 

will. And I think parents need to be more involved in this. 

Also, I would like to see tighter enforcement of the law. When you first go into 

driver’s education, they threaten you and they threaten you and they threaten you of 

what’s going to happen. But when you actually get out there, it usually doesn’t happen. 

So you’re threatening them, you’re wondering if this is teaching the kids that we’ll 

threaten you but nothing’s ever going to happen. So we’re going to threaten you with 

some laws but nothing is ever going to happen. You’re never going to be disciplined. 

And it’s just one of those things where you’ve got to take the bitter with the 

sweet, I think. Some had a pretty good driver’s education experience. Like I said, I 

learned the laws. I took things. I consider myself a good driver on some points. In some

ways I know where I can improve. I think there are always points where we all know we 

can improve. There are things that we can do better. 

As we work on those things, we know that that’s how we’re going to change 

things, we’ve got to take them with a grain of salt. And some things we have to look at 

and say, these are working well; how can we make them better. 

And a lot of times, things aren’t the same around everywhere. Just like as Kayla 

(Craddick) and I’ve talked, we’ve touched some of the same points but we went different 

ways. And if we could make more of a universal setting to where everyone has the same

curriculum and have to learn through, I think this could really work out for the better and 

hopefully do this. 

And that’s kind of where we’ve stood as an NSSP chapter. We would try to help 

with the seat belt laws and that. Our last project we did, we did a mock car crash. And I 

don’t know who learned more, whether the students or me from planning it, just because 

of the way that it made me look at things. At the same time, it made me think about those 

students who don’t look at this. 

I know a lot of them. They came in. We had the helicopter out there. We had 

everything out there, and they just laughed it off. They said, oh, this isn’t real. We know 

we’re good drivers. But yet we’ll go out to our car, we’ll go start spinning doughnuts in 

the parking lot, we’ll go speeding down the bus lane, this kind of thing. And it just makes 

you wonder how much this “it will never happen to me” philosophy fits into them. 

144
And it’s clear that something has got to change in them, whether it’s their 

behavior and maturity that changes in them or whether they just have -- that’s all it can 

be, but if they need to be influenced more about how this is going to affect them. 

And I’d like to thank you guys for listening to me and for giving me the 

opportunity to come out here. This has been a great experience for me. Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Question and Answer Session 

MR. KOTOWSKI: One question for Ms. Cottonware and to Mr. Cebulka is, your 

feelings or your experiences with the driving instruction of students in inclement weather 

conditions. 

MR. CEBULKA: I know we’re here today as part of the unfortunate accident in 

Montana with the students, but I live for bad weather. I love taking my students out in all 

conditions. I make sure that I go to places that do not put them in risk under those 

situations, but I feel that as much experience they can get in bad weather, the better 

they’ll become. 

MS. COTTONWARE: I have this experience in Washington State where it rains 

all the time that we do drive with kids in inclement weather when it comes to rain and -- 

and the concerns of hydroplaning and stuff. In the program that I taught in Washington, if 

there was ice on the road in any form or if it snowed, we didn’t drive. And I can see the 

disadvantages to that, but in the program that we were in, they didn’t want us out there. 

But I can see how in a place like Montana that’s very rural that driving in 

inclement weather is an important aspect. It can be done in a controlled environment, but 

it is something that needs to be covered. And in a place like Montana when they’re 

teaching school-year programs, if they don’t drive in inclement weather, they won’t 

drive. 

MR. KOTOWSKI: This question is for Mr. Cebulka. Has there ever been a 

problem in transferring training from simulators to behind-the-wheel type driving? And 

the follow-up would be what would you like to see included in the next generation of 

driving simulators? 

MR. CEBULKA: Usually there is very little problem with transfer of the learning 

from simulation to the road simply because we go over so much repetition in the 

simulators that if the student who is driving has a problem with a certain situation, I pull 

the car over to the side of the road and we just discuss what went on in simulation. Then 

they remember it, and then we go back out and go through it on the road again. 

145
What I would like to see in the next generation of simulation: better technology, 

cheaper price so more schools can afford it. The reason why we have it at William Penn 

is because of the Inflation Index Fund. What happened in 1967, the State decided that not 

only to make the course mandatory and that it could only be taught during the school day, 

they also gave us money to maintain the cars, get the cars, buy textbooks, buy 

technology. 

As a matter of fact, this year my high school with the Inflation Index Fund will 

receive $30,000 from the State for our program. And typically, we will receive 

somewhere between $25 and $35,000 each year. We’ve used that money to buy our cars, 

textbooks, second-language textbooks, computers, the simulators themselves. 

MR. KOTOWSKI: The next question is for Kayla. How should we make parents 

and instructors more accountable?

MS. CRADDICK: Like I talked about, I do think they need to be observed and 

probably rated on how they taught the class. That way they can hit on their points they 

were observed and didn’t think they did so well. I think just observing and letting them

know where their weaknesses are and where their strengths are would help tremendously. 

MR. KOTOWSKI: And this follow-up question on that would be to the entire 

panel. When we’re talking about greater accountability for instructors and for parents, are 

we considering or are we talking about accountability or a legal accountability in the 

instance that there is an accident? 

MR. CEBULKA: In Delaware, cases have gone to court where in one case a new 

novice driver was on a permit. Their parent didn’t read the instructions and allowed the 

student to go out and drive by himself or herself, and unfortunately, the student died in an 

accident. And the case went to court, and the driver education teacher had to testify and 

show records of what instruction that student had. 

So we are accountable. Because we are the licensing agent, we sign our name on 

their certificate and we verify that they have successfully completed the course. 

In fact, in Delaware, there is an attendance policy in the class. If you’re not in 

class the minimum number of hours, you’re not allowed to get your license. 

MS. COTTONWARE: And as far as accountability, teachers can certainly protect 

themselves by having detailed lesson plans both in the classroom and behind the wheel 

and route plans because that documentation shows what the teachers taught, how they 

covered it, the environments that they covered it in. Whether you’re liable or not, you can 

be drug into court, and the best way for teachers to protect themselves is to have those 

detailed lesson plans and route plans. 

MR. KOTOWSKI: For Mr. Wells, how much time did you get behind the wheel, 

and was it a structured type training or just cruising around?

146
MR. WELLS: Behind the wheel as far as driver’s education behind the wheel, I 

did my 20 hours of with the parent and we had four hours of behind-the-wheel with the 

instructor in the car. The instructor in the car was more of a drive-around. We did a 

couple tasks here and there, but it was mostly a get-a-feel. 

As far as the concepts of with my parents, a lot of it was being from a rural part of 

Utah, we make trips into Salt Lake City quite often. That’s where most of my hours came 

from, was doing that. 

But I think that I learned more from driving with my parents just because I felt 

comfortable driving with them. They felt comfortable telling me what I needed to work 

on. That’s where I learned to drive on the freeway, is from my dad. He would flat out tell 

me what I needed to do, where I needed to change, what were my problems. Being in the 

driver’s education car, you just kind of drove around. And I mean, they would tell you 

once in a while, but I seriously learned more driving with my parents. 

MR. KOTOWSKI: The next question is for Mr. Ford. Could you tell us more 

about student involvement in the driving education program in Vermont?

MR. FORD: The student involvement would definitely because of the public 

school atmosphere that we have in driver education, our teachers alluded to in the 

presentation yesterday that teachers have a great deal more exposure to the students than 

they might have in the commercial realm because they’re academic teachers as well as 

driver education instructors. 

The student involvement with the classroom phase includes a great deal more of 

habit development, behavior and risk management. We’ve gotten away from a lot of the 

just plain skill-related aspects of driving in the State of Vermont with our standardized 

curriculum.

Instead of dealing specifically, which was addressed here earlier, the idea of 

passing the Department of Motor Vehicles licensing exam, we try to prepare the students 

on a broader scale for a lifetime learning experience and risk behavior. 

This also goes back not only to the student involvement but also the teacher 

involvement and parent involvement because we have provided the parents with 

supervising driving guides and distributed them to all driver education students in the 

State that take driver education. 

So consequently, the student involvement continues on from the structured 

curriculum in the classroom with the trained driver education instructor and goes a step 

further into the parent involvement piece. In all, student involvement really is a part of 

the public school system. Most of our commercial instructors are also public school 

licensed teachers 13 out of 20 commercial schools are owned and taught by public school 

teachers. 

147
So the involvement goes on and on and eventually ends up with the graduated 

driver licensing system of the State of Vermont. 

MR. KOTOWSKI: Okay. I’d like to thank this panel for sharing with us their 

experiences and their beliefs, and once again, their contribution to this program. Thank 

you very much. 

(Applause) 

148
Associations Panel I 

DR. MARSHALL: This next session is the first of two Associations Panels. We’ll 

be discussing issues pertaining to the current state of driver’s education and the initiatives 

underway to improve novice driver safety. 

Presentation by Randy Thiel 

DR. MARSHALL: Dr. Thiel is the president of the American Driver and Traffic 

Safety Education Association, ADTSEA, a professional association with over 1000 

professional and corporate members representing traffic safety educators throughout the 

United States and abroad. 

Dr. Thiel earned his Ph.D. in traffic safety from Texas A & M University, and 

currently works at the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction as an alcohol traffic 

safety consultant. 

DR. THIEL: Good morning. It’s indeed an honor and a privilege to be here and 

being invited to attend this forum. And I’d like to thank the NTSB and all those 

responsible for this forum. And to all the participants that has taken part thus far and will 

take part that has been involved in this endeavor. 

I certainly hope that after this forum that traffic safety education will be given a 

renewed and positive attention throughout our country. 

In the invitation that I received, I was informed that as a representative of 

ADTSEA that I was to present on the issues pertaining to the current state of driver 

education and initiatives underway to improve novice driver education. Prior to getting 

into specific categories or specific issues, I first would like to provide some background 

about ADTSEA. 

Many of our members are involved directly in public school driver education 

from higher education but also from commercial schools. Businesses and organizations 

are also a very important part of our organizations and the corporate members. They all 

have strong ties to traffic safety education. 

There are approximately 33 State affiliations that have State traffic safety 

education associations that are also affiliated with ADTSEA. 

149 Part 5
There are many issues that pertain to the current state of driver education which 

ADTSEA is interested in, concerned about, and invests significant amounts of time, 

efforts, and resources. I decided to first present to you some major categories in which 

numerous issues might be grouped. As you can see, they are listed as curriculum,

instruction, program support, and professional development, not in any particular order. 

But those are the four categories in which I’ll probably focus most of my attention today. 

Before going on, I think it would be valuable to appreciate the current status of 

driver education training, and to do this I’ll share the following points that probably have 

already been made. And you’ll notice that quite a few of the comments that I’m going to 

make today have already been made, and I think there are some very common themes and 

very obvious themes that are coming out of this forum.

One is that there’s been a marked decline in federal and State level support for 

public driver education or driver education period as a priority traffic safety initiative 

even though no public outcry has really resulted to eliminate driver education. 

There’s been a decline in public school high school driver education over the past 

decade, or the past 20 years, whatever, compared to the early 1960s, the 1970s when 

there was huge growth. When you compare that time to now, there has been significant 

decline. A lot due to “Leave No School Left Behind,” “Leave No Child Left Behind,” 

“Leave No Child Untested,” however you wish to refer to the mandates that have come

down from the federal level in public school education. Priorities have been placed 

towards the areas where schools will be evaluated and assessed for improvement or 

needing improvement or whatever. 

There also has been a major initiative in the country over the past several years on 

graduated driver licensing, and I think a major initiative of ADTSEA, and attention has 

been towards the articulation of driver education as a part of graduated driver licensing 

programs across the country. 

In an effort to explore ways to improve driver’s education to begin emphasizing 

the desire for States to adopt graduated driver licensing, NHTSA embarked upon a 

project that dated back to 1993, and ADTSEA became a part of that project. In the initial 

stage of this project, it was soon realized that driver education programs differed in what 

was expected of students, in the content, and in the amount of time that’s dedicated to 

driver education. Attention and concern focused on the developing of curriculum

standards, realizing that there’s a need to move away from time-based standards to more 

student outcome performance standards. 

ADTSEA took a lead in partnering with several other groups and organizations 

and coming up with a curriculum and a set of curriculum standards that were created and 

drafted in terms of what students should know and be able to do. 

Then, to complement the standards, curriculum content was drafted for both 

classroom as well as in-car instruction. Emphasis was placed on topics and content 

directly related to the driving task. In review of what existing programs included, 

150
ADTSEA went about creating a curriculum that focuses on content directly related to the 

safe and efficient operation of a motor vehicle and skills most closely associated to the 

driving task: visual perceptual skills and, of course, good decision-making skills. 

So if you take a look at the ADTSEA curriculum that was developed -- this is the 

pocket-friendly version, by the way -- this is what was developed out of that initiative. 

This is also available on the web. You can download all these, along with transparencies 

and PowerPoint presentations for the teachers, whatever. We’ll get more into that a little 

bit later. 

If one were to view the sample curriculum, they may find that some topics that 

their States include in instruction are not included in the ADTSEA curriculum. Again, an 

emphasis was placed upon the tasks more related to the driving task. Not as many 

consumer-related topics are addressed in the ADTSEA curriculum that might be 

addressed in other States. 

I can speak from a standpoint of my own State of Wisconsin. Although we do not 

currently have a State mandate curriculum, we do have a State legislature that has passed 

legislation that requires a few specific items that must be taught in all driver education 

programs. Therefore with some sarcasm, as well as humor, I often comment that all we 

have to do is wait a bit and maybe we will end up with a mandate curriculum.

One, for example, and the only one that they put a time constraint on, is that of 

the organ and tissue donation, of which I was quite amazed that they set a minimum of 30 

minutes. I argued in a positive way to say that I would hope they would not put a time 

requirement on because there is many programs that were going beyond 30 minutes 

already and oftentimes minimums become the maximums. But that’s just one example. 

Another example is, as I call it, the Slow-Moving Animal Bill. Actually, it’s the 

Farmer on the Road Bill in Wisconsin, where we must provide instruction on the hazards 

posed by farm equipment, large equipment, and slow-moving vehicles on the road, and 

animals along the side of our roadways. And I call it the Slow-Moving Animals Bill 

because we have a lot of carcasses of different shapes and forms. 

We also have pending bills as we speak before us that would include some other 

topics that must be taught: road rage and how to cope with road rage, and use of cellular 

phone. 

We have about five or six bills dealing with cellular phone use pending as we 

speak. One of those deals with restricting the use of cellular phones by those that have a 

learner permit or a probationary license. If I’m not mistaken, it was out of the 

recommendation by NTSB that that particular bill was taken up. The other four or five 

bills deal with restriction of cellular phone use by all drivers while driving. We’ll see 

what happens. 

Again, some of the topics that you see in your State curriculum may not be in the 

ADTSEA curriculum, but it might be because they might be more consumer-related. 

151
Once the topics and contents were developed, then the next move was to go on to 

the amount of time that should be provided towards each of the topic areas. Once that 

was decided what the content was, then it could talk about how much time should be 

based upon the given topics. 

Summation of some key issues around curriculum instruction would include that 

the ADTSEA curriculum helped create some standards, what is driver education, by 

defining content; the standards that are more outcome performance-based than they are 

time-based; development of a sample curriculum that could be used and incorporated by 

any State, any local program that so desires; and then how to articulate driver education 

into graduated driver licensing. 

ADTSEA created a document that actually has a two-stage program that was 

probably developed more around the national standards and the guidelines and national 

recommendations for graduated driver licensing that State driver licensing agencies were 

provided by AAMVA, if I’m not mistaken, as well as NHTSA. They proposed that. 

With regards to instruction, there are several issues and concerns that are directly 

related to the secondary category that I had talked about before, curriculum instruction 

type things. Those that I would like to briefly highlight and discuss deal with instructor 

preparation, including standards and certification requirements, availability of programs, 

delivery, and quality of programs. 

One concern around instructor preparation would deal with the standards or 

requirements that exist to become a licensed teacher. Different States have different 

teacher certification requirements. It’s not uncommon to find that different delivery 

systems within a State have different certification requirements. Wouldn’t a more 

uniform program of instructor preparation be an admirable goal?

ADTSEA believes in that goal and has been involved with several partners in 

both trying to redefine what driver education should be and what should be included in 

instructor preparation programs as well. It did create a model certification program and 

credentialing program. 

In addition, attention was given to establishing the instructor prep program that 

could accommodate instructor candidates from all types of novice driver education 

program delivery systems, public, private, commercial, post-secondary institutions that 

offer driver education, whatever. The effort was to create a system that could be used by 

multiple providers. 

The availability of quality instructor preparation programs is also an issue that’s 

impacting driver education around our country. Over the years there have been a 

significant decline in the number of instructor preparation programs available to 

individuals interested in working towards certification, especially at our institutions of 

higher education. For many years, there were several organizations that were able to 

create safety centers or instructor prep programs around their university system. 

152
We in Wisconsin had 13 instructor preparation programs at one time at all of 

what’s now the University of Wisconsin system. But prior to being the University of

Wisconsin System, there were a total of 13 prep programs in Wisconsin between the 

University of Wisconsin and the Wisconsin State University System. 

Over the years there’s obviously been a decline in the number of instructor prep 

programs available to individuals and there’s been an effort to try to consolidate 

programs across university campuses, due to fiscal reasons. Reduction of duplication of 

services has been one. By doing that in Wisconsin, two universities have it. The issue 

then becomes of how to assess it. 

Summation of instruction. There’s lack of uniform instructor certification 

requirements, a decline in the numbers and availabilities of instructor prep programs 

across the country, and then there’s a maintaining quality issue within our instructor 

preparation programs across our nation. 

ADTSEA has been involved in these efforts. It helped developed the teacher 

model program, and it could be used for certification of any instructor regardless of the 

delivery system in which they’re involved. 

Professional development is another major concern of ADTSEA, our national 

association. In all the professional fields that I can think of, individuals licensed in those 

areas are required to periodically obtain or take part in professional development 

activities, workshops, conferences, courses, et cetera, related to that particular area of 

professionalism in order to renew or update and stay current. 

ADTSEA believes in requiring professionals to maintain an ongoing professional 

development plan, and it understands that one of the major roles is to help in planning, 

conducting, and supporting such programs. 

One example of the ongoing involvement efforts of ADTSEA to help improve 

professional development opportunities for traffic safety educators is its annual 

conference. I believe yesterday we heard John Harvey mention that the State of Oregon is 

hosting our 2004 conference coming up, and we’d love to see a lot of you come to that 

conference. And a year from this July and August, we’ll be in our lovely State of Hawaii. 

So we’re looking forward to that. But more important is the Portland 2004. Love to have 

you all come. 

Special efforts and attention is always given to providing quality sessions and 

speakers that address and target the goal of trying to provide experiences for the 

attendees that will help improve their curriculum, their instruction, and the learning 

experiences that they provide to their students. 

ADTSEA is also active in hosting and facilitating various workshops. As an 

example, pre-conference workshops have become very popular over the years before our 

ADTSEA conference. And in those pre-conference workshops, we’ve had the distinct 

pleasure of having some of the most renowned individuals in traffic safety education and 

153
innovative teaching techniques and methods and content provided. Fred Mottola is one 

example. Dr. Terry Kline, another, just to mention two. 

ADTSEA is also willing to step up to the plate and help State organizations in the 

planning of their State conferences and trying to provide the best possible State 

conference or regional conferences that are possible to reach as many professionals 

interested in professional development opportunities that can be. 

ADTSEA has never turned down from standing up to the plate and taking a 

chance to help somebody when in help and continues to be at that plate. 

Each year the association plans and coordinates its national conference, as I said. 

Our national association is divided into six or seven regions. And our rule of thumb is, 

let’s share the wealth amongst the regions. And so for diversity we have a different 

region trying to host a conference every year. And so far, in the last several attempts, 

we’ve been very successful in having each region step up to the plate and provide that 

opportunity to host a conference. 

ADTSEA believes that ongoing professional development should be a 

requirement for all individuals who wish to maintain a license to teach driver education. 

I’m going to now talk about some other examples of concerns that ADTSEA has. 

And I’m not going to spend lots of time on these, but these are general areas of interest 

and issues that we believe traffic safety education has to deal with and that they are here, 

they’re present, and they must be dealt with in a very professional manner. 

Recently, in many States home schooling and parent-taught driver education has 

become an issue. There are some States that allow parents to teach high school driver 

education. There are other States that do not have provisions currently. Those will be 

issues in the future, how we deal with those. 

And I like to deal in two different ways. There’s one that is home schooling that 

is geared around the parents that are already officially home schooling their children in 

all subject areas, and then there is the parent-taught driver education component. Though 

related, I think they are two distinctly different issues. 

We have independent study programs, different delivery. And it’s not for me to 

judge the quality of any of these at this moment, but it’s to talk about the issues at hand 

that will come up as each State deals with the different ways they deal with the delivery 

of their programs. 

Is independent study an alternative? Is web-based interactive? An individual’s 

capacity, meaning the technology capacity, may not be up to par with some of the 

capabilities that delivery systems have. So there’s a difference of what’s available and 

what people can handle depending upon what equipment they have and what access to 

technology. But technology truly is becoming more and more a factor in education of all 

different types. 

154
The home school programs are programs, as I said, taught entirely the parents and 

others that are taught through a parent-allowed version. Texas is probably one of the 

most unique States that were passing a home school bill. And if I’m not mistaken -- I can 

be corrected, obviously -- at the last second, a Texas legislator got up and said, now wait 

a minute, you all, we’re about to vote on a bill here that will allow home schooled parents 

the ability to teach driver education. That’s right. Well, why not all parents? If I’m not 

mistaken, it was turned so all parents are able to in Texas. 

Advanced driving skills become another issue. It’s not a new issue to high school 

driver education or to ADTSEA. There have been advanced driving programs and 

workshops put on for years. General Motors (GM) was one of the leaders. Liberty Mutual 

was one of the early pioneers in that area to help driver educators. 

Fred Mottola has the skid monster. Some significant differences in between using 

the skid monster versus Emergency Vehicle Operators Course (EVOC) course or skid 

pad or whatever. 

The questions, I think, that are important are, with advanced driving skills, when 

to offer. Should novice, or should there be some experience under their belt?

What to offer. Not all programs have the facilities or the equipment to provide all 

the experiences. 

Costs and investments to provide. Can all the programs currently handle this, or 

will this be a secondary or third level of driver education? 

And another major issue, I think, is public relations. This has come up several 

times in presentations yesterday. There are misconceptions about driver education. There 

have been biases about driver education, be it in the public, the private, and the postsecondary level. There are biases that are out there, and oftentimes the biases are from

misinformation and perceptions. We need to improve the public awareness of driver 

education. That’s definitely lacking. 

At this time, I would otherwise open up to questions, but that’s not the format that 

we’re using. But again, I want to thank the NTSB, Rafael (Marshall), everybody 

involved, for having us out here. It’s a great opportunity. 

Are we preaching to the choir? Who are we speaking to, I heard somebody say. 

It’s kind of interesting. Hopefully, it will not go just to the choir but will go to other 

individuals as well, and through the channel of NTSB maybe there’s that possibility. 

Thank you, and again, an honor to be here and appreciate it. 

(Applause) 

DR. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Dr. Thiel. 

155
Presentation by D. Keith Russell 

DR. MARSHALL: Our next speaker is Mr. Keith Russell. Mr. Russell is the 

executive director of the Driving School Association of the Americas, an association that 

represents more than 4000 driver education and traffic safety companies in North 

America. He is also the president of a driving school with locations in North Carolina, 

Kentucky, and Indiana that offer courses in driver education, defensive driving, and 

driver improvements to teenagers and adults. 

Mr. Russell has served on the boards of the North Carolina Association of 

Professional Driving Schools, the Electronic Stability Control (ESC) Coalition Board, the 

National Road Safety Coalition Board, and the Driving School Association of the 

Americas. He is the recipient of regional, national, and international awards. 

MR. RUSSELL: Good morning. It’s my great pleasure to be here, and it’s been a 

pleasure now for two days listening to what I feel are some extremely passionate and 

dedicated people in this industry. 

Make no mistake about it. We are in a war. If you don’t think we’re in a war, 

compare the numbers of people who have died defending our freedom and trying to grant 

us the independence that we have in this country and the number of people who have 

died on our roadways. It’s very much a war. And it’s a battle where we’re trying to save 

lives, and that is not going to change overnight. 

However, this initiative is a great beginning to what we can achieve. We’ve 

heard, and I’m happy to say, both proudly and sadly this morning the good, the bad, and 

the ugly of what now exists. There are problems within both the public school and private 

school formats, as they now exist. And let me assure you that that’s something that we all 

as professionals in this audience know that we are addressing and we’re not going to 

tolerate. 

First of all, I want to talk about who we are as an association to give you a little 

better information and idea of what we are and what we try to accomplish. And then I’m

going to talk about some problems as we perceive them, what we really believe as an 

association, and some solutions we think that are out there that can be achieved and are 

already in the process of being achieved. 

First of all, we’re a totally non-profit and charitable association. We were founded 

in 1973. We actually have roots dating back to 1958. We were founded on four 

cornerstones of commitment, and these, in alphabetical order, are business, education, 

ethics, and professionalism. Our primary mission is to organize all driving schools for the 

purpose of establishing the highest possible standard educationally while promoting 

traffic safety on all our roadways and reducing the carnage that now exists. 

Educational opportunities are provided by us through international conferences 

that we have on an annual basis; regional seminars that we have throughout North 

156
America, both in the U.S. and Canada, obviously; and our “Dual News Magazine,” which 

you may have picked up a copy of in the last day or two. And you’ll notice a strong 

educational content in that publication. 

We also provide certification and accreditation for specific programs and/or 

purposes. The DSAA has an accredited school and student certification system, which is 

centrally operated, and it operates on a nations-wide basis for driving schools and 

program accreditation and student certification comprised of individual, State, and 

provincial subsystems. And this is something that we’ll be expanding as we go along. 

I think, first of all, and this has been stated numerous times over the last couple of 

days, but we all have to drive this point home not just with us in this room we all 

understand this but out there with the general public, and that is that understanding driver 

education is but a starting point. It’s a beginning to a lifetime of practice, of education 

and reeducation in order to be the safest possible driver you can be. 

We need to also understand that the problem begins with the fact that we’re 

looking at only 50 percent of eligible novice teenage drivers that either have a 

requirement for or currently take driver education. There are 23 States I’m aware of right 

now that have no form of driver education. And in some of the States that do, they are 

pathetic. 

I mentioned to Randy just a few moments ago, in the State where I live, in 

Kentucky, I happen to live in Louisville, we enacted legislation here just a few years ago 

that finally had some driver education in it. And sadly, it’s now only four hours of 

classroom and it’s post-licensing. 

There have been numerous printed articles regarding that program and its 

establishment and the fact that there’s been dramatic improvement in the fatality rate in 

the State. Kentucky was number one in the nation per capita for five years running. 

They’re now number five. I don’t think that’s progress. 

Major problems exist on all our roadways with novice teen drivers and also with, 

we’ve recently heard, senior drivers. DSAA strives to deal with all of these issues. We

think, as someone very aptly mentioned yesterday, there is a huge gap between the 

novice and the senior driver, and it’s something we’ve got to address also. 

Our European friends, who very eloquently spoke for us yesterday as to what’s 

going on there, have understood this for many decades. Driver education doesn’t stop just 

because you turn a magical age of 16 or 17 or 18. Their driver education is required 

regardless of age. If you’re beginning to drive and use and share the roadways of a 

particular country, you’re required to take driver education. We know that this is 

necessary. Nothing stops. 

Parental involvement is an essential component once driver education is 

completed and even as a part of driver education, as we’ll describe shortly. GDL has 

157
helped and been a catalyst to some reduction in fatalities. However, there’s no 

consistency in GDL and/or no real accountability. 

A recent study, as someone mentioned in a question yesterday, in California by 

the legislature found that only 17 percent of parents were actively doing the required 

driving with their students in that State. That’s a problem. 

Now, how did they react to that? Well, to me, they reacted in a very negative 

fashion. They said, well, if they’re not going to do it, we’re going to go back and reduce 

the amount of time a teenager can have a permit and that’ll curb the problem. That didn’t 

curb the problem at all. All you did was remove the time that that teenager had to gain 

experience under a controlled environment in order to become a safe driver. 

So there’s a problem. There are a lot of problems out there with GDL. We need a 

consistent standard. There’s nothing different. While the typography may be different, 

there’s nothing really different about Kentucky or North Carolina or New York or 

California or Texas or Montana or any other place you live because some time or some

point in our lifetime all of us will travel by vehicle in one or another State. 

Road testing standards. And I thanked Mr. Huff yesterday for bringing up the 

interstate license, which I’m going to address in a little bit. But road-testing standards 

vary greatly. Road tests in and of themselves are not going to save lives. However, a 

specific standardized road test utilized in each and every State, we are one nation -- can 

make a difference in at least determining a specific skill level as someone is issued a 

license, which is a privilege, as we heard this morning. 

We believe in road test standards. We believe in more significant standards than 

what you now see. One State requires a parallel park; one State doesn’t. One State 

requires K-turns; the other one doesn’t. It varies greatly. One wants you to back in a 

straight line; one wants you to actually take the car out on the road. One wants lane 

changes; one doesn’t. We need a standardized, consistent test throughout this country. 

We believe there’s been too great a focus on passive restraints versus active 

technologies in vehicles. And that’s not to say we’ve achieved the lasting results that we 

want with safety harnesses or belts in our vehicles at this point. We need to focus more 

on that. And I think we can take a good example from my former State, North Carolina, 

which enacted legislation, a $50 fine, and a two-point penalty if anyone within that 

vehicle did not have their safety harness on at the time they’re driving. That worked. And 

the driver’s the one that has the penalty; and why shouldn’t they? They are the captain of 

that vehicle as the pilot is the captain and in charge of his plane when they fly. 

Active technologies are the future. 

What do we believe in? We believe in driver education, and I’ll break that down 

into specifics in a little bit. 

158
We believe in post-driver education training. We know it’s necessary. It doesn’t 

stop when they walk out our doors with that minuscule amount of time that they’ve spent 

with us. 

DSAA believes in active technologies mandated on all vehicles. We believe in a 

national standard for road testing. The interstate license that was mentioned yesterday is a 

tremendous positive idea, which we would wholeheartedly support. That, combined with 

consistent standards with every State, would be very beneficial. 

We believe in parental involvement in a number of ways. We think parental 

involvement should start in the classroom when you have the students. We want sessions 

with our parents either just before or just after teenagers has completed their driver 

education course, to bring Mom or Dad in, or a guardian or an uncle and an aunt, 

whatever the case might be, to talk about specifics. What happens now; they don’t know. 

They don’t know. 

We keep talking about parental involvement as though Mom and Dad driving out 

there know exactly what they’re doing. We want them involved, but we’ve got to train 

them first. We don’t want to bring them in and reeducate them as to every little aspect 

that we’ve covered with their students. What we want to do is tell them what happens 

next. What sort of insurance requirements are out there; how do you proceed with 

licensing; how do you proceed with your practice; what are the sorts of things you should 

be looking for with your student as you have them behind the wheel; what a great virtue 

patience is. Try to put them at ease. Go through these things with them in detail. 

And we think we have a great tool for this, TeenSmart. TeenSmart is researchbased and data-driven. Isn’t that what we’ve been saying for the last two days? I’m not 

going to go into that in detail, but you’ll hear about it a little later. 

We think this whole process, if you’ll look at the little graphic I’ve got up there, is 

a puzzle. It’s a very simple yet complex puzzle, each component fitting together in just 

the right manner to make all of this work. 

I’m excited. I’m as excited and as charged as I’ve been in many years being here 

with all of you. The fact that we finally have an opportunity; some of the greatest 

stakeholders, and all of us are, in this industry that exist coming together singing as a 

choir in concert. That’s what it’s going to take in order to put this puzzle together and 

achieve lasting results that we desire. 

What are we actually offering as a solution? First of all, we think the federal 

government needs to provide a national mandate for driver education. We think that 

national mandate needs to be for two-segment driver education. Segment 1 should focus 

on maneuvers and compliance, the basic skills and knowledge to start the driver on their 

lifetime of learning. 

We think Segment 2 driver education and that should be done during that sixmonth window, and we think they need a little experience with their permit first before 

159
they come back. Let them have a little more training, a little bit of rope, and then reel 

them back in. 

We think that should focus on cognitive skills relating to risk recognition and 

collision avoidance combined with behavior modification, strategic driving skills, and 

advanced drug awareness and education and the effects that has on your driving. 

Because, as we saw in those statistics early yesterday morning, there is a problem at age 

16, 17, and in that age bracket, but actually, as they go into the 19- and 20-year-old 

bracket is when alcohol and other drugs are a greater problem for them. 

Again, we believe in that national standard, and we want a national mandate for 

consistent road tests. I know for a fact that AAMVA, the American Association for 

Motor Vehicle Administrators, would support this and has gone on record supporting it. 

And we need a national mandate for safer vehicles with active technologies as standard 

equipment. 

Prior to the last year, and I’m sad to say, manufactured on their vehicles in this 

country, only 62 percent manufactured had ABS brakes. This past year, they’ve been 

removed. They’re back to being an option on just about every vehicle, unless you go into 

the luxury line. 

He mentioned earlier that I serve on the ESC Coalition board. I serve there out of

gratefulness, out of belief that technologies are a way of the future to help reduce these 

fatalities. 

Kayla mentioned a case this morning where her friend driving a sport utility 

vehicle (SUV) had a problem running off the road and overcorrecting to come back on 

the road. Electronic stability control could have stopped that from happening. We need 

that standard on our vehicles. It can prevent most rollovers. 

There are great technologies out there beyond those. There are lane change check 

technologies. There are backing technologies. There are all sorts of things that already 

exist. 

And by the way, ESC is 10 years old. Europe’s adapting it on all vehicles now, 

and we still haven’t. Only 15 percent this year. 

But there are great technologies out there that we need to have on these vehicles. 

Proactive technologies which in the event of a collision situation that we have a chance to 

make an offensive move to avoid, a proactive gesture to avoid these situations. And the 

technologies are so brilliant they work for us in many cases. 

Driver error is 95 percent of the problem, and as we’ve stated numerous times 

over the last two days, it continues far beyond the novice level. That is simply the 

beginning. 

160
Direction plus commitment equals a positive result. That’s what we’re doing here. 

We’re all here speaking, putting forth specific ideas or thoughts, and hoping for direction 

to come for that. We’re all willing to give the commitment. We know that. There’s not 

person in this room, I’m sure, that isn’t willing to commit the time, energy, and effort that 

it takes to accomplish these things. 

Uniformity in all driver standards. Every State needs the same standards, the same

requirements, and the same commitment to what we’re trying to achieve here. If we 

create a lasting solution by coming together to resolve this house health crisis and 

carnage that faces our youth, we’ll have something that we can stand behind forever. 

But it’s going to start in a number of ways. One thing is that we have to have 

greater awareness, and you alluded to that just a moment ago, Randy (Thiel). We need 

public service announcements by the federal government agencies, as they were when we 

were children, some of us. We need those around the clock. We need to wake Mom and 

Dad up, wake the grandparents up, wake the kids up, and let them know there’s a 

problem out there. Let them know the amount of people that die. Let them know the 

amount of people that are injured. 

We’re spending an ungodly amount of money on this problem each and every 

day. It’s staggering. It’s staggering what we could do to reduce the deficit of the budget 

of this nation if we simply curb this problem. 

We think our program of accreditation and certification is going to go a long way 

towards helping in the private sector. It won’t accomplish all the goals that we’ve set 

forth here and that I’ve mentioned this morning, but it will help. It has a consumer 

protection plan in it to protect the consumer, and we think that’s necessary for horror 

stories like you’ve heard from the public sector this morning. They’ve happened in the 

private sector, too. But we want to eliminate them from both sides. 

We will have accurate verifiable registry of all graduates under this program. This 

program will work. Others will help that we’ve described and discussed here. We’re all 

major stakeholders here, and I want you to know that DSAA is more than willing to share 

its load and stand up and be represented and be a part of this effort. 

Thank you very much. 

(Applause) 

DR. MARSHALL: Thank you very much, Mr. Russell. 

Presentation by Wayne Tully

DR. MARSHALL: Our next presenter is Mr. Wayne Tully. Mr. Tully is the Chief

Executive Officer (CEO) of the National Driver Training Institute and the author and 

161
publisher of “Help for the Teenager Who Wants to Drive,” and “Graduated Driver 

Licensing in the Home.” 

Currently, Mr. Tully works with leaders in almost every State to create legislation 

to mandate parents’ involvement in the driver education process. 

MR. TULLY: Well, by the introduction you now know that I’m very involved 

with parent-taught driver education. 

Before I start, I do want to thank Mary Jones for the flight and the work she did 

on getting all of us speakers here. The transport that I was able to board from Peterson 

was a little -- no, I’m kidding. It was a good flight. 

I don’t know if you’ve ever flown up and down the Rockies entering Colorado or 

even Montana, but we do have the Continental Divide there. And we hit a lot of

turbulence. Coming to or leaving Colorado, you’re in for a little bit of a ride if there’s 

any type of weather at all. And leaving Colorado, it was no exception. 

I had the fortunate luck, if you will, of sitting next to an Olympic judge, a 

swimming judge that was visiting Colorado Springs. And for some reason, she was very, 

very nervous about the flight. And the flight was going up and down with the wakes and 

turbulence. And I was working on my presentation for here, and she had said, how can 

you possibly work on this with what’s going on? I said, lady, if this plane hits the ground, 

I’m okay with that. But if it lands, I’ve got to have this presentation done. 

(Laughter) 

MR. TULLY: So with that, I’d like to start off -- I’m going to take a different 

angle than what everybody else has taken. We’re going to end up back at the same point, 

and that is for change in our industry. 

I’m a latecomer to this industry. I haven’t been here very long about 10 years. 

We spend a lot of time and fortunate today discovering who we are. We get colors 

to match our complexion on the outside, psychologists to psychoanalyze us on the inside. 

People try and go back and reconstruct their pasts in hope of overcoming personal 

barriers. Sometimes such activities actually may help. We long to know who we are, but 

could it be that who we are is largely determined by who we think we are?

It wasn’t long ago my eight-year-old wanted a basketball uniform. Now, we’re 

from Colorado. I’m not going to tell you right off what basketball uniform he wanted. 

Marketing plays a good part in today’s society: what we need or what we think we need; 

what clothes we need to buy or what shoes we need to buy. 

Now, I’ve got to tell you one tip. It wasn’t the Nuggets. In fact, none of the kids 

on the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) wanted a Nuggets uniform. When I 

saw the price of the shorts, kids’ shorts, and a tank top, $170 for these two items for an 

162
eight-year-old, I almost fell off my chair. But I was very, very thankful in the last month 

because it was Shaq’s and not Kobe’s. So it was real important that the investment was 

solid and we didn’t have to figure out how to remove that uniform from that little guy 

whom he dearly loves which, I just told you, it was the Lakers. 

So here in Colorado, it’s real important what we think of each other and what we 

do with each other. 

There’s a longstanding argument between those who think we’re influenced most 

by our genetics and those who think that we’re influenced most by our environment. I’m

sure much of our upward potential is established by our genetics before we’re ever born, 

but I’m equally sure that the environment is a very important factor. I believe that the 

environment is especially important in determining how we think of ourselves and what 

causes us to think of ourselves as the way we do. 

Marketing is everything, and I can tell you today that it’s very easy to get kids 

drawn into what you’re doing and what you’re building. You’ve got to stay in step with 

society and you’ve got to stay in step with the marketing processes that we’re doing. 

Driver education shouldn’t be something that’s dry and not user-friendly for 

teens. And there should be no limit to what a family needs. 

You know, as we present bills around the country, one of the ones that continues 

to surface every time that I’m in this group of driver educators and professionals is 

what’s happened in Texas. If you saw Senate Bill, which we were a part of, and what the 

DPS puts out there, you would see a conflict in what the senate approved. What’s going 

on in Texas has nothing to do with home schooling or home schooling parents. 

The gentleman before me mentioned that there are a couple of States that allow 

parent-taught driver education. I’m here to tell you it’s allowed in every 50 States. There 

is no law for parents to participate in driver’s education, and us educators need those 

parents to participate, and they need every single tool that they can get to keep their teens 

alive. 

There is enough talent in this audience to save every single child from an 

accident. But yet, we all are restricted in not letting this information out. I’m going to 

show you just an example of some of those things that we can do. 

But I also want to talk a little bit more about what we’re facing and why is it that 

we’re having such a hard time making this change. 

One thing that shapes us, no doubt, is our behavior around us. A strange thing 

often happens in nature. It seems to happen most often to birds, like ducks and geese. 

Psychologists call this imprinting. The baby duck or goose thinks the first thing it sees 

living is its mother, and that usually works out great because usually the first thing it sees 

is indeed its mother. The baby is a duck, the mother is a duck, and that’s the way things 

are supposed to work. 

163
But what happens if the duck is raised by another species? I read recently once 

about a duck who hatched under the watchful eye of a collie dog. The duck took one look 

at the collie and decided that it too was a collie. It followed the duck around, ran to it for 

protection, spent the hot part of the day under the front porch. And when a car pulled into 

the driveway, the duck would explode from wherever it happened to be quacking 

viciously and pecking at the tires. After all, that’s what its mother did. 

The duck had an identity problem. It was still a duck and sometimes acted like a 

duck. But sometimes it acted a lot more like a dog than a duck. 

The clearest way to see this identity problem in people is to study more than 50 

documented cases of what are called the feral children of the wild. These are children or 

infants who are raised exclusively by wild animals during all or part of their formative 

years. 

In the February 1987 edition of “Sierra Magazine,” a story entitled “Uganda’s 

Wild Child” told of a monkey child who was found in a jungle in Uganda and was 

believed to be living with the tribal monkeys for four or five years. The boy was 

estimated to be five or six years of age. 

At the time, he was taken to an orphanage, where he grunted, squealed, jumped 

around with his hands clenched, and preferred to eat grass over food. He seemed to be 

afraid of people, and anybody that tried to approach him he would scratch. 

Another example is a boy who somehow became part of an antelope herd in 

southern Morocco. Lived with the antelopes, ate grass with them, drank from ponds with 

them, and roamed the hillside with them. Several attempts were made to capture him, but 

to no avail. He was observed living in the wild over a period of years. 

These are extreme cases. But less extreme cases which children had already 

learned their adopted wild parents’ languages later were returned to human families. 

They were never able to communicate in words ever. One young girl learned 20 or 30 

words, but she used them as signals and not for conversations. 

While these are strange and bizarre cases, I wonder how much we all suffer from

imprinting and how much we’re living it because of our home or school or church we are 

raised in. Could it be true that we drive as we’re driven? I’ve heard that twice here this 

week. Could it be true that we drive as we’re driven?

For 15 years, teenagers have watched their parents drive through neighborhoods, 

cities, towns, and how they responded to other drivers who crossed their path of travel on 

the streets and highways. They naturally would react the same way their parents did 

because of imprinting. 

Driver education instructors try to change the behavioral patterns of those 

students, which they learned from their parents, however the teenagers ultimately would 

164
revert right back to the driving habits of their parents after a few short months. This 

imprinting of our young has cost us 12,000 novice drivers a year. 

Now, that may not be exactly right and some of the numbers quoted here, but if 

you figure out the passengers, the drivers, somewhere about 12,000. I don’t want to get 

hung up on numbers because so far I’ve heard everybody list a different set of numbers. 

More importantly, these desired driving habits have cost us 30,000 mature drivers 

a year. Last year, a loss of 42,000-plus drivers were lost to fatal car crashes. They were 

added to our watch, those 42,000. 

What can be done to change the trend that seems to be getting worse as each year 

passes? Are we imprinted for life like the duck or the wild children? Do driving 

educators and instructors across this country also suffer from imprinting? How about the 

professors and doctors who are certifying those instructors? Are they imprinted for life?

Fifty years ago we set the standards for driver’s education and training. Today 

those standards remain almost static. We’ve heard that over and over here today. There’s 

not even one person in this room today that thinks that we could teach our novice drivers 

to drive within 30 hours of classroom or six hours behind-the-wheel training. However, if 

you were to pick up a phone book in any city or any State, you will only find the 

standards set over 50 years ago for sale. Why is that? These are people we’ve trained. 

You can’t find a person that will tell a mom and dad, you can’t learn how to drive 

in six hours. Worse than that, I’m going to give you a certificate saying the course is 

completed. 

Maybe you’ll find a company here and there that may have other offers to help 

customize a program for the common family, but even if change were a matter of life and 

death, our imprinting and environment around us has caused us to migrate right back to 

our comfortable traditional standards of teaching. Change is not going to be popular. 

Change is going to cost jobs, friendships, and a whole lot of pride. 

To choose those of you here today who have participated in weight-loss programs 

and quit-smoking programs of one sort or another and have been successful, 

congratulations. I can testify to you that that is tough work. To those of you today who 

have not been as successful as you could have been, keep trying, you’ll get there. Just 

don’t give up. Why? Unlike that duckling, we humans have the ability of intuition to 

improve our standards of living. 

We’re here today for change in the direction of our driver education and training 

process. If we don’t change the direction we’re headed, we’re going to end up where 

we’re headed, we are masters of our profession and we need to recognize that we will be 

held accountable for not recognizing the imminent danger that our nation is facing. 

I believe we can change this deadly direction of our industry but not by ourselves. 

We need to help each other. Let me explain what I mean by that. 

165
Operation Lifesaver. Are you folks familiar with Operation Lifesaver? Operation 

Lifesaver deals with trains. We call them the train people. When I contacted Operation 

Lifesaver, I had asked for the curriculum for our many thousands of students. I think 

currently I have 70,000 kids enrolled in our program. And when I found out the cost, I 

asked her, why is this not on mine? And she said she couldn’t afford it. 

The National Driver Training Institute built her an entire program that’s now 

online and available free to the whole world. That’s what I’m talking about helping one 

another. 

You folks have resources out there, and I’d like to tap into some of them. And 

I’ve got resources that I’d like to give you. There are a lot of kids out there that need 

help, and most importantly, they need our help. 

I believe that we could change the direction of our industry but not by ourselves. 

We need to help each other. We need a plan to include the entire family, school, cities, 

counties, and States. We need to create driver education and training programs for the 

household reinforced by rules, backed up by school rules, enforced by city laws, allowing 

the county to oversee outside the city, and finally, State and federal legislation if needed. 

We need a clear plan of objectives. We need a timeline attached to that plan. We

need a clear evaluation of what is working to reduce crash fatalities in this country in 

order to determine what isn’t working and bring an end to those training programs. 

In just a minute, I want to go over a few things that we can make toward a great 

first start, but first I want to share with you what the National Driver Training Institute is 

doing for teenagers and families in four countries, including the United States. 

Could imprinting be related to insanity? I think, yes, it could be. I’ll answer that 

question once we get to the back of this PowerPoint presentation. 

For over a half a century, our driver education has attempted to teach our teens to 

drive and certify their fitness to drive with only 30 hours of classroom and six hours 

behind the wheel. 

Collision rates and death rates for teens have not decreased over the past several 

years. As a matter of fact, they’ve increased. The false sense of security assumed by the 

parents and the new teen driver after completing a driver education course can only lead 

to riskier driving and increased likelihood of collision. 

For the past 10 years, the National Driver Training Institute has broken this mold 

with our customers and with home schoolers around the country and around the world. 

And we’ve spearheaded it toward a program called graduated licensing. 

If you aren’t familiar with our program, key in graduateddrivelicensing.com, and 

you’ll go right to my company. 

166
This is how our program works. The program was designed and modeled after 

flight school for the United States Air Force. Flight school interlaces classroom education 

with practical in-air training in a format known as concurrent training. The pilots spend 

time in the classroom and then practice what they learn in flight. The students master 

enough points in both classroom and in air and then they graduate to the next level. And 

then we always have a graduation ceremony. 

The National Driver Training Institute introduced a concurrent model driver 

education and training program, and our company was one of the very first to publish a 

combined classroom and behind-the-wheel training. We were one of the first in the 

nation to place a minimum of 50 hours behind the wheel. I said one of the first. I know 

there are several of you that have been involved with similar programs and what we have 

built. 

But what seemed to be the biggest mistake in the driver education industry is the 

concept that we could teach a new driver how to drive in six hours. In my opinion, it is 

absolutely absurd. And it’s very difficult for me as a home schooling parent, that concept 

of saying we need more of something that doesn’t work. And what we all need to do here 

is figure out, before we get more of something that doesn’t work, let’s fix what’s broken 

and then let’s get it back into the schools where it probably belongs with the most of the 

population of this country. 

In 1949, the standards were set: 30 hours of classroom, six hours behind the 

wheel. I haven’t seen any changes since 1949. I hear a lot of talk about changes, but I’m

not seeing any changes. Road conditions and traffic density have changed, but the 

standard for driver education and training have remained static. 

We combined the 30 hours of classroom with 50 hours behind the wheel training 

to make one comprehensive unit. Then we divided our 80-hour program into seven equal 

levels. Part 1 is always classroom and Part 2 is always behind-the-wheel. Our ratio is, 

give us one hour of classroom, we’ll give you two hours behind the wheel. This is home 

schooling. This what we’re doing with our teens. 

And by the way, it’s working. You can go to “research and development” on our 

website. We’ve got two universities now that have studied over 35,000 kids, and the 

results are amazing. 

When a student accumulates enough points for both the classroom and the 

behind-the-wheel training, they graduate to the next level. 

One of the interesting things that we have done is we have not put a limit on what 

we’re going to send into the home. In addition to that, we went a step further. We said, 

it’s going to stay in your home until the teen is 21 years of age or we get a mom and dad 

to say we need it there for longer. We provide our program on interactive CD-roms. 

There are over 2500 questions that continue to rotate with every child. Parents always 

say, are you nuts? 

167
Legislators and driving educators would say, are you nuts? You’re going to have 

the parents teach this program? You’re going to have the seen the way they drive? Every 

time that is said, do you know what I say before the Senate and the House? Who taught 

the parents? Hello. 

Anything we teach, we’re going to become better at what we’re teaching. I don’t 

care if it’s a Sunday school class or driver’s education. Parents want to help, and home 

schooling moms and dads are not saying they don’t want anything to do with you. 

They’re saying that your six-hour program and 30-hour classroom doesn’t work. 

Give us something that works, and I will tell you, for the 1.3 million home 

schoolers in the United States, they will buy your product. We just want to help. We want 

to participate as a mom and dad. We’ve got the God-given right to make sure that our 

kids aren’t getting out on the road and killing each other or killing themselves, more 

importantly. 

And as parents, it’s our job to make sure that when we release them from our 

house and our neighborhoods, they know how to drive and they know how to act as 

citizens of this country. That’s what we’re fighting for. 

The behind-the-wheel training includes maneuvers and skill testing, 

demonstrations that build toward the next training level. Kind of what we do except we 

still segregated the 30-hour classroom from the behind the wheel. I’ve heard over and 

over by many leaders in this country at this forum that that’s the one thing that we do 

need to fix. 

In Level 1, Part 2, behind the wheel, parents or the instructor are given eight 

criteria to master. The parent or instructor demonstrates to the student how to perform the 

eight exercises, and then coaches the new driver through them. 

The secret is how many times have we heard this today?

The new driver sees the correct way to perform the maneuver and attempts to 

perform the maneuver correctly. The instructor demonstrates and coaches until the 

desired result is achieved. Kind of similar to flight school. 

One of the fundamental errors made by the driver education industry is the 

requirement of six hours or more of observation with the new driver. Let me explain why 

I say that. No other skills program uses novice trainees as examples. We prefer the old 

Navy adage -- I heard this once today said in different words -- perfect practice produces 

perfect performance. 

That is true. Why would we have somebody watch somebody for six or seven or 

eight hours doing maneuvers when we should be showing them the right way to produce 

that? 

168
Rather than having a new teen driver observe other new teen drivers, have them

observe a competent adult who can explain what they’re doing and why. Extensive 

repetition of the correct form and procedure and over 50 hours of training will produce 

the safe driving habits of the new driver. The parent is just the facilitator. 

If you folks were offering the 50 hours of direct instruction, parents wouldn’t 

need to do this. This is not a money issue. This is a marketing issue, folks. Parents are 

willing to spend $110 on Shaq tennis shoes that are fake, and we’re all worried about 

who’s going to pay for this. I’ve got to tell you, you ought to go to my website and see 

the line in front of my store every single day in Colorado Springs and in the Denver 

office. 

The State testers for the State of Colorado -- I can almost tell you, every child that 

goes through there on that State test who’s had professional education and who has not. 

What you’re doing isn’t wrong, it’s just not enough of it and it’s not done the correct 

way. 

We’re out of time. I had a lot more material, but I do want to end with this. There 

were nine things that we could do as a group. It doesn’t cost us any money to make these 

changes. Nine things, and I want you to make note of these. Zero cost. 

Every State should have a 50-hour prescribed structure behind-the-wheel training 

for parents in addition to the six or however you want to fit your six in. Every State 

should legislate a minimum of one year of a beginner-driving permit. And for anyone 

over 18 years of age, six months. Allow the teens to start driving as early as 15 years of 

age, giving them as much driving time as possible. Integrate the education with the 

training. This should be concurrent with one another. 

Create legislation for teen driving permits to be valid for three years. That is the 

single most mistake of all. How many parents are in that line at the Motor Vehicles 

Office to renew their permit? Zero. Why? They’re not going back. They’ve got a permit 

for a year. Make the permit three years. You’ll cut down the traffic at the DMV and 

you’ll cut down the amount of young drivers. 

These are free. They don’t cost us anything, and there’s no down side to it. 

I want to thank you for your time, and thank you for letting me speak with you 

today. 

Thank you. 

(Applause) 

169
Presentation by Frederik Mottola 

DR. MARSHALL: Our next speaker is Mr. Frederik Mottola. Mr. Mottola is the 

executive director of the non-profit National Institute for Driver Behavior. He is a traffic 

safety scientist, inventor, and author, and has developed crash-reducing programs for 

corporations, municipalities, law enforcement, emergency vehicle operators, and traffic 

safety educators. 

Mr. Mottola. 

MR. MOTTOLA: Thank you. Good morning. Those of you that know me know 

that I like to get audience participation. So you’re going to need to do a little work in a 

while. 

But before we do that, I’d just like to say that I’m pleased to be here. I think this 

could be a very historical forum.

I am in my 42nd year as a traffic safety educator. I spent 30 years as a professor at 

the university. The past four years I have been in retirement from the university, and I 

founded the National Institute for Driver Behavior. And we have done a lot of things, 

considering that there are two of us full-time in the organization, and it is 100 percent 

funded by myself. 

We are trying to put together a program that will help people stay alive and to 

avoid the traffic fatalities and tragedies that take place. 

The National Institute for Driver Behavior has put together a curriculum, which I 

will try to explain some of the components of. Several individuals referred it to 

yesterday. 

Historically, driver education was conceived to teach drivers how to manipulate 

the vehicle with little emphasis placed upon the decision-making process. And yet when 

we take a look at what is occurring in a crash, almost 100 percent of the drivers involved 

in a crash have the manipulative skills but what they are lacking is the decision-making 

information processing and vehicle advanced control skills. 

The National Institute for Driver Behavior has produced a curriculum to provide 

students with a lifelong risk prevention education. So our whole emphasis is to shift from

driver education to risk prevention. And when we take a look at that, we see things just a 

little differently. 

Risk prevention education is not merely concerned with the successful 

performance of a task. It requires the driver to take the best risk prevention actions during 

the performance of a task. 

A driver may seek to execute a perfect right turn when only the task result is 

evaluated. However, an evaluation of the behaviors could reveal that many of the actions 

170
performed contain high-risk behavior. So when we take a look at a person making a right 

turn, they may do something like this. But the turn comes out correctly. 

What was wrong with that? Where was the driver looking? When the car was 

going to the right, the driver was looking to the left. And in many cases, we’re teaching 

the drivers to make some errors when we only look at the task and not at the component 

behavior. 

If some of you are still teaching, look left right left, that’s a set-up for someone to 

have their head in the wrong direction as the car is going to the right. 

So if we take a look at the individual behaviors, we could help them to develop 

building blocks upon which they could construct all of the actions that they have to take 

for any task. 

A novice driver will best acquire lasting patterns of risk prevention behavior 

when the reason and criteria of performance are simplified into one pattern of behavior at 

a time. I’m going to try to talk about and have you experience one or two behaviors that 

we utilize in our curriculum.

The NIDB curriculum adheres to the most recent research findings of how the 

brain develops during the educational process. We have to make a conducive 

environment for the learner to acquire the information. We have to give them an 

opportunity to forget the information. We have to give them an opportunity to recall the 

information. And we could do that very adequately when we utilize the classroom as 

preparation for the in-car sessions. 

So my maxim is absolutely nothing should be taught in the car until it is first 

experienced and practiced by the students in the classroom. The student then has a 

different mindset when they come into the in-car session, and that mindset is that they are 

expected to demonstrate for the educator in the car the correct behaviors. 

So a teacher may very well say, show me how you should be searching this 

intersection before you enter it, and because they had been practicing the correct 

searching in the classroom, they could demonstrate that performance. 

And if a student performs successfully, they will develop more dopamine within 

the brain, which can create longer-term memory, which is conducive to lifelong 

behaviors. 

The odds that a driver will learn to acquire a lifelong style of empowering driving 

habits without having had formal education is as likely as winning a State lottery. Drivers 

need us. Society needs us. We cannot leave it to chance. We cannot leave it to rare events 

that the correct behaviors are going to be caught by chance. They need to be structured 

by a well-designed plan. 

171
To improve the safety of young drivers, we really need to look at how can we 

improve the safety of all drivers. We are missing the boat by focusing in on trying to 

improve the novice driver. Why not try to improve all drivers? And that’s where I come

from because my whole background has been not in working merely with novice drivers 

but working with all types of drivers: corporate drivers, police officers, emergency 

vehicle, ambulance, fire apparatus, public works, truck drivers, motorcyclists, and any 

type of driver. 

And the comments that I always get when I put on a workshop for a municipality 

or police department, they say, why didn’t I learn this when I learned in my driver 

education course? Or why is my son not getting this as he’s taking a driver education 

course? Why hasn’t he learned targeting and reference points and zone control and what 

Line-of Sight, Path-of-Travel (LOS-POT) means? And they value it and they say they 

want it. 

And in all my research and I have spent the past 20 years developing our NIDB 

curriculum with extensive empirical data as to what works and what doesn’t work. And 

for those that know me, I tend to be rather particular about what I’m doing and how I 

could achieve the absolute best that’s capable. I’m never satisfied with my work or to 

many other people’s, but I’m always looking for a way that it could be better. 

I taught 30 years at the university. That was 60 semesters. I never taught two 

semesters the same. I always found some way that something could be better. 

The National Institute for Driver Behavior is dedicated to the premise that 

education is an essential component in the formula for crash reduction. We cannot know 

if our training programs are successful unless we know what the final product should 

look like, and that’s where all of our research. Our research is taking a look at comparing 

driver education to no education or comparing driver education to parent education. 

And what is often lacking is what did the individuals achieve from that 

educational experience. What kind of behavioral patterns have they demonstrated 

successful performance with? And if we don’t look at the individual components of the 

behavioral patterns, then we don’t know if that product has achieved the success that they 

should from the experience that they went through. 

We teach one concept at a time and have the students apply it to all situations. We

have a set of minimum standards of driver performance, which becomes the major 

emphasis for drivers to learn. We heard this over and over and over in the past two days, 

that we need national standards; we need some type of standard. We have had standards 

for 20 years, and I’d like to just show you some of those standards. 

They’re on our website, and I’ll give you some information on this so you don’t 

have to worry about taking notes. You can go to the website, you can see them. 

Are they perfect? I don’t think so. Will I change them if I go through it again?

Probably. But is there anything better than it? I don’t think so. 

172
So here are 10 categories. And if we were to take a look at just one of these 

categories in a little more depth, searching intended travel path. Here are the individual 

behaviors under just that one category. A specific behavior, search to determine the 

conditions. Target area searching. Students will learn what that means. They will practice 

it over and over. Know how to judge space in seconds. 

Search 12 to 15 seconds ahead. I introduced that in 1968, that concept of 

searching 12 seconds ahead. That was the first time that I presented it. That was my first 

conference I spoke at in Ipsilanti, Michigan. 

The check changes to LOS-POT. When LOS-POT change is seen, check other 

zones. Evaluate intended driving path for LOS-POT conditions, and so forth. 

So we have these minimum standards. And if I could use the analogy of building 

a house that we want to live in for the rest of our life, then the minimum standard 

becomes the material that we’re going to construct that house with. There’s the roofing 

and the studs that need to go in and the framing materials and the siding and the windows 

and the tiles for the bathroom and the bricks for the chimney. That’s what the minimum

standards are. 

But we can’t take all the bricks and use them all at once, and we can’t take all the 

lumber and use them all at once. And that’s what I often find in some programs. They’ll 

put everything together into nice, neat packages. Parking, put all the parking maneuvers 

together and teach them all at one time because that fits into a nice, neat package. 

Well, what our curriculum does is puts these standards into 10 modules that 

become building blocks of behavioral habits from the simple to the complex. And here is 

just one example of using searching the intended travel path to show you how they’re 

both standards are integrated within the modules. 

And for that particular standard of searching intended travel path, it appears in 

Modules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the 10 modules. And it starts with use of central 

vision, use of fringe vision; driving for targets, target usage for turns, intersection 

searching, left-front-right zones to the target area. And then it could culminate with skid 

detection and correction. 

A couple of things were said yesterday that we couldn’t teach vision usage until 

after a person gets the license. And I say, we can’t drive without teaching vision usage. 

Advanced skills are capable of being taught from the very first lesson because we’re 

teaching them how to use their vision and how to keep the car in control. 

In the classroom, before performing in the car, we do physical equivalent 

activities. We use a model car -- Matchbox cars to have the student actually drive and 

make a precision maneuver, making a precision right turn. There are 17 behavioral 

patterns in making a precision right turn. The students learn each of those behavioral 

patterns, and then they could apply it to a whole number of other turns. 

173
Parallel parking. There are 12 behavioral patterns to Parallel Park. Students learn 

those behavioral patterns, and coincidentally, some of those are exactly the same

behavioral patterns that they were using for making the right turn. So if they learn the 

behavioral patterns, they could just put them all together. And in our analogy of building 

the house, the modules create the blueprint when we put the foundation in and how we 

build upon that until the structure is completed. 

I have an activity. I’d like some of my simulated steering wheels to be passed out. 

We’re going to take a look at just a quick demonstration so you could experience what 

we’re talking about with the physical equivalent mental rehearsals by doing some

demonstration of the power tools of zone control, targeting, reference points, and 

managing LOS-POT blockage. So if you could all get your steering wheels. 

All right. Now, here’s the best gas mileage you’re ever going to get in teaching 

somebody how to use their vision and steering a car and getting out of a skid and all other 

there’s about 12 different objectives that we could accomplish with this. 

First of all, put your hands on the steering wheel, quickly. 

Good. I see a good number of you don’t have your thumbs wrapped around the 

steering wheel. That’s just going to end up breaking them in a crash. Nothing to gain by 

that. 

So we could go into how to hold the steering wheel, how to turn it hand over 

hand, how to do push-pull type of steering. 

Right now I’m going to have you do a concept of targeting. So I’m going to just 

go through very quickly some slides here on what targeting is, and then we’re going to 

practice it in one minute. 

So targeting is the habit of searching as far as your target location to determine if 

your path of travel will be safe. A target is a fixed object seen in the center of the path 

that you intend to occupy. The targeting path is the path of travel the vehicle will take to 

get to the target. So, first, we select the target, and second, we evaluate the targeting path. 

Two concepts for developing effective seeing habits, and this is just the 

beginning, is targets and targeting path. Targets get our vision ahead of the vehicle, and 

targeting path defines the space we will be driving into to reach our target. 

Okay. Now, I’m just going to have you do a little targeting. So I want you to 

stand up. I’m the target. So I want all of you to get on target for me right now. So you’re 

in the car. Hold your steering wheel and you should be seeing me with your central 

vision and -- we’re all set? Okay. 

So you should see me with your central vision. At the same time, see the steering 

wheel with your lower fringe or peripheral vision. 

174
Okay. So now, as I move, I want you to stay on target. So just keep turning your 

body, right there, on target. Great. You’re demonstrating the concept of being on target. 

Okay. Now you stay right with me on target. Stay on target. Get on target. Come

on. On target. Get right on target. Turn it, turn it, okay. Great. You’re doing the targeting 

concept. 

So we can now take that and transfer that to a kid in the car. Put him in a car with 

the steering wheel and tell him to get on target, tell him to get off target. 

So now, I’m going to very quickly have you all get off target. All right. I’m still 

the target, but I want you to pretend the car went into a skid. 

Okay. So now, the car went into a skid. And it’s pointing over there. So go into a 

skid. Aha, I got some of you! I got some of you! And where was the head? So the car 

went into the skid. Where was the head, and where should the head be?

Come on. Back on target, everyone. Back on target. 

Okay. The car skids that way. The car skids that way. Where’s your head going to 

stay?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: On you. 

MR. MOTTOLA: Right on target. Bring it back now, quickly. All right. 

Car goes that way because you over steered. Which way do you have to turn it?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Back. 

MR. MOTTOLA: First lesson we’re teaching elements of skid control. 

Demonstration of reference points for classroom. Debbie Cottonware made 

mention of reference points, and some of the speakers yesterday. This is a concept I 

developed in 1962 just out of necessity. You can use the steering wheel to reference the 

alignment of the car to the target. The car is on target for the space to the left of the 

mailbox. What do you see that can affect your targeting path? Left curve. 

And this is the killer right now. This next one is the killer. Kids don’t learn it 

because it’s a downgrade. And the dynamics of going into this left curve when it’s a 

straight road, an upgrade, or a downgrade is totally different. And with our skid monster, 

we could demonstrate this so vividly that just a slight slope and that car acts like it’s 

going 10 miles an hour faster than the actual speed. If this were an upgrade, people would 

not be getting killed like that. This was a location where there actually was a fatality in 

Cheshire, Connecticut. 

Is the car on target or off target right now? Off, great. Which way do we have to 

turn to get it back on target? And that’s what we would be doing. 

175
Okay. Now, demonstration of zone control system and LOS-POT blockage. The 

zone control system organizes the space requirements into six zones. And the major thing 

that we teach drivers to look for is LOS-POT blockage, which means Line Of Sight or 

Path of Travel. Something affects your line of sight; something affects your path of 

travel. 

It’s only one concept that we’re teaching but it applies to every single crash. 

Think of any crash that you can in your mind, and it was probably a change in that 

driver’s LOS-POT. 

So here are reasons for using targets. It’s to visually define the path you would 

travel. So you’re driving down this path. Look at all of the LOS-POTs, and they would 

all be requiring the driver to take some actions. By seeing one of them they could take the 

actions that would solve all of these same problems. 

What they may not see is this line of sight (LOS) blockage by this car. This car 

pulls out unexpectedly. The driver had no meaning, no LOS blockage, didn’t use the zone 

control system, which would have required them to check their left front zone, and this 

car pulls out or a bicyclist comes out, surprises the driver. The driver swerves to the left, 

and this car coming up over the hillcrest is going 10 or 15 miles an hour faster than they 

should. There’s a head-on crash. What caused the fatality?

We offer two-day instructor workshops for professional improvement. Anyone 

could contact us on our website. And future actions that are needed. We need to 

effectively train driving instructors for competency in the risk prevention behavior. The 

National Institute has proposed a five-tier structure. It’s on our website. And if you would 

hand out those books while I’m just wrapping up. 

I’m giving you one of my books, “The Car is a Monster.” And in that book, we 

have 10 habits that drivers should acquire. 

And these five-tier instructor training has built-in assessment, it has built-in 

accountability, so that an instructor is trained, first of all, in just Tier 1, which allows 

them to teach Modules 1 through 5 of the curriculum. And somebody else has to teach 6 

through 10, so that person gives a check and balance on how well they performed 1 

through 5. 

After successful completion of 1 through 5 in teaching, they are then allowed to 

take the next tier, and it builds on until they become not a driver education but a risk 

prevention manager. 

Driver licensing exams must test to this curriculum. It must test on an 

unconscious level of performance. The curriculum should be integrated with subject 

matters from K through 12. Key behavioral patterns can be applied to pedestrian safety, 

bicycle safety, school bus safety, recreational safety, passenger safety, driver safety, 

safety belt usage, consequences of substance abuse, anger and stress management, 

decision-making filters, searching skills, vision usage, targeting skills, reference points, 

176
effect speed has upon control, traction management, social interaction, and most of all, 

valuing the concept of courtesy. We could teach that from Grade 2. 

Research could then be used to evaluate how well a person acquired the driver 

behaviors, how well they acquired the standards, and we could then make adjustments in 

the standards and improve the delivery method. None of this will happen unless we have 

societal acceptance of driving behavior and societal acceptance has to begin as we’ve 

been talking about, with parents and parents being able to have an adequate instrument to 

evaluate the students. 

Public service announcements could be made of the value and virtue of the 

behaviors. And with the media and movie industry, they could promote positive things 

instead of negative. 

And most of all, we could promote emotional messages of the benefits of having 

these behaviors: less stressful situations, protection from other driver errors. We’ll better 

know how to avoid and manage being distracted, can learn what are safe and unsafe 

times to multitask, to get off the phone that they’re on. Better fuel efficiency, better social 

skills, interacting, reduction of aggressive and road rage situations, and driving, most of 

all, becomes enjoyable when risk reduction behaviors are used. 

I thank you for being here. I thank you for caring enough to give up two days of 

your life to perhaps save a whole number of other lives. Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Richard Harkness 

DR. MARSHALL: Our next speaker is Dr. Richard Harkness. Dr. Harkness is the 

chief executive officer of Advance Driver Education Products and Training (ADEPT), a 

research and instructional technology company that designs and markets multimedia 

products aimed at reducing automobile crashes. 

Dr. Harkness holds a masters degree in educational psychology and a doctorate of 

education in psychometrics and educational psychology from the University of the 

Pacific. He has held teaching and administrative positions at three universities. 

DR. HARKNESS: I hate coming up after everyone’s supposed to already be at 

lunch, but here we are. 

I’m going to make this brief and get us all down the road, but I don’t want to 

detract from what I know you’re going to find very interesting on several levels. One, for 

the last two days we’ve been hearing about what should be done to impact young driver 

crashes. We’ve heard a lot of research quoted, specifically things like, “in order to make 

a difference we’re going to need a fresh start,” “we’re going to need to be using science177
based content,” “we’re going to need to build crash reduction programs based on new 

technologies.” We need to connect with parents and develop in-car practice and rely on a 

lot of research that has led us to the point in time now that leads us to these conclusions 

that this is the new direction that we need to pursue in particularly graduated licensing. 

And the reason I think you’re going to find this so interesting is that not only have 

I been listening to this mantra develop over the last two days but we have been doing this 

research project I’ve been involved in now for seven years, five years of which it was 

done under a lot of secrecy. 

I know a lot of you knew we were up to something. We were well-funded, we had 

heavy hitters behind us, but I’m pretty sure today will be the first time you actually get a 

peek at what we’re doing. Some of you do know what we have been up to, but I know a 

lot of you have been interested from afar. So this will be an interesting opportunity for 

you to see exactly what we’ve done. 

And all of these suggestions that have come forth over the last few days have 

been very interesting, but do you have any idea the cost involved in doing something like 

this or the time it takes to make it happen or to be subject to constant third party review. 

God bless John Harvey. I know he’s under the microscope in his own State there. We

have been under the microscope for seven years, and I empathize and sympathize and at 

the same time applaud you for being subjected to that kind of scrutiny. 

But it is tough to do, and I can only see this coming from a very huge government 

infusion of cash or the private sector. In this case, this was recognized seven years ago 

and some private sector companies, an insurance company in particular that had one 

motive in mind, crash reduction. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure this one 

out. Fewer crashes mean fewer claims payouts. 

So it’s not only the driver education industry that’s focused on reducing 

collisions. There is an honest monetary incentive for some public sector or private sector 

corporations to come to this playing field as well. 

And as a result of this study and research, we have come up with what we 

affectionately call TeenSmart. 

Well, TeenSmart, as you can see, is unique on a lot of fronts. First you have to put 

yourself in the position we were in five to seven years ago of forecasting where 

technology would be seven years from then. Think about it now. Back then we had a 

Pentium I 200-megahertz chip that was available out there in the households. Now we 

have three-gigahertz chips. Where are we going to be seven years from now? That was 

our challenge. 

In order for this project to be successful, we needed to project over the hill to 

make this happen, and it was not an easy thing to do at that time, figuring out what, you 

know, the common household would have in it. We made some very good educated 

178
guesses. We had a lot of resources dedicated to this, and I’m happy to say we made some

correct guesses. 

We knew we had to do a lot of the things that you see at the bottom there. 

Develop a scientific based training system, be data driven, proven learning effectiveness 

impact, crash reduction, etc. And again, that is exactly what I’ve been hearing over the 

last two days. 

I’m going to speed ahead here. I want you to understand a little bit about what 

we’re about. We’re really about crash reduction, and we’re serving two purposes. One, to 

help insurance companies reduce their claims, but also to help driver education in a 

broader sense reduce collision rates through graduated licensing programs because we 

recognize this is where it’s going to happen. It’s going to happen with parent 

involvement, it’s going to happen in the post-licensing arena. 

And as a result, we’ve set up affiliations and strategic alliances with DSAA and 

hopefully ADTSEA in the near future, but we are working with driving schools and 

driver educators in general to help reduce teen collisions. If we can get this instruction 

out there, then we’re going to save thousands of lives. And we have some very good 

research I want to share with you that backs all this up. 

I’m not going to preach to the choir because you’ve all seen this stuff and you 

know it and you probably also recognize the baby boom echo, as we call it, as coming 

through society. It’s a huge problem. We have a lot of teens out there and that population 

is growing, and so will the problem. 

Also, you’ll recognize the basis of our research is coming from a lot of the folks 

that were quoted yesterday in the background and history section. 

What we needed to do to reengineer driver education as we saw it was to start off

fresh, and I heard calls and cries for that, too. We needed to start off with a blank sheet of 

paper. Why? Because we knew whatever it was we were doing, it wasn’t having the 

impact on collision rates. And if that in fact is our objective, then why not design, plan, 

set goals, orchestrate, make something that only does that instead of having it trying to 

serve dual purposes or maybe four or five purposes. What we set out to do is just do one 

thing and focus on collision reduction. 

In order to do that, we knew we needed huge resources and talent. We need to 

forecast and work with technology. We needed adequate time to do this, and we had to 

build one hell of a team to make this happen. 

And that’s one thing that, as a CEO of a movement like this, of a mission like 

this, I have never taken for granted because we literally had unlimited resources, we had 

talent. It was never a question of what does it take. It was, could you do it? Because it 

had never been done before. 

179
So again, we’re working on what we commonly call our Crash Curve and ways 

that we can make a difference. And this was both a problem and an opportunity for us. 

When we looked at this crash curve, we looked at that precipitous drop after three or four 

years of driving and recognized that the 19- and 20-year-olds, although still getting into 

more accidents than the rest of the population, were doing something very different than 

that 16- and 17-year-old. 

And that’s where we started. That was our challenge at the beginning. If we could 

just transfer some of the skills’ that develop after three or four years of driving up to the 

16- and the 17-year-olds, that are just starting to drive, we knew we could make a 

difference in collision reduction. 

So we knew we had to address inexperience and the skills. We knew we had to 

address the risk-taking as well as the peer group influencing. And when you see our 

mentors and our expert panel, you’ll understand this is no coincidence why we ended up 

building a crash reduction training program that attacks the very things you all have been 

hearing about. 

We need to look at valid content. We needed to look at good instructional 

technology. We needed to look at skills and knowledge and effective behavior change 

behind the wheel. This took a lot of measurement and a lot of evaluation to get to that 

point, and frankly, we’re under a lot of scrutiny not only from the subject matter experts 

but from the funders of this project that were putting millions of dollars into making this 

thing happen and, as it turns out, happened to be equipped with loss prevention exports 

and an army of actuaries with Ph.D.s that I don’t wish on anybody because they can be 

very critical. 

So our first job was to identify factors empirically related to young driver crashes. 

We commissioned the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, which many of you know 

Herb Simpson and Dan Mayhew are key players in, to evaluate the causes. This was 

being done about the same time that Larry Lonero and Northport who has also worked 

with us was working on the AAA study of identifying key factors. 

We know that the AAA work and our work had two different purposes. AAA’s 

work was aimed at pre-licensing driver education. Ours took the path of looking at postlicensing or graduated licensing. Again, remember, 1996. There were a few States out 

there that had graduated licensing, but there wasn’t the momentum or the fever that we 

have now. We were looking at this changing tide and were designing a graduated 

licensing training system to meet what we now have in 2003 as a technologically a solid 

system. So we had to identify the valid content and how it should be taught. 

Gaining a consensus, from out advisory council, of whom many of you recognize 

some of the key players there. You know they’re their own independent thinkers. If 

anyone out there has ever written a thesis or a dissertation and you’ve tried to get five 

professors to agree on everything, try to get those folks to agree on something. That was 

tough because everybody had his or her own mind. 

180
But we did gain consensus, and I’ll say that’s a long process. This did not happen 

overnight. It took a few years to get this thing built right. And at the end, we ended up 

with what you would expect in a parent-driven post-licensing program. True multimedia. 

Not just flipping a page on a CD-Rom, I’m talking about interactive driving simulation 

that I’ll show you a little snippet of. And we have home study workbooks and activities 

with the parents and teens. 

We know that real improvement was going to happen behind the wheel, in real 

driving time. We have both computer-based training, video short snippets with parents 

and teens working together. In preparation of these parent-teen activities we made 

copious efforts to avoid fights between parents and teens and did a lot of focus group 

testing to make sure it worked. 

So we ended up with these six factors, which, from this audience, I wouldn’t 

expect to see any big surprises. These were what we call the big six. The TIRF report had 

indicated what we needed to be teaching in terms of addressing the key causes of teen 

driver causes. We knew if we nailed skill development and behavior change in these six 

areas, we’d probably have an impact on teen collision ratios. 

So what makes it unique? The way we built it. It had to work first, not like most 

out there. You know, can we sell it and we market it first, then worry about does it work. 

TeenSmart had to work first. It had to work first and it had to be science-based versus 

opinion-based or expert opinion-based. Every content item had to show its correlation 

with collisions. 

What it teaches, very limited. It only teaches six things. TeenSmart has a different 

mandate, collision reduction. We identified the big six. We’re teaching only the big six 

factors that cause a majority of crashes. It is not like pre-license that needs to teach a lot 

of things in order to get through a DMV test. 

When it teaches. We matched the cognitive learning curve of a teen to when 

they’re able to process higher order safety skills. Only after some real driving experience 

does it become relevant to teach the kinds of multitasking exercises and the kind of 

multitasking driving behavior that we’re expecting the teens to do. It has to happen after 

basic driver education is completed and they have some real on-the-road driving 

experiences. That is one of the reasons what it teaches was a little different. Of course, 

we knew we were targeting graduated licensing. 

How it teaches. Very different again. We ended up building a holistic model, not 

a didactic model. Chapter 1, visual search. Now, Chapter 2, hazard detection. Now space 

management. No, not that. It’s integrated. 

Very hard to design from an instructional design standpoint, but when you think 

about it, it’s exactly what a teen has to do when they’re driving the car. They’re juggling 

at least six things. Think about it, it’s a multitasking event. We wanted to design a 

curriculum that embraced that reality that they needed to be doing a variety of driving 

181
behaviors. We also wanted the training to be developing skills in the context of an active 

lifestyle as a teen and analyzing risk and benefit as they go forward. 

The other thing was learning modalities, just our general instructional design. The 

TeenSmart instructional design is second-to-none, I’m not necessarily talking about 

driver education but any training program. 

So we ended up spending $6 million to develop TeenSmart. Four years later, this 

is our $6 million Ford. Actually the Ford didn’t cost that much, but everything else 

behind it did. And we ended up with a four-camera point of view that you’ll see in the 

driving simulations. No one was there to tell us how we did that. We had to get patents 

and everything to make this thing work, and with that I’m going to show just a very brief 

video. 

If you could roll the video, then I’d like to talk to you about our evaluation and 

research behind it and our findings. 

(Live voice-over video presentation) 

DR. HARKNESS: Although we may have faith in our educational systems, when 

it comes to pre-licensing driver education, research has shown very little or no safety 

benefit. One reason is that teens are not ready to process higher-level crash avoidance 

skills until they have some real on-the-road driving experience. The ADEPT program

goes beyond pre-licensing driver education and teaches vital driving survival skills when 

a teen is ready to master them. 

(Video presentation) 

JASON: Hi. Welcome to the ADEPT Driver TeenSmart Program. We’re very 

excited you’ve decided to take this step toward becoming a better and a safer driver. My 

name is Jason. 

About 40 percent of our licensed teen drivers go on to have a police-reported 

accident each year. Many of these teens are injured, and car crashes are the number one 

killer of 16- through 19-year-olds. 

That’s why ADEPT Driver set out to reengineer driver’s education. After years of 

research, we discovered two important things. First, teens are not ready to process higherlevel crash avoidance skills until they have some real on-the-road driving experience. 

Second, there are six factors that cause a majority of teen car crashes. Unfortunately, 

most of these factors are not tested when you get your driver’s license. 

The result of this research was TeenSmart, an effective training program with the 

power to reduce teen driver car crashes. 

182
TeenSmart goes beyond pre-licensing driver education and teaches vital driving 

survival skills at a time when a teen is ready to master them. The best thing about 

TeenSmart is that it’s fun and engaging. 

TeenSmart is a multiple CD-rom or DVD product designed to be taken at home 

where it’s convenient for teens and their parents. There’s exciting multimedia that 

includes state-of-the-art computer-based instruction and realistic driving simulation. 

You’ll practice advanced driving techniques and sharpen your visual search and hazard 

detection skills. 

There’s also a video and workbook for teens and parents that guide you through 

this comprehensive program. 

Behind the wheel you’ll practice the six skills that will help teens avoid crashes. 

And at the end, there’s a certification test that lets you know you’ve mastered the subject 

content. All you need is access to a personal computer, a video cassette recorder, and 

you’re good to go. 

I also want to introduce you to Clyde and Claudia, and recruited them to help out 

with the computer-based training segments, or CBTs, and to help you and your parents 

navigate TeenSmart. 

CLAUDIA: For starters, world-recognized experts have designed this program, 

people who’ve devoted their careers to concerns like traffic safety, risk perception, 

adolescent behavior, and instructional technology. 

CLYDE: The result is a program that teaches you effective on-the-road survival 

skills in an environment that’s fun and engaging. 

CLAUDIA: And puts you in an interactive computer environment that lets you 

practice and test what you’re learning. 

CLYDE: And your parents are included in an innovative way. You’re part of the 

core curriculum, too. 

CLAUDIA: That’s true. Without parent involvement, this program is only half 

complete. 

CLYDE: You know, be there when the rubber meets the road. 

CLAUDIA: That’s right. Because parent involvement is critical in reducing 

young driver car crashes. 

The main goal of this program is to reduce the chance that any teen that completes 

the program will get into an auto crash. You teens are at greatest risk in your first couple 

of years behind the wheel. 

183
This crash rate chart is about experience and what drivers learn in the first few 

years behind the wheel. 

CLYDE: The difference in crash rates between 16-year-old new-to-the-road 

drivers and those with just a few years of driving experience is striking. 

By the way, if you start driving at age 18, the crash rate is still close to that of a 

16-year-old who’s just starting. 

CLAUDIA: So what accounts for this difference? Our experts and researchers 

discovered that more experienced drivers use specific skills and attitudes when they 

drive. And that’s what this program is all about, teaching you these critical driving skills 

right now instead of waiting four years for you to figure them out all on your own. 

If you’re thinking of a typical driver’s education course, think again. This 

program is for young drivers who already have their licenses, but more importantly, it’s 

scientifically based on research identifying driving and social skills that most relate to 

young driver crashes. Our experts identified six key factors that most influence whether 

new drivers get into trouble. 

CLYDE: These six key factors are visual search, hazard recognition, speed 

adjustment, space management, risk and benefit analysis, and lifestyle issues. 

CLAUDIA: It’s not our job to tell you how you should live, but this program

helps you see that how you live is how you drive. 

JASON: I’d like to focus for a minute on how we’re going to teach these ideas 

and the role you parents need to play. 

There are three instructional components in the program: parent-teen activities, 

multimedia computer time sessions, and the certification test. 

Here’s where you parents come in. There are four parent-teen activities in the 

program for you to do with your teen at home and in your car. Together you will both do 

these activities to practice effective driving techniques in the real world. As a bonus, you 

parents will get to update your skills as you practice some of the latest techniques. 

Teens will also complete three one-hour multimedia computer sessions to learn 

key driving skills and attitudes. In these, you can follow the story of Anne and Jack and 

some teen drivers as they make their own film about safe driving. 

You’ll also do some interactive driving simulations to practice driving-related 

skills on the computer. You’ll initially have to complete the computer-based training 

sessions, or CBTs, in sequential order, but you can always go back and repeat any CBT 

you’ve already completed. 

After you’ve gone through the first time, your parents could even run through a 

CBT if they’re interested. 

184
For you teens, there will be one final program component, the certification test. 

You’ll complete this test on your computer. This test just allows you to see whether 

you’ve mastered the contents of the program and qualify for an insurance discount that 

may save you hundreds of dollars. 

When you add in the costs of repairing a damaged car, insurance deductibles, 

increased insurance premiums, or restricted driving privileges; the benefits of the 

TeenSmart crash avoidance program are enormous. That’s why ADEPT Driver and our 

strategic partners have taken the lead and made our breakthrough program, TeenSmart, 

available to you. 

And we hope you’ll take advantage of the insurance premium discounts where 

available, and other benefits associated with becoming a certified ADEPT driver because 

teens are right about many things, and one of them is they’re too young to die. 

(End of video presentation) 

DR. HARKNESS: I’d like to mention this team that we’ve developed not only 

with DSAA but also Driving School Association of Ontario (DSAO) in Canada and with 

a lot of help from insurance partners that are starting to come on board, which have all 

requested that they be allowed to give their own side of the story and their own press 

releases on this. 

I’m not going to go into a variety of the insurance companies that are getting 

behind this today, but rest assured you’re going to be hearing about us, along with other 

large recognized names that are coming behind this program. 

The reason is, it works, and I’d like to talk about that in itself. I’m going to buzz 

through the instructional technology aspects, though I know you’ll find it interesting. 

And if you do have more questions on this, I think there’s a brochure out there. Please 

just give me a call. I’ll be happy to talk to you about how we linked all these learning 

paradigms together with the content that we’re wishing to teach. 

One of the things that we fretted over that we had the luxury of fretting over 

actually was learning modalities, how a teen learns. If you’re a visual learner, you’ll get 

this program. If you’re an auditory learner, you’ll get it. If you learn by metaphor, you’ll 

get it. If you learn by driving experience, you’ll get it. 

And this is packaged, like I said, in a very unique way for parents and teens so 

parents can become the champions of reducing the crashes out there like we know that 

they’re capable of doing given the proper training, coaching, and, most importantly, incar time with their teen. As a result, there’s a driving practice manual that accompanies 

the base TeenSmart program that has 70 hours of in-car practice. Again, time with the 

teen teaching the right things has an impact on collision reduction, and that’s what I’d 

like to talk to you about next. 

185
I’m getting the hook here, so I’m going to spend very quick time talking about 

this, though I know the researcher types out there love what we’re doing. 

We’ve actually looked at five different types of evaluation. First, we had to nail 

the content, getting content validation. Very important. Then we set up an independent 

research study with Carnegie Mellon University and the Traffic Injury Research 

Foundation to look at how teens improved before and after the TeenSmart training. 

And this involved a variety of knowledge tests, skill tests, behind-the-wheel 

driving evaluations that were being videotaped set up under, as you would expect from

this group, very sophisticated research design models using, like, Solomon Four-Group 

designs control for pre-testing effects. I don’t want to get too technical, but this is if you 

know the group involved, you know they do solid work. And we wanted to get to the 

bottom of things so that we could in fact build a better program. And at the end you’ll see 

that we do have a certification test. 

All that information is used to make TeenSmart better. We need to decide what 

we’re doing right, what we’re doing wrong, and make it better. 

Short answer is, we have knowledge growth, skill improvement, before and after. 

Most importantly, transference from computer-based training and other instruction to real 

driving behavior behind the wheel where we’re able to document that, and we have 

statistical significance on a lot of that. 

We did this by videotaping before and after, evaluated double blind, et cetera, et 

cetera, with lots of good research modeling. Visual search improved, risk perception 

improved, space management improved, a lot of the big six that we were looking at. 

Honest differences. 

But that’s always been the big question. Can you improve skills, knowledge, 

attitude, even driving behavior, but at the end of the day, does that really measurably 

impact the crashes? And that was the thing that we had to wait for, and we’re still 

evaluating this. We started off with 200 teens in a beta test. We did receive significance 

on all the measurement criteria that you would expect, knowledge, skills, behavioral 

change, et cetera, but then we had to really -- this is the proof in the pudding right here. 

How can we measure teen crash reduction? 

Well, first of all, you’ve heard self-selection for safety. We realized right off the 

chute we needed to control for safety selection. So the way we were able to do that 

without benefit of a true experimental design with random assignment was to start off by 

running our teens through and then find a very onerous control group, which we did. We

selected teens that came from the same high schools, same age, same gender, same

months of driving experience, that had selected a very safety-laden training program, one 

that cost $600 instead of $300, one that required 12 hours of in-car instead of six hours, 

and came from households and parents that had self-identified themselves as obviously 

very safety-conscious, along with the associated economics that goes along with having 

more money to spend on the safety-consciousness. 

186
So we stacked our TeenSmart kids up against a very difficult control group, and 

we got a 30 percent reduction in crashes compared to that control group. We are very 

excited and encouraged by those findings. 

There’s larger studies in place. We’ve been looking at this now for three years. 

First we looked at 2000 kids in the experimental group. Remember, we have hundreds of 

thousands of kids in the control group because we’re dealing with, as you would imagine, 

a very robust database with a large insurance company. 

And then it was 4000 students, 8000 students. It’ll be 10,000 students here pretty 

quick, and we’re evaluating the crash reduction potential of this. And all I say is that this 

is great news for parents and teens. We are pleased with the results that we’re seeing on 

this. 

And I know we’re running short on time. Thank you. I look forward to sharing 

this with everybody. That’s what we’re all about, reducing teen driver crashes and 

helping this industry become a little better at what they do. 

Thank you. 

(Applause) 

DR. MARSHALL: I’d like to again thank our five speakers here for their time 

and engaging presentations. Thank you very much. 

187
Associations Panel II 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Good afternoon. My name is Paula Sind-Prunier, and I’m

an investigator at NTSB, and one of the investigators who was involved in the Board’s 

investigation of the January 2003 accident in Belgrade, Montana. 

Out of tragedy, the National Transportation Safety Board strives to identify ways 

to improve safety and, through that, to save lives. Over these two days, we’ve heard from

teachers and students, we’ve heard from representatives of federal and State safety 

administrations, and a number of safety advocates who are engaged in initiatives to 

improve the safety and effectiveness of the programs that prepare our young people to 

drive. 

We’re pleased to have with us these afternoon representatives from several 

organizations that share the Safety Board’s commitment to safety of our nation’s 

highways. These presenters will tell us about their organizations’ initiatives related to the 

development of new drivers, and we will use this as a springboard into a discussion of the 

current state of driver’s education and opportunities for enhancements that will result in 

safer driving for our nation’s young adults. 

Presentation by Troy Costales 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Joining us today from the Governors’ Highway Safety 

Association is Mr. Troy Costales. Since 1997, Mr. Costales has served as the 

Transportation Safety Division manager and Governors’ Highway Safety representative 

for the Oregon Department of Transportation. He has over 16 years experience in 

transportation safety and has led the way for significant improvements in transportation 

safety, as enumerated in his biography, available at the entrance to the boardroom. 

MR. COSTALES: Good afternoon. As Paula (Sind-Prunier) had indicated, I am

the administrator for the Transportation Safety Division for the Oregon Department of 

Transportation, and also serve as the Oregon Governors’ Highway Safety representative. 

Today I’m here on behalf of the Governors’ Highway Safety Association, which 

is a non-profit association that represents all the of the State highway safety offices 

across the nation. The members of the association are appointed by the governors to 

administer the federal highway safety programs as well as the State highway safety 

programs under the charge of the governor. 

Although I am representing one of only four State highway safety offices that 

directly are responsible for the States’ driver education program, all of the State highway 

188 Part 5
safety offices are concerned and work towards improving the education, and reduces the 

high-risk behaviors of young drivers. Most of the State highway safety offices have some

sort of educational programs or other programs that address that age of driver. 

If you don’t know whom your State highway safety office is, make contact with 

them. They have items such as information brochures, law interpretation, videos, speaker 

bureaus, officers that they are in contact with about various programs, they have access to 

a lot of the national programs that we’ve heard about, some yesterday, today, and some

that are in existence that we won’t hear about during these two days. 

Is it really “Leave No Child Behind”? What is it that leaves a child behind? 

Children that don’t come to school one day after the next. It’s not guns, it’s not gangs, 

it’s not suicide, and it’s not drugs. It’s cars. It’s around the transportation system where 

our young children of this nation aren’t at school the next day. 

It’s what impacts the families; it’s what impacts the communities. And as we’ve 

heard already, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of fatalities for the age group 

that we’re talking about. 

There’s been a long-held theory that if young drivers receive improved driver 

education that they would be better trained and that they would be safer drivers and we 

would see fewer fatal-injury crashes. However, the state of driver education has changed 

dramatically over the last 30 years. Driver education is no longer in the sole purview of 

public schools, and we heard some of those examples earlier this morning. 

And according to a recent study by “USA Today,” only 27 States are now 

offering some sort of financial assistance towards driver education for the new driver. 

The survey also found that participation by the school district was voluntary in almost all 

cases. Hence 16-year-olds may now find alternate means to get their education, through 

their parents or potentially purchasing driver education through private providers. 

There are no federal guidelines, and we’ve heard that echoed for two days. There 

is no minimum core curriculum that is consistent and used across the board. There are no 

uniform teacher certification standards, and in some cases, little State regulation. 

As a result, you can see that the quality of driver education, the ability to have an 

impact, and the numbers that we’re seeing vary tremendously from jurisdiction to 

jurisdiction, school to school, State to State. 

The cost of education is also a potential impacting factor. It is very rare now to 

hear about free or totally subsidized training. Quite often, you can see price tags of $200 

to $300, and for some of the more intensive in behind-the-wheel and track-related 

training, it can be as much as $1000 for someone to try and take that course. 

While a lot of these courses are improvements over what we’ve seen in the past, 

they also limit the ability for an individual to take it because of the cost. As a result, some

189
of our low-income young drivers and families are not afforded the ability to take some

sort of formal driver training. 

When we look at driver education and graduated driver licensing, one of the 

questions that comes to my mind is, has the question around the ability for formalized 

driver education training to impact the numbers we’ve seen over the last few decades 

actually led in part to this push to the graduated driver licensing process?

Under graduated licensing, the young driver is trained using a phased-in approach 

over time, allowing him/her to gain on-the-road experiences to become a better driver. 

I think GDL is probably the last breath of life for driver education and driver 

training that we’re going to see. If we do not take advantage of this opportunity through 

this hearing, through the consensus of individuals coming together over these two days, 

we may see the decline and maybe even the death of driver education in its current 

format and structure inside of a decade. 

The GDL process has driven energy and driven excitement and interest in doing 

something, and we need to take advantage of the time today that we’re doing this. 

The Governors Highway Safety Association supports the overall approach of 

graduated licensing, particularly when we’re dealing with teenage drivers. Recognizing 

that driving is a very complex task, GHSA encourages all States to enact the three-stage 

graduated driver license program. 

The GDL program needs to have components in it such as a specific age for a 

learner’s permit, a provisional permit that is granted several months after the learner’s 

permit and before a full license, adult supervision of the learners, nighttime driving 

restrictions, mandatory safety belt use, the restrictions on passengers, and distinctive 

licensing so that law enforcement and others can tell that this individual is under a 

provisional stage. 

There should be, and in most cases is, a zero tolerance provision for drunk 

driving. The question is whether it’s being enforced and adjudicated where we’re dealing 

with alcohol, and an approach towards suspension for any impaired driving conviction or 

an implied consent refusal when dealing with an alcohol offense. 

From a highway safety manager’s point of view, whether I’m responsible for 

driver education or not in my State, I would rather take the time and invest the money to 

teach these individuals at the very front of their driving career of how to do things right. 

It’s going to be more work on me and more work on others if we worry about trying to 

retrain them when they are 30 or 40 or 50 or later. 

And if it’s not a professional or a guided parent that’s involved in training these 

drivers, who is it? It’s Microsoft, it’s XBox, and it’s Nintendo. It’s a situation where you 

get to reset your life just by playing another game or putting in another quarter. And the 

190
whole issue of the high risk and what is involved in a life-and-death situation is missed 

and we’ve missed that opportunity. 

It isn’t funny. It isn’t a game. And we need to make sure that we get that 

information out to young drivers in a very serious and formal manner. 

New driver education programs should be developed that would complement the 

graduated driver licensing laws. These programs at a minimum should focus on vehicle 

handling, crash avoidance, driver behavior and risk reduction, roadway features, and 

vehicle road user interaction for all types of vehicles. 

They should also involve driving ranges or tracks where a student is taken 

through a number of different driving scenarios in order to provide real-world driving 

experience under tightly supervised conditions. There should be learning components 

that are specifically geared to the parents of young drivers. The curricula should take 

advantage of the computer simulations and things that can be done in that technology. 

GHSA firmly believes that the time is right to refocus on driver education, 

particularly since the remaining States with publicly funded driver education are likely to 

reduce or eliminate the programs over the next several years. Enhanced driver education 

of this type, coupled with strengthened GDL will go a long way to reducing young deaths 

and injuries on our nation’s roadway system. 

Somebody somewhere has got to be charged with the lead responsibility at a 

national level, and that has come out at almost every presentation so far. 

There are many partners that are available in the driver education scene. The 

educators, the highway safety office, law enforcement, DMV, parents, media, the 

administrators of the schools and programs, instructors, school resource officers -- quite 

often overlooked as somebody that can be involved in what’s going on in the school -- 

and insurance companies. 

And in May, Ford Motor Company and GHSA launched a new public awareness 

program that focuses on young drivers. The Real World Driver Program focuses on four 

particular driving skills: hazard recognition, vehicle handling, space management, and 

speed management. These skills are based on research and statistics that are endorsed by 

an advisory panel of highway safety experts. 

The Real World Driver is designed to educate both parents and teens via 

educational kits that have been sent to every public high school in the country. More than 

20,000 high schools have received this information, and they have reached already an 

estimated 4 million students and parents around the nation. 

It should be emphasized that the Real World Driver Program is not a driver 

education program. One of the goals of the program is to raise the visibility of the driver 

training issue and to encourage a national discussion about the most effective way to 

191
teach young persons to drive safely. In that respect, Ford and GHSA believe that the Real 

World Driver Program has been very successful. 

We cannot just focus on driver education as a stand-alone program in order to 

have success. There is a renewed interest in young drivers by both the public and private 

sectors. And in increased public discussions such as this, we can start to reach out and do 

more in order to teach young drivers to drive safely. 

From a highway safety office like mine, it doesn’t matter where the education is 

taught, whether it’s public or private or community college or some other venue, as long 

as we make sure that the curriculum that they’re addressing is reaching the high-risk 

behaviors of the youth and the individual teaching that program has the knowledge, 

skills, and ability to transfer to that young student the seriousness of the driving task. 

NHTSA somehow in some way must take on part of this lead responsibility in 

order to make this happen because the alternative is not acceptable. We would just 

simply give up. We would quit the desire to train new drivers. That means that we’re 

declaring the status quo as acceptable. That also means that we pass along the 

responsibility for delivering 4000 death messages to parents every year, 333 every 

month, 75 every week, 10 every day, 20 in the amount of time that we’ve been here 

yesterday and today. And that’s the status quo, and that is a highway safety program that 

I wouldn’t be proud to be involved in or to be a leader in. 

Today, to reach the American Dream, we must understand, use, and work through 

the transportation system. That’s the way and that’s the path to meet today’s American 

Dream. And today, to my knowledge, I don’t think any student has ever died from falling 

on a folder, but there are students that have died because of unfortunately coming face to 

face with a steering wheel. 

I happen to be very fortunate to be in a State where they take youth safety 

seriously and try and fund the effort and have the policy discussions about reducing death 

and injury, as John Harvey presented to you yesterday in the details of Oregon’s 

program. 

Bottom line, and I would hope that somewhere in the Board’s final printed report 

talking about this subject we come out and say that at a minimum we must now start to 

change the culture of what it is to be a teen driver in this nation. It is not a rite of passage. 

It needs to be something that is earned and understood, and we should be able to come

back five years from now or 10 years from now and not have all this debate again 

because the new bar has been set for what we want to do as we move forward in order to 

make a difference on young drivers in the United States. 

Thank you for your time. 

(Applause) 

192
Presentation by Charles Butler 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Now I’d like to introduce Mr. Charles Butler from the 

American Automobile Association. Mr. Butler joined AAA in 1976, and as director of 

the Traffic Safety Sales and Product Development at AAA, he oversees the research, 

development, marketing, and distribution of programs, materials, and services for 

educational and consumer purposes. 

Mr. Butler directed the development and production of a License to Learn, 

AAA’s new interactive driver education program, which we’ll hear about today. He also 

directed the development of AAA’s Teaching Your Teens to Drive, a Parent Involvement 

Program, as well as the revision of two AAA driver education textbooks, “Responsible 

Driving,” and “How to Drive.” 

He received his bachelor’s degree in accident prevention, health, and physical 

education from the University of Maryland and has taught in the D.C. public schools and 

Howard University. 

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, and good afternoon to one and all. My name is 

Charles Butler, and I’m one of two directors in the AAA National Office, Traffic Safety 

Department in Heathrow, Florida. 

AAA is a federation of 77 local motor clubs throughout the United States and 

Canada representing more than 46 million members in those two countries. Since its 

founding in 1902, AAA’s been devoted to helping make America’s highways safer and 

providing individuals of all ages the education and skills they need to be safe drivers. In 

fact, AAA pioneered the concept of formal driver education and training in the early 

1930s. 

In 1997, AAA launched a National Young Novice Driver Safety Initiative, and 

we did so because of the primary reason that young novice drivers -- that motor vehicle 

crashes were the number one cause of death for young novice drivers in this country. It 

wasn’t homicide, it wasn’t suicide, it wasn’t AIDS, and it wasn’t the many things that we 

think cause problems for young people, but motor vehicle crashes. 

The campaign at that time had three goals, and one was to raise awareness of the 

seriousness from a public health perspective of the young novice driver crash problem. 

The second goal of the campaign was to change the way that we license young 

people in this country. Back in 1997, there were about six States that had a graduated 

driver-licensing program, and today there are about 48 States that have graduated driverlicensing programs. 

So at AAA, we recognized the importance of graduated driver licensing, and 

AAA clubs have been lobbying for strong GDL laws in all 50 States with special 

193
emphasis on passenger and nighttime restrictions and supervised behind-the-wheel 

driving experience in many diverse settings. 

One of the goals of the License to Learn campaign was to also change the way 

that we educate young people in this country. And as a complement to GDL, AAA 

believes that high quality driver education and training programs can enhance safety and 

mobility. 

To be an effective crash/accident countermeasure, driver education and training 

must emphasize safe operation practices and be based on the results of young novice 

driver crash research. It should be considered as an important element of a systems 

approach, which incorporates the licensing and enforcement communities. 

Driver education should emphasize visual search skills, techniques for paying 

attention to driving, speed and space management, driving emergencies, risk recognition 

and avoidance, and basic vehicle control. 

AAA encourages new drivers not to rely completely on formal driver education 

but to obtain as much supervised behind-the-wheel driving experience as possible before 

encountering complex driving situations and environments alone. AAA urges parents and 

guardians to take an active role in their child’s education by assisting new drivers in 

gaining experience under safe conditions and establishing clear expectations in terms of 

how the family car is used, specifically paying attention to driving time, place, weather 

conditions, seat belt use, number and age of passengers, alcohol, drugs, fatigue, and 

emotions. 

AAA is concerned by the decline in availability of quality driver education and 

training programs in both the public sector and the private sector. Driver education and 

training programs are declining at a time when the teen driving population is increasing 

dramatically and the nation’s novice drivers still incur more fatalities and injuries per 

vehicle mile driven than any other age group. 

Beginning in the 1930s, AAA clubs emerged as a leading force in educating new 

drivers. Working as an AAA consultant, the late professor Amos Nyhart, the godfather of 

driver education of Pennsylvania State University, developed and taught the first driver 

training programs in the United States. 

In the late 1930s, AAA published “How to Drive” and “Sportsmanlike Driving,” 

its first driver education textbooks. Today, “Responsible Driving,” “How to Drive,” and 

“Teaching Your Teens to Drive” are examples of AAA’s continued contribution to 

developing comprehensive teaching and learning materials that are used in public school 

driver education programs, commercial driving schools, and fleet driver training 

programs. 

The decline in availability of public school driver education programs, coupled 

with the anticipated growth in novice drivers, represents a significant major safety issue. 

194
To ensure that young people survive the greatest threat to their future, we must reduce 

traffic deaths and injuries by improving the safety performance of young drivers. 

In addition to raising awareness of the seriousness of the novice driver safety 

problem in this country and improving the licensing process by implementing 

comprehensive graduated driver license laws in all 50 States, AAA is in the process of 

implementing a unique state-of-the-art driver education program that will improve the 

educational process. 

AAA’s License to Learn driver education curriculum will train novices in the 

skills needed to avoid crashes, and it will do that by standardizing driver education 

course content, implementing uniform instructor qualifications, mandating more behindthe-wheel driving experience. 

License to Learn will also provide parents and adults with the tools, models, and 

instructional units they need to support young novice driver education. And to help the 

public select quality sources for driver education courses, AAA publishes a brochure 

entitled “Choosing a Driving School.” 

AAA also is in the process of pilot testing a new concept for an Approved Driving 

School Network. Now, the Approved Driving School Network Program is a design that’s 

based on a model similar to AAA’s Approved Accommodations and Approved Auto 

Repair Programs. In those programs, clubs review applicants, select quality driving 

schools to deliver AAA novice driver education and driver improvement programs within 

their club territory. This educational approach, we believe, will fill a void in those States 

where few public schools offer driver education. 

In line with this stated commitment to provide the most current and effective 

driver education and training programs available, the AAA License to Learn Driver 

Education Program is a departure from the conventional read-and-lecture driver 

education course in that it is based on an in-depth analysis of thousands of crashes 

involving teen drivers. And the License to Learn instructional content is consistent with 

each delivery. 

This analysis of crash causation, in addition to a better understanding of the 

learning styles of youth, indicates the need for a change in the content, sequencing, and 

types of learning experiences offered both in the car as well as in the classroom. One of 

the most obvious needs is for greater use of technology and much more emphasis on 

interactive learning and feedback if we’re to make a change in so-called student attitude 

and that is to occur along with desired changes in behavior. 

The results of our crash research reveal that new drivers are involved in crashes 

44 percent of the time as a result of a lack of skill in the whole area of visual search. 

The number two reason that they’re involved in crashes has to do with paying full 

time and attention to driving. We talked about the importance of passenger restrictions 

and some of the other types of distractors that happen in the car. 

195
Twenty-one percent of their crashes were caused by speed, not so much driving 

exceeding the speed limit but in too many cases driving too fast for conditions. Ten 

percent of their crashes was caused by not managing space around the car; 9 percent due 

to inadequacy in skills that they had in terms of responding to driving emergencies; and 

only 8 percent of the crashes that we looked at were caused by basic vehicle car control, 

that the student couldn’t start, stop, and turn the car. 

When we looked at all driver crashes, alcohol, fatigue, vehicle, or signals were 

causes of the fewest amount of crashes when you look at it from the overall crash 

problem. 

So what we went out and did was designed a program that has four modes of 

instruction. Our program has 30 hours of classroom, has 10 hours of in-car training 

because we know that six hours of in-car training is barely enough for students to learn 

basic car control. It has a subcomponent as well as supervised practice. 

When you look at our classroom program, it is a highly visual program, and 

we’ve designed this program based around what we know about how people learn. That, 

for instance, we know that people will only remember about 5 percent of what they hear. 

We know that people will only remember about 10 percent of what they read. However, 

we also know that people will remember about 20 percent of what they see and hear. 

So what we’ve designed is a highly visual program for the classroom side of this 

program. It contains about three or four hours of video. And when you look at the video, 

the students look at the video in clips of one to five minutes. So you’re not talking about 

a lot of video being previewed by the students all at one time. 

The majority of this video is shot from the driver point of view. There are over 

2700 driving scenes in this particular program, and all 2700 of those driving scenes can 

be tied back to the research that we conducted on young novice driver crash involvement. 

About 30 percent, about a third, of these driving scenes are four-camera camera 

scenes, where when the student looks at the screen, they see the view out of the front 

windshield, the rearview mirror, and the side view mirror all on the screen at the same

time. And again, these are situations or video of common traffic situations that we know 

kids have problems with as it relates to crashes. 

The classroom instruction is highly interactive. It’s interactive between the 

instructor and the student, between the video and the student as well as within the student 

and the student. We designed a program for this way because what we know about 

interactive learning and the way students learn, about 50 percent of what is learned and 

remembered and retained over a period of time is done so in a very interactive 

discussion-oriented mode. So this is a very highly discussion-oriented program that 

we’ve designed. 

It is designed to be delivered as an integrated program. That is, you take both 

concurrently, both the classroom and the in-car at the same time. So within a day or two 

196
of seeing these maneuvers and seeing these skills demonstrated in the classroom using a 

lot of video and PowerPoint slides, we have the student actually practicing the skill in the 

car under a certified trained instructor. 

In the car, we put a lot of emphasis on skill development and give students a lot of

detailed feedback on how they’re performing each of the skills that was presented in the 

classroom. 

Another component of this program is supervised practice, that what we have 

been able to do in designing this program is make sure that the parents are aware of how 

well each of the students are performing the skills in the program and getting that 

feedback back to the parents so that they can help us help the kids to perform and perfect 

each of the skills that are taught both in the classroom as well as in the car. 

We have a package called “Teaching Your Teens to Drive,” and this provides 

guidance for parents in terms of the skills, how the skills should be taught. And the skills 

in this particular parent involvement package also follow the sequence of the in-car 

training in the License to Learn Program. So it provides not only guidance for parent 

driving but it also provides parents guidance for supervising the supervised driving that 

happens in the car and provides them checklists so that they can also monitor their 

students’ performance in the car. 

With this particular program, we also provide instructor training because with this 

particular program we know that because it is a highly interactive program that it changes 

the role of the instructor and changes the role of instructor from being a lecturer to being 

a facilitator. 

The three driver training instructor courses that we provide are basic performance. 

We provide a classroom course to sharpen interactive skills to teach this program in the 

classroom as well as vehicle operations skills to teach all of the skills in the car. There’s 

120 hours of training that’s available with this particular program, and we offer a 

certification program to certify the instructors to teach this particular program as well. 

In terms of the future, these are some of the priorities that AAA is going to be 

working on. Obviously, as we said in the beginning, AAA believes in the value of driver 

education from mobility as well as from a safety standpoint. We believe that an educated 

driver is a more effective decision-maker, that the ever-increasing demand of the 

highway transportation system, more drivers, more vehicles, more stress -- underscore 

the need for a more effective driver education and training system. 

Novice drivers particularly need rigorous instruction and training to develop safe 

driving practices and to improve their perceptual abilities and management skills as it 

relates to managing time and space in traffic. So therefore, AAA urges that priority be 

given to these future efforts to improve driver education. 

We believe that there should be an intensified government and private sector 

research and development effort to make driver education and training programs more 

197
efficient, effective, relevant, and stimulating, that driver education should be 

reestablished as a national priority to stimulate States to implement more and better 

driver education and training courses for beginning drivers. 

We believe that dynamic interactive multimedia software must be developed to 

diagnose, clarify, and reinforce modification of new driver risk-taking styles and to 

demonstrate their consequences. 

We believe that multi-phase driver education programs must be implemented in 

this country. We also are going to focus our efforts in the future on developing more and 

better pre-licensing programs, driver refresher programs, as well as the advanced driver 

training and driver improvement programs. 

We really believe that driver education and training programs must be financed 

adequately, that States should develop some cooperative financing initiatives between 

public and private sectors to accomplish that objective and that the real objective should 

be to increase the number of students that are receiving high-quality instruction, 

including both on-the-road and classroom training. 

We believe that States should mandate more supervised novice driver behind-thewheel training experience. They should implement uniform driver education course 

content and higher uniform instructor qualifications. 

That State standards covering the ownership and or operation of driver education 

and training facilities, classroom instruction, and instructor qualifications and 

performance should be promulgated and enforced by the appropriate licensing agency to 

ensure consumer protection and quality instruction. 

We believe that instructional programs should be implemented for the disabled. 

And lastly, we also believe that States should enhance the quality and the availability of 

teacher preparation courses for prospective driver education instructors through private 

universities as well as public universities and other local sources. 

In the future, AAA will continue its partnership efforts with many organizations, 

like the American Driver and Traffic Safety Association, the Driving School 

Associations of the Americas, colleges and universities, and other local sources to 

enhance the quality and the availability of driver education, teacher preparation, and 

instructor certification programs. 

It is through efforts like these that we believe that we can produce safer drivers 

that will have fewer crashes and that these efforts in the end will produce knowledgeable 

drivers that have favorable attitudes toward operating vehicles in a safe manner and 

provide them the skills that they need to recognize and handle risk properly. 

Thank you. 

(Applause) 

198
Presentation by Allan Williams 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Since 1972, Dr. Alan Williams has been with the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, where he serves as chief scientist. 

Dr. Williams holds a Ph.D. in social psychology from Harvard University. He’s 

published more than 250 articles addressing a wide variety of safety research areas, 

including alcohol, drugs, and driving; seat belt use; and preventing motor vehicle deaths 

and injuries among adolescents and children. 

Thank you for joining us, Dr. Williams. 

DR. WILLIAMS: We’re going to shift gears here a little bit, and I’m going to talk 

for a few minutes about what pre-license driver education can and cannot do based on the 

available scientific evidence, and then make a few observations and suggestions. 

I have a short statement that I’m mostly going to read. I’m sure you’ve heard 

some of this before in the last day and a half, but I don’t know what you’ve heard before 

so I ask you to bear with me. 

In terms of what driver education cannot do, or at least hasn’t been able to do thus 

far, I think we need to acknowledge up front that there are now five reviews of the 

worldwide literature on the effectiveness of driver education undertaken since 1998, all 

recent, and each review has reached the same conclusion, that there is no difference in 

the crash records of driver education graduates compared with equivalent groups of 

beginners who learned to drive without formal education. 

That is, what we’ve tried so far, including a number of intelligently designed 

programs, has not worked as intended to provide a safety benefit. 

Despite this evidence, driver education has enormous popular appeal. When the 

young driver problem is addressed in forums such as this, there inevitably is an appeal for 

more or better driver education, and you’ve just heard Charles (Butler) talk in some detail 

in that vain about more and better driver education. 

To many people, a conclusion that driver education does not have safety benefits 

seems counterintuitive, but should we really expect standard driver education to lead to 

reduced crashes? Probably not. 

The courses are generally of short duration, leading to concentration on teaching 

basic driving skills and less opportunity to teach safe driving techniques. Safety messages 

conveyed can be readily overwhelmed by ongoing parental, peer, personal, and other 

social influences that shape driving styles and crash involvement. 

For the same reasons, short-term high school high education programs aimed at 

influencing smoking, alcohol, and other drug use have failed to do so. The audience for 

199
driver education courses also may be relatively unmotivated by safety concerns. The 

primary motivation usually is to learn enough skills to pass the driving test. 

Developmental and lifestyle features typical of young adolescents, risk-taking 

tendencies, feelings of invulnerability, immature decision-making, make it difficult to 

influence the way they drive through safety messages. 

I think the late Pat Waller provided some good perspective on that situation way 

back in 1977 in an article she wrote in which she discussed the unrealistic expectations of 

a high school driver education teacher compared with the way teachers of other subjects 

are judged. She posed the question, should the driver education teacher be responsible 

only for whether the student can drive adequately or whether he actually does drive in 

this manner, and went on to note the many outside factors that influence subsequent 

driving performance and are largely beyond the reach of driver education instructors. 

It seems apparent that driver education should be considered as one method for 

teaching young beginners how to drive adequately. That is, it is a way to learn basic 

driving skills. There is some evidence that it can be the best method for doing so. 

It would be more defensible if driver education were promoted as the best way to 

learn driving skills rather than as a way to produce safer drivers. However, driver 

education is not benign. When available at early ages, it is associated with early 

licensure, which leads to additional crashes and injuries. The relationship between driver 

education and early licensure has been reported in studies in Australia, Canada, England, 

and New Zealand, in addition to the United States. 

Earlier licensure enhances mobility, which has important benefits for teenagers, 

but at the expense of safety. 

Courses that teach advanced driving skills such as skid control are becoming quite 

popular in the United States even though studies around the world have indicated that 

they can have an adverse effect, presumably because they inspire overconfidence and 

young people may create opportunities to try out these advanced maneuvers. 

Here is how the most recent review of the international driver education literature 

summarizes the situation. This is a quote. 

“The research literature suggests that beyond imparting basic car control and road 

law knowledge skills, pre-license driver training education contributes little to postlicense reductions in casualty crashes or traffic violations among novice drivers. In 

addition, mandatory pre-license training or even formal pre-license training education 

such as high school driver education in the U.S.A. may contribute to increased exposure 

to risk for young drivers, particularly females, by encouraging early solo driving. 

“There is also considerable evidence that driver training that attempts to impart 

advanced skills such as skid control to learner drivers may contribute to increased crash 

risk, particularly among young males. This pattern of results has been confirmed and 

200
replicated across numerous studies conducted in Australia, New Zealand, North America, 

Europe, and Scandinavia during the last 30 years.” 

This review was done by Ron Christie in Australia. 

Driver education is constantly reinventing itself, and several new programs have 

been developed recently in the United States, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. I 

know you’ve heard about programs in the U.S. and some information on Europe 

yesterday. Australia and New Zealand are also very active. 

These programs are thoughtfully and carefully planned, but they have not been 

evaluated. Given the formidable barriers to making young beginners safer drivers through 

education and training, and the disappointing results of prior evaluations of programs 

initially thought to be excellent, it is essential to scientifically evaluate new programs 

before they are fully launched. 

We have made some important progress in dealing with the young driver problem

in the United States through graduated licensing programs. Studies have indicated that 

graduated licensing works with or without driver education being a required component 

of the system. 

Studies have also shown that in jurisdictions in which driver education graduates 

are allowed to spend less time in the system, novices who took advantage of this had 

worse crash records when first licensed than those not taking driver education. At the 

least, these so-called time discounts need to be eliminated. 

There seems to be increasing recognition now that driving experience, not 

training, is key to becoming a safer driver. Let me say that again. Driving experience, not 

training, is the key. 

There is a trend around the world now to maximize the amount of experience 

gained by young beginners before licensure. This is accomplished in the United States 

through longer mandatory learning periods and graduated licensing systems. Clearly, 

much of the supervision of driving in a learner stage will be done by lay instructors, 

primarily parents. 

There is opportunity here for professional driver educators to coordinate with lay 

instructors to maximize the quantity and quality of driving experience gained during this 

initial period. This can be done by providing materials to parents encouraging them to get 

involved in the learning process, advising them on how to provide supervised driving 

practice, and telling them of the importance of following the rules and restrictions of the 

graduated licensing system. Some of the more recent driver education programs include 

this kind of outreach to parents. 

Other models are possible that provide structured interaction between educators 

and parents. Let me give you one example. 

201
In Australia, the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria provides for such 

interactions throughout the learning stage, starting with an initial 45- to 60-minute 

driving lesson where a parent is invited to join the learner and instructor. The intention is 

to encourage parents to ask questions and request advice on how to manage supervised 

driving instruction, motivate the provision of supervised driving experience, and 

introduce parents to support and guidance materials in providing a supervised on-road 

experience. 

This coordinated approach provides an opportunity to combine professional 

instruction and driving skills with maximum supervised practice facilitated by parents, 

guided by professional instructors. 

Obviously, such an approach would need to be evaluated in a rigorous fashion to 

see if it is better than alternatives, but it is a promising approach, I believe. 

To summarize, in the case of pre-license driver education, there is a major 

discrepancy between public beliefs and scientific knowledge. Of considerable concern is 

that scarce resources continue to be spent in the name of safety on programs that have no 

benefit or may even make things worse. 

Many new approaches are being tried or are under development, but they should 

not be widely applied unless rigorous assessments indicate that they are effective in 

reducing crash risk. I hope we would all agree that it is desirable to have evidence-based 

highway safety policy, not policy based on faith. 

Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Chuck Hurley

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Our next presenter, Mr. Chuck Hurley, has long been 

involved with the National Safety Council, having started up its Washington Office in 

1977. Currently, he is the vice president of the Transportation Safety Group. In that role, 

he oversees the council’s efforts in highway safety, truck safety, and related activities. He 

also serves as the executive director of the council’s air bag and seat belt safety 

campaign. 

MR. HURLEY: I’m going to help everybody, I think, by compressing my

remarks, and hopefully we can have a livelier question and answer period. 

I’d like to talk about several things we have done, what we intend to do, and then 

talk a little bit about the areas where I think driver’s education has a bright future. 

202
Thanks to the efforts of Bill Combs, who’s sitting out there and many of you 

know, we were able to put on last November in Chatham, Massachusetts, a symposium

on graduated licensing which involved many of the people in this room. Allan (Williams) 

was kind of the dean of the faculty, I think, at that. 

And it was a superbly attended conference. That happened in part because there 

was a Northeaster that came down the coast and no one could leave the building. But it 

was a very, very exceptional conference in the view of many of us. 

And that led directly to the second thing, which was this all was published in the 

“Journal of Safety Research” in January with a very specific intent of trying to encourage 

State legislatures to pick up really where AAA, I think, laid the foundation in getting 

many of those graduated licensing laws. I’m not sure I agree there are 48 of them, but to 

pick up some of the tougher provisions that are harder to pass. 

And one of the clear successes in that area with the help of Carol Carmody, a 

member of the NTSB, was the enactment in Illinois of a passenger restriction this last 

year. And that is a thing we hope to increase, in fact, in the future. 

The thing we are now intending to do is we expect to publish either late this year 

or early next year again, thanks to the efforts of Bill Combs and Holly Sanders sitting 

back there a complete family guide to graduated licensing. Or we’ll probably call it a 

complete family guide to teen driving safety, but based firmly in the principles of 

graduated licensing. 

And that, we hope, will really provide a framework for a better audience for many 

of these messages, the audience really being more parents than teens themselves since 

teens being a teenager, having been one a long time ago is trying to experience as much 

risk as possible, missing many of the messages we all wish that we would be able to 

provide to them. 

We’re also participating with Daimler-Chrysler in their Road-Ready Teens 

Program. 

I think many of us in the room wish the data were other than what Allan Williams

has just said it is. But it isn’t, and I think Jimmy Nichols also gave a very good review of 

that in the opening comments yesterday. 

And so, why do I think that graduated licensing has been effective where driver’s 

education, though well intended, has not been. And I think it really is that we picking up, 

really, on some of the things that were said. Many of the people in the room consider Pat 

Waller to have been a wonderful friend. We shouldn’t be surprised. Teens drive the 

highest-risk vehicles at the highest-risk times with lower rates of belt use; higher rates of 

alcohol, particularly, I guess, for older teenagers; higher rates of speed; higher rates of 

cell phone use -- that’s a personal obsession -- and a higher number of passengers. 

203
The reason why I think graduated licensing has proven effective where other 

methods have not is because it does try to systematically reduce these risk factors. 

And so where do I think we can go. I think the bright future for driver’s education 

is really, I’d like to pick up, where Allan left off. I think many driver educators, 

particularly those fewer driver educators who are still in a high school environment, have 

some extraordinary opportunities. Let me sketch out a few of those, and maybe we can 

get into some more of this in question and answer. 

I know at the Safety Council we would welcome discussions with driver 

educators, particularly in a high school environment, that would be willing to pursue 

what we believe to be a better audience and a better carrot. By a better audience, I think 

that would mainly be focusing on parents -- yes, involve the students, but the people that 

can reduce the risk best to teenagers in my view would be the parents -- and working 

aggressively with them to provide ways to reduce that risk. 

An example might be vehicle selection. A lot of the risks teens face is dependent 

on what box they’re in. And yet, that has received very little attention in many of the 

presentations even at this conference, I think. 

And also, to involve the parents over time so that the driver, particularly high 

school driver educator, and I understand there are fewer of them now than there used to 

be, could in fact be kind of the public health advocate in that community to try to set 

community norms, to not have your teenagers drive or ride with drivers with certainly 

less than six months, maybe even two years, that’s probably a little long, but six months, 

anyway, of safe driving experience. 

To try to advocate for better State laws, certainly the ones that have been proven 

effective. Again, I would refer back to the symposium proceedings that we had talked 

about. 

But I think the high school driver education professional has an extraordinary 

bully pulpit to use in the community for the things that are proven to work, and we would 

certainly welcome discussions toward that end. 

One other point I think picking up on something that Allen Robinson said 

yesterday morning. He talked about the competency-based training as a way of 

identifying high-risk teenagers. I would hope to complete that thought in the following 

way. I think one of the best ways to do that would be -- I think it’s New Zealand now, 

where they literally do not allow, I think Florida may have some of this -- where a 

student cannot proceed to the next level of graduated licensing if they are not violationfree and crash-free. 

And I think one of the best ways to identify the high-risk teenagers is through 

ticketing, and I certainly, using an N of 3 in my own house, I did on a number of 

occasions have to resort to license revocation. But I think that that is probably the better, 

at least in my view, the best way towards identifying high-risk driving might be well to 

204
harness and to push for State laws which would not only say but actually carry out 

license sanctions for teenagers that violate the law and the risk principles involved in 

those laws. 

Again, I think the better carrot, the better audience, I believe, is to broaden out to 

the parents. The better carrot, I think, as Jimmy Nichols said yesterday, is not to use 

driver’s education to license teenagers sooner but to use driver educator advocates of 

graduated licensing to help teenagers remain crash-free, ticket-free so that they can in 

fact graduate to a full license at age 18. 

Those are the comments I wanted to make initially. I hope that this will be 

degenerate into a more vibrant discussion. 

Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Peter Kissinger 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Peter Kissinger serves as the president and CEO of AAA 

Foundation for Traffic Safety, a position he’s held since May of 2002. If you’re not 

familiar with it, the AAA Foundation is a not-for-profit affiliate of AAA and the AAA 

Motor Clubs, which supports research and develops educational products to enhance 

traffic safety. 

Mr. Kissinger is no stranger to the Safety Board. He spent 12 years with the 

Board, first as a safety specialist and later as our managing director. 

Mr. Kissinger earned his masters degree in operations research from George 

Washington University, and he holds a bachelors degree in engineering from the U.S. 

Coast Guard Academy. 

MR. KISSINGER: Thank you very much. It’s nice to be back on the other side of 

the table. 

I would first of all like to start by complimenting NTSB on tackling this very 

important subject and for holding this forum. Far too many novice drivers are killed in 

this country every day, and we can and should do a better job of addressing this major 

public health crisis. The Safety Board’s examination of driver education is most timely. If 

anything, it’s probably a little bit overdue. And again, thanks for the opportunity to share 

with you a few thoughts this afternoon. 

As just mentioned, AAA Foundation is the research affiliate of AAA and the 

AAA Motor Clubs around the country. We are also the de facto research affiliate of the 

Canadian Automobile Association (CAA) in Canada. 

205
Our mission, as described by this graphic, is pretty simple. It’s to identify traffic 

safety problems, to foster research that seeks solutions primarily by making grants to 

universities and researchers throughout the world. And we then take that research and 

develop appropriate educational products, which we disseminate to the widest possible 

audience. 

I should point out that although we are an independent organization, we do get the 

majority of our revenue from AAA, from AAA members, AAA clubs, as well as our 

counterparts in the CAA. And throughout its 50-year-plus history, the Foundation has 

funded hundreds of research projects covering a wide range of safety issues but with 

special emphasis on tackling problems associated with human behavior. Today, I’d like 

to highlight just some of the key Foundation efforts related to this forum both past and 

present. 

In its early years, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety placed heavy emphasis 

on developing a wide range of traffic safety videos, many of which have been extensively 

utilized by both public and private driver training schools and educators throughout the 

country. 

More recently, the Foundation has placed a little less emphasis on developing 

safety videos, but it still does routinely provide and develop a range of safety brochures 

and other informational materials. For example, presently we are working in 

collaboration with the Better Business Bureau to develop a new 60-minute video and 

DVD entitled “Crash Course: What Do You Need to Know Before and After a Crash,” 

which we’re very excited about. 

From a research perspective, clearly the most relevant project today’s forum is the 

Foundation’s Novice Driver Education Model Curriculum Outline, which was originally 

published in 1995. This effort was driven by a broad research advisory committee 

comprised of many of the organizations scheduled to appear or have already appeared 

before this forum. Six researchers from Northport Associates, Interscience America, and 

Queens University conducted the actual work. I believe Larry Lonero was one of the 

speakers yesterday who was very instrumental in this particular effort. 

The research team reviewed the current driver education literature in order to 

identify the novice driver needs, to evaluate methods of instruction, and to assess the 

effectiveness of driver education in influencing behavior. It sounds to me an awful lot 

like the objectives for this forum that we’re participating in. 

It then went on to propose performance objectives for driver education graduates 

and methods for achieving those objectives. In short, it attempted to reinvent driver 

education into a form that reduces crashes by novice drivers. 

Unfortunately, some eight years later, I believe the key findings from this 

research project, some of which I’ve summarized on this slide, are just as valid as the day 

they were first issued. 

206
We’ve heard a lot the last day and a half about what would be described as the 

diminished status of driver education in this country. I hope we will look upon that as an 

opportunity to reinvent it and make it more effective. 

We need a more comprehensive understanding of the needs of novice drivers, and 

we need to include those in the appropriate driver education programs. Clearly, as Chuck 

(Hurley) has just mentioned, parental involvement in the context of GDL legislation is 

most critical. 

And driver education should, wherever possible, be individualized and take 

advantage of the technology and provide interactive and instructional methods such as 

that that Charles Butler talked about in AAA’s License to Learn Program. 

From a little broader perspective, two other key findings of that study that I’d just 

like to summarize are first, the toughest and most critical challenges in accomplishing all 

of these things will be developing effective and practical means to motivate, train, and 

support teachers to deliver this important education. And second, we can’t do this in a 

vacuum. It’ll be very important to mobilize families, communities, and industry as well 

as government if we’re going to be successful. 

Unfortunately, with few notable exceptions such as, in my opinion, AAA’s 

License to Learn Program, and those efforts that have emphasized the role of parental 

involvement as part of GDL legislation throughout this country, we have made scant little 

progress in enhancing driver education in this country yet alone reinventing it in the past 

eight years. 

Thus, I would most certainly recommend to the Safety Board staff that they 

review this report, which I’ve provided for the record. 

Inspired by its own research, the AAA Foundation almost immediately launched a 

development effort that led to the release of its Driver’s Education Interactive Risk 

Management Training Tool. That has proven to be one of the Foundation’s most 

successful educational products. 

When released in 1997, DriverZed was a cutting edge advance in PC-based 

interactive training technology that focused explicitly on giving novice driver’s muchneeded experience in risk identification, evaluation, and avoidance. As such, it 

complements and supplements driver education programs. 

DriverZed is still, in my opinion, a state-of-the-art product from a technological 

standpoint and has been emulated by others. For example, Great Britain recently 

mandated a new Zed-like hazard perception test as part of its new driver-licensing 

program. And the Federal Highway Administration is currently developing a new 

interactive training tool for work zone safety that essentially utilizes the “Driver-Zed” 

technology. 

207
To conclude my remarks, I’d like to highlight three projects, three of our research 

projects that in my opinion are all relevant to today’s forum.

First, we have funded the Traffic Injury Research Foundation, or TIRF, in 

Ottawa, which has clearly been mentioned several times throughout this forum, to 

conduct a major research initiative entitled “Reducing the Crash Risks for Young 

Drivers.” This project, which is a very ambitious 27-month effort, will explicitly examine 

why teens to continue to crash at alarming rates. 

A major component of the project will be an in-depth evaluation of GDL 

licensing provisions so as to enhance further this most beneficial safety intervention. 

Methodologically, the effort will include a comprehensive analysis of crash data 

and surveys of novice drivers and parents. And we’re also hopeful that it will look at the 

issue of exit testing as a means of setting up a performance criteria upon which novice 

drivers would graduate from one tier to the next in a GDL kind of environment. 

We are very optimistic that the study will provide important new insights to 

novice driver behavior that, among other things, can be incorporated into ongoing and 

future driver training and education programs in this country. 

Secondly, we will be evaluating a very exciting pilot program that was 

administered by the Alberta Motorists Association, which is the CAA club in that region 

in Canada. 

Under the Teen Good Driving Incentive Program, financial incentives in the form

of a fairly substantial insurance premium rebate were provided to novice drivers that 

remained violation- and crash-free for a specified period of time, which I think was six 

months. 

Anecdotally, the club believes this program has been quite successful, and that’s 

both from a business standpoint as well as a safety standpoint. But it has asked us to 

conduct an independent, scientifically sound evaluation of it just to be sure. And although 

this is not directly related to driver education per se, again, as in the case of the last 

research project I just mentioned, I believe the evaluation of this very unique and 

innovative program should provide invaluable insights that could be incorporated into 

future driver education efforts. 

And lastly, we hope to shortly initiate a project to develop guidelines for the 

evaluation of driver education programs. From our perspective, there have been far too 

few evaluations of driver education, especially in this country, and those that have been 

done have often been hampered by methodological weaknesses or lack of scientific rigor. 

This effort, which will incorporate an international advisory panel and associated 

workshop, will develop suggested technical protocols and guidance to support the future 

evaluations of driver education for novice drivers. Basically, we hope to develop a tool 

kit that will support future higher quality evaluations. 

208
The AAA Foundation is pleased to have participated in this forum and is eager to 

participate in the question and answer session and is certainly willing to supplement its 

comments by providing any information that the staff may want after the fact. 

Thank you very much. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Gerald Donaldson 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Dr. Gerald Donaldson joins us today from Advocates for 

Highway and Auto Safety, where he’s a senior research director. Advocates for Highway 

and Auto Safety is a highway and motor vehicle safety public interest lobbying 

organization. 

Dr. Donaldson received his Ph.D. from the University of Virginia and has held 

teaching positions at George Washington University. He has been involved in a multitude 

of safety advocacy initiatives that are further elaborated upon in his biography, available 

in the boardroom lobby. 

DR. DONALDSON: Okay. I’m the Yankees’ cleanup batter. 

(Laughter) 

DR. DONALDSON: And I’m only sorry that Allan Williams preceded me

because Allan stole a lot of my fire and in fact my presentation. 

I have a very short presentation I’d like to read. I don’t have any PowerPoint 

slides. I will not read the citations in here. God forbid. They’re strewn with Williams. 

“Williams ‘97,” “Williams ‘85,” “Williams ‘74,” “Williams ought 6 -- ‘86.” Sorry, Allan 

(Williams). Allan (Williams) goes back a long way, as I do. 

I’d like to give you a short presentation and then make a couple of paradoxical 

remarks and observations. 

No study assessing the value of young driver training programs has demonstrated 

a sustained beneficial effect of such efforts to overcome the high crash, fatality, and 

violations rates of young drivers. The highest motor vehicle death rate per 100,000 

people is among drivers 16 to 24 years of age and drivers over 80 years of age. Drivers 

under the age of 19 are over-involved in fatal crashes by a factor of four, and drivers aged 

19 to 20 are over-involved by a factor of six. Young male drivers age 19 to 20 years of 

age have up to three times the overall fatal crash involvement rate for all drivers. 

A recent examination of the 1998 and 1999 traffic violations conviction data for 

the Commonwealth of Virginia showed that for use of alcohol and other drugs, speeding, 

reckless driving, improper driving, high-risk behavior, seat belt violations, and 

209
administrative violations, the percentage of convicted drivers specifically 18 through 20 

years of age was several times higher than for any other age group. In fact, all younger 

drivers are over-involved in fatal crashes until about the age of 27. 

Furthermore, virtually no study conducted over more than 30 years has 

demonstrated that teenage driver education effectively reduces either the rate or the 

severity of young driver crash involvement. For example, the large scale DeKalb County, 

Georgia, project conducted in the late 1970s and early 1980s was unable to show even 

after nearly 20 years of data reanalysis that driver education is associated with reliable or 

significant decreases in crash involvement. 

In fact, many authors and researchers point out that young driver education 

usually enables teenage drivers to gain unrestricted licensure at earlier ages when their 

risk of violations or crashes is much higher than older drivers, while also encouraging 

them to increase their exposure to crash involvement by driving more miles, longer 

hours, and more often at night. 

Younger drivers are especially at risk for late-night/early-morning crashes, a time 

when fatigue and sleep deprivation usually as a product of an accumulated sleep debt 

over several days of unrealistic school times and late hours and early rising times 

generate high rates particularly of single-vehicle crashes. 

Nighttime fatal crashes for young male drivers under 21 years of age are four 

times their daytime rates, and you can be certain that it’s higher than that on weekend 

nights. And young male drivers operate their vehicles more at night than older male 

drivers. 

The results of several well-known evaluation studies have shown that intensive 

driver training course graduates actually have higher collision rates than those without 

such training, especially when the subjects are young drivers. Advanced skills training, 

especially of young drivers who are not fully mature, leads to overconfidence, for 

example. Risk-taking among those who have undergone intensive driver training can lead 

to lower reluctance to drive in adverse conditions because the trained drivers reduce 

normally cautious behavior in favor of an exaggerated confidence in surmounting 

difficult driving demands. 

Furthermore, there is substantial deceptive face validity of many training courses. 

In fact, the actual success of those courses with dealing with the specific knowledge and 

skills most critical to safe driving performance is far lower than it appears. The length of

training, for example, has no demonstrated correlation in any studies to the successful 

outcome of lowering crash and conviction rates as compared with control groups. 

Now, those are the written remarks, and that should make it pretty clear where we 

stand on driver training. We think it’s a great idea. We think it’s a great idea because it 

doesn’t necessarily mean that driver training courses that have failed to date over the past 

several decades of effort are the only way that we can properly educate a young driver to 

210
reduce risk-taking and to be able to advance their skills behind the wheel. It has to go 

along with their increased age, their experience, and their maturity of judgment. 

I think that some of the speakers up here, Chuck Hurley and Troy (Costales), who 

was up here first with us, are right on the mark. We don’t want to throw out the baby with 

the bath water. Certainly, one of the things that has come on the scene in the last decade 

or two is the understanding that one of the things that we have to do as a society, as 

people who have any participation in the creation and the implementation of policy, is we 

have to reduce risk-taking behavior by young drivers. 

How do we do that? We have to delay the age of the onset of initial licensure. We

have to reduce what are the well-known times when those risks are the highest. They can 

drive during the day, but we don’t let them drive at night. We make sure that they are 

accompanied by an experienced driver, an adult who’s also capable behind the wheel. We

don’t let them drive late at night on weekends with lots of passengers in the car. 

Unfortunately, as a side anecdote here, one of the problems with that is that if that 

young person escapes the consequences of being distracted and animated by having 

several young passengers in the car, he or she is then alone in the final trip back to the 

house. That final trip back to the house is often at 2 or 3:00 in the morning. And that’s 

after an accumulated sleep debt from the previous week. They fall asleep at the wheel, 

and then we have a tragic consequence. 

Now, one of the things that may have been mentioned here over the past couple 

days -- I looked at some of the web cast yesterday, but I didn’t have an opportunity to see 

most of it which I think can never bear enough repeating, and everybody here at this table 

with me here today is critically aware of this. When we talk about graduated driver 

licensing and we try to come up with an innovative skills training indoctrination, and I’ll 

use the word “indoctrination,” and the attempt to be able to get a young driver to use 

more mature judgment as they age behind the wheel, all of that interacts with extremely 

powerful political, cultural, and economic forces. 

Let’s face it. Having a driver’s license is basically the fundamental, the threshold 

way of participating in the national culture. How many young people, particularly in 

urban areas, do you know -- don’t give me counterexamples from Manhattan, the Bronx, 

and Brooklyn, okay -- that don’t have a driver’s license?

And let me ask you another question. How many people do you know -- Steve is a 

close friend who’s 38 years of age who over a beer one night finally admits that he 

doesn’t have a driver’s license. He’s always flunked all of his driver license exams. He 

flunked all of the various stages, or at least one of the critical stages of his graduated 

driver-licensing program in one of the more enlightened States, and here at the age of 38 

he has no driver’s license. Know anybody like that? No, right? Okay. 

So the problem here is, how do we avoid using driver education and graduated 

driver licensing with all the admitted benefits that we’re all aware of as nevertheless 

nothing more than another exercise, another rite of passage to have a young person 

211
introduced to the traffic stream at a later age and at an age where he didn’t commit all the 

atrocities he could have committed at the age of 15 or 16 or 17, but who nevertheless 

ultimately is going to be in that traffic stream. 

And let’s face it. Some of those people who are out there, a significant portion of 

them probably should never drive at all. They are high-risk behavior individuals. They 

have high-risk inclinations. If they successfully get through an even relatively demanding 

driver education course and they successfully proceed through a two- or a three-tiered 

graduated driver licensing program, they are nevertheless going to be out there posing a 

risk to themselves and many other people for decades to come. 

I remember my first accident. I was 15 years old, and I had a license for two 

months in the State of Louisiana. That was 46 years ago. I never had another crash. That 

was the first one and the last one. But I was given one week of driver’s education after 

my mother insisted, after I’d already gotten my license. And after two months with that 

license behind the wheel, I had my first and only crash. 

So my fundamental stance here for my organization is that we are not against 

driver training. We think driver training to date has been in many instances a rather 

innovative, one-size-fits-all approach. We think it has to be done in a very carefully 

crafted, complementary way with a graduated driver-licensing program so we delay and 

curtail the potential risks that we all know can affect these young drivers. 

We also, I think, cannot have a one-size-fits-all driver-training curriculum. Some

people out there who get into the classroom for driver training are people who are 

definitely going to be tabbed earlier on as being high-risk individuals. They need the 

kinds of interventions, they need the kind of wise judgment and training which to the 

extent feasible is going to attempt to offset that tendency toward high-risk behavior. 

So I look forward to answering any questions along with the rest of the panel 

members. Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Question and Answer Session 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: I’d like to direct this to all of the panel members who care 

to answer. Like most complex tasks, safe driving entails a combination of the mastery of

certain knowledge, the development of certain skills, and the possession of certain 

abilities. To improve driver’s education, it seems we need to specifically target the 

establishment and/or the enhancement of these specific knowledge, skills, and abilities 

that are required for safe driving. 

Are there aspects of providing novice drivers with the requisite knowledge, skills, 

and abilities to be safe drivers, which have not already been discussed in this forum?

212
MR. HURLEY: Judgment is one that probably is more important than the others 

that you’ve mentioned. Most kids have better skills than I do. A lot of them are more 

knowledgeable about a number of things than I am, but as risk increases for example, at 

nighttime belt use drops. Alcohol use increases. 

It’s the risk denial and I don’t know how you educate about that. That judgment 

generally comes from experience. I think most of us are very heavily weighted on the 

experience side of doing that over time, particularly with real consequences for 

misjudgment, I think, is an education itself. 

DR. WILLIAMS: Well, obviously you have to learn some driving skills in order 

to drive. That’s number one. And I think that, you know, driver education has done a 

pretty good job at teaching young people driving skills. If you look at the infamous 

DeKalb Study, the people that had the super driver education course scored best on an 

on-road performance test. They were better skilled drivers. But obviously skill is just one 

thing. Its attitudes, motivations and lifestyle as well that are involved. 

I’m certainly willing to concede that a good driver education program can be the 

best way to learn driving skills, but where do you go from there? What I was trying to 

say is that maybe professional driver education instructors can teach parents how to teach 

kids to drive. Because there’s also the experience factor and if you can maximize that in 

the pre-license stage, which is what graduated licensing tries to do, and do that in the best 

way possible, I think that’s a combination of professional driver education and parental 

involvement that can really work out. 

MR. BUTLER: Well, I don’t know. I think that we probably at this forum over 

the last two days have basically covered all of the things that are really important to get 

young people to do a better job of driving and performing behind the wheel. 

So what I really think that the panel has sort of hit on it -- I think that there are 

many things that we can do much better. And I think the forum has identified many of 

those things. 

I think one of the first things that we need to do, and one of the greatest 

challenges that we have, is changing the perception that the public has that driving is 

something that everybody can do, that it’s something that is relatively easy, that you can 

learn relatively easily, and that almost anybody can teach it. 

And so a lot of times I think that the challenge for us as educators as well as the 

challenge of the public and the researchers is basically, how do we change people’s 

perception that driving is something that I can get right now, it’s something that I can 

learn relatively quickly, and it’s something that I can be taught and not cost a lot of 

money. I think that’s one of the greatest challenges that we have to turn around. 

We didn’t get to where we are overnight. We’ve been driving in this country for 

50 or 60 years. And certainly, I think all of us realize that we’re not going to be able to 

turn it around very quickly, but we do have to start someplace. And I think we do have to 

213
start as quickly as possible because, again, the number of young people in this country is 

just skyrocketing at a time that countermeasures that we know work in terms of helping 

them to be better drivers are diminishing. 

So we’ve got a real problem on our hand. We’ve got a real public health issue on 

our hands that we have to get the public excited about and wanting to do something 

about. And I think that’s the biggest challenge we have. 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: There’s another question again directed to all of the 

panelists. It seems that parental involvement is a recurring theme. While everyone here is 

or at least likes to think of himself or herself as a good parent, we know some bad 

parents. What do you do for the novice drivers whose parents don’t, won’t, or can’t get 

involved in preparing their young adult to become a safe driver?

DR. DONALDSON: Thank you. This is sort of editing your characterization. 

As “Business Week” pointed out in an issue the week before last, one-person 

heads 50 percent of American households up. And about a fifth to a fourth of those are 

not an immediate parent of the person whom they’re responsible for, the minor child. So 

you’ve already got your cohort whittled down here quite a bit. 

MR. KISSINGER: Well, the one thing I would add is, I’m not sure what your 

characterization of a bad parent is, but I think sometimes those bad parents behave 

because they don’t necessarily appreciate what the real risks are. 

I know in my own personal life, I interact with a lot of parents. And when we start 

talking about what I do and I start talking about some of the research that we’ve seen, 

there’s like this light bulb that often goes off in their heads. They really don’t seem to 

appreciate that the first 1000 hours after their son or daughter becomes an independent 

driver is just unbelievably risky to the point where it’s hard to appreciate. 

And so I think that’s where we should start, with more efforts to make those 

parents aware of what the true risks are. 

And secondly, probably, we need to provide, additional incentives. The incentive 

right now is often to get the kid his independent license so they don’t have to take them

to the soccer game. And that need for mobility often overshadows any concern that they 

may have about the risk associated with that driving experience. 

I asked Charles (Butler) the other day, who’s been in this business a lot longer 

than I have, at least focusing on driver education, what was his assessment of the last 10 

years. And I think his phrase was, “faster, cheaper, but not necessarily better.” And I 

think that’s a pretty good sound bite for an assessment of where we are in this country. 

DR. WILLIAMS: I think Peter (Kissinger) makes some good points. The research 

literature is very clear that the highest-risk teens come from families where the parents 

are less involved not only with driving but in other aspects of life as well. That’s a hard 

214
group to reach and a real challenge, but there are a lot of parents out there who just don’t 

realize the risks and would, I think, if you went after them the right ways, get more 

involved in the driving experience of their sons and daughters. I think that that’s a larger 

group perhaps than the very high-risk families and the parents that are involved in those 

families and certainly a group that’s a good target. 

MR. HURLEY: One other thing. I think you identified in theory a great 

opportunity for professional driver educators to fill that vacuum under some pretty clear 

circumstances. 

MR. COSTALES: One other potential is to look towards the law support. I know 

in our case, in our State, when we moved forward with the graduated driver license, a lot 

of the pushback initially was aren’t these things that a parent can enforce already, 

shouldn’t the parent be doing this already, and then having this conversation about are 

parents engaged. And even those that were involved and were supportive of what was 

going on, the fact that it was in law gave them an extra piece of support to say, not just 

because I said so, because it’s the law. 

And a part of that support also can be materials that not just help the parent or the 

guardian help their teenager through driver training and experience but also teach them

something. And in the guide where they maybe have some sort of message that they’re 

giving to their teenager to help them know the next phase there’s a side note to the 

copilot or to the individual helping that this is something that they need to be aware of, a 

tip or something that leads them ahead. 

Because, quite often, you spend the 50 hours, 100 hours in a setting with teaching 

a teenager to drive, you’re going to learn something too in that material as well. 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: This question is directed at Mr. Costales. Earlier in the 

symposium NHTSA has said that it will require the States to come forward to demand 

changes in things such as curriculum standards or otherwise. What is GHSA doing to 

engage NHTSA in that regard?

MR. COSTALES: Well, GHSA’s members are at all kinds of different places 

within their individual States. Some of the highway safety offices are in the DOTs and so 

there’s a connection there. Some are associated with the motor vehicle offices. Some are 

associated with public safety offices. And there are still some that are actually 

independent offices. 

So when mandates start to come through and you start to talk about a relationship 

with the State highway safety office, you’re going to have to have some sort of menu of 

choices or understand that it’s got to be different options because the highway safety 

office may not be poised in the right particular place to try and carry that out. 

There are highway safety offices that are not in a place of being able to deal with 

policy or being able to go to the capital, talk with legislators or the governors about 

what’s there. So sometimes what the relationship with NHTSA and if NHTSA was to 

215
come forward with some of these requirements, they may need to actually be the 

spokesperson in that State or to find a different avenue to get the message through 

because the highway safety office may not be positioned to do that. 

From a national level, the Highway Safety Association continues to focus on 

those things that are causing the death and injury in the United States, and this particular 

group is one of those that have been a focus for many years. And what we can support to 

our individual members to help them with, we try and do that. 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: This question is directed at Allan Williams and any others 

who would like to comment on it. I’d ask that Dr. Williams speak first. 

Is it even possible to design and rigorously evaluate new types of driver’s 

education programs, perhaps closely associated with graduated driver’s licensing 

principles, that would truly affect novice driver safety resulting in crash reduction as well 

as imparting skills? 

DR. WILLIAMS: Well, that’s an interesting question. I mean, from a scientific 

standpoint, the design of a study is not difficult. You just need not to give it to everybody 

but to do random assignment, and some people get it and some don’t, or some get it later. 

There are various techniques. 

I think, too often we’ve reinvented driver education by saying, okay, well, what 

we’ve tried before doesn’t work so let’s just try something new. And you know, we sit 

down and we get the experts involved in and they put together what seems like a very 

intelligently thought out program. But the question is, is that going to work? 

And I tried to point out in my talk that there are some really formidable barriers to 

affecting this young driver audience, which is not your most motivated audience to listen 

to safety messages. 

So I think, you know, sure, given the right circumstances, you can design a 

program and evaluate it in a way that’ll show what its effects are on crashes. And I would 

argue very strongly, I mean, look, the highway safety field has very scarce resources. We

can’t be affording to waste money on things that don’t work. And you know, let’s try to 

find things that do work, but let’s not just think they work, let’s try to evaluate them

scientifically and make sure that they do before we launch them fully. 

DR. DONALDSON: I agree with everything that Allan (Williams) said. I have a 

bit more of an optimistic view of this because I go back to an intuitive baseline. 

We all believe that people can be educated, they’re educable. Young people, 

those of us who have had them, sometimes we have great doubts that they can be 

educated, but they are. And they go through secondary school, they go to college, they 

learn basic skills, literacy, mathematics, science, and then they learn perhaps some

professional trade, some professional skills, and they move on in life. There’s no question 

216
that those skills somehow were transmitted by the institutions they attended. Some of

them don’t do well; some of them do a lot better than others. 

When you have a driver training curriculum, even one that tries, as I instanced 

before, an attempt to provide the right kinds of Johnny-on-the-spot interventions for the 

student who you see has the bad attitude, who is a slower learner, who has less maturity 

than others and there will be significant differences in maturity level in any group of 

students that you have in their teen years, in a driver education course. 

Does that mean that we throw out the baby with the bath water? Does that mean 

that there is no driver education course that can help in tandem with graduated driver’s 

licensing to inculcate the right kinds of skills to help move along a better maturity of 

judgment and to improve and to reinforce the experience that comes with driving while at 

the same time abbreviating the risk that we know? And I think the answer is “yes.” 

And yes, there are scarce resources out there, but the most precious resource out 

there is thousands of young people who die every year. And it seems to me that if the 

game is worth a candle -- I hate to use a crude capital evaluation of the value of a life, but 

certainly their lives on that old-fashioned capital evaluation principle is worth a lot more 

than mine is. And I want them to have a better opportunity to be able to move through 

life. 

And if I can capture three or five or seven or 11 percent of them to increase their 

skills, their educational ability, improve their maturity of judgment and their attitude on 

the road about risk-taking, and I still lose the other 91 percent or 88 percent, I’m willing 

to do that because I know that every educational and training enterprise to a considerable 

extent is trying to reduce from the margins and that if you have a hard core of people who 

are not going to really be affected by a driver training program in the long run, I’m not 

sure any regime is going to make a difference. 

But it will make a difference for some, and when it makes a difference for some

in combination with graduated driver’s licensing, that’s more lives that we can save and 

less risk that we’ll have out on the highways. 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: This may be an appropriate follow-up question, then, for 

Dr. Donaldson. Are there satisfactory screening tools available to identify high-risk 

potential drivers, and might this be a way of perhaps triaging drivers into strategies that 

may prove cost-effective for targeting some of the greater threats to these young adults?

DR. DONALDSON: I’m immediately going to defer to Peter Kissinger and Troy 

(Costales) at the end of the table, and Mr. Butler, because they have participated and 

vetted some of the protocols that we can use to be able to engage in these interventions, 

identify the high risk -- the potentially high-risk driver -- and to try to successfully 

respond to it because that’s not an area that I work in. 

MR. KISSINGER: You know, in the context that the question is asked, I don’t 

think we are necessarily smart enough now to be able to employ a simple screening tool 

217
that will identify exactly who those high risk individuals are, except by looking at crash 

history. 

Every time since I’ve been in this business when the insurance industry has tried 

to reinvent itself, at least in terms of the factors that it uses to set rates, especially for 

youthful drivers, every time they seem to have found what they think is the magic 

formula for that, it doesn’t seem to be the right formula. I’d actually defer to Allan 

(Williams) or appreciate Allan’s (Williams) input. 

I am aware that, for example, there is a large insurance industry research effort 

underway which is attempting to do just that, to develop what they are calling “driving 

factors” that they can use not only to set rates but to provide input to future driver 

education in this country. Drive Safety -- a new Safety organization, is doing that and if 

you haven’t contacted them, you might want to do that as part of this forum.

I also am quite intrigued by the program that I mentioned briefly in my remarks 

that they instituted in Great Britain. The Transportation Research Laboratory, after 

something like six or seven years of trying, under a mandate from their Department of 

Motor Vehicles or their licensing authority, to come up with some measure that could be 

instituted to make a difference, has gone to essentially a risk-based, perception-based test 

which seems to place heavy emphasis on risk identification and reaction time. 

They believe, based on their research, that they have something that is working. I 

think time will tell. It’s just been implemented, and I couldn’t agree with Allan 

(Williams) more in that across the board I think we underinvest in the evaluation of all of 

our countermeasures. You know, we rush to judgment and we then we spend years trying 

to implement things, but unfortunately, we as the community-wide institution underinvest 

in the hard work of looking back and saying, what have we done and does it in fact work. 

And quite candidly, that’s one of the reasons why I enjoyed my 12 years with 

NTSB, because that’s pretty much what NTSB does day in and day out. 

DR. WILLIAMS: Well, let me just add quickly. I mean, we certainly know the 

characteristics of high-risk individuals, high-risk teenagers. I don’t know that that 

information can or should be used, before the fact to try to treat them differently in the 

licensing process. 

And what we’ve tried in the past is to try to pick out the problem drivers after 

they’re licensed, the people that have violations, that are getting in crashes, and treat 

teenagers, in particular those under 18, with more severe penalties that are applied, more 

quickly in terms of fewer license points than adults. 

That’s all well and good except that I think the statistics indicate that the majority 

of young people who get into fatal crashes have no prior history of violations or crashes 

on their record. So it’s certainly an imperfect method of dealing with them. 

218
Obviously, graduated licensing treats everybody the same, and I think there’s a 

basis in that because graduated licensing really is a system for dealing with driving 

inexperience, the phasing-in of full privileges. So I think, inexperience is a risk factor for 

everybody, and it certainly justifies treating them as a group on that basis. 

Obviously, there are different levels of maturity among young people, but they 

are at a developmental phase, as Chuck (Hurley) indicated, where there’s a lot of risktaking and trying out of new things. And even the most mature teenager gets alone with a 

group of his friends and gets in a car and some unwelcome things can happen. 

So I think, sure, we know that the risk factors are different for different teenagers, 

but I think that graduated licensing does it the right way. 

MR. COSTALES: Part of what I read into the question is a conversation of how 

do we take a current system and the licensing process of being a reactive system, where 

we react to a set of information or a set of circumstances, to then put a restriction on 

somebody’s driving ability. How do we then become proactive. 

And I don’t think that there are necessarily a lot of studies that have started to aim

that way into the proactive sense. It’s all based on looking at past crash record history or 

past years of when there were teenagers involved and what was their history and what 

were the causes of those crashes versus starting to look ahead. And I think that’s a topic 

of discussion and potential topic of research to go proactive. 

But I also come up with a question of how do we identify in some cases a 

proactive way you or I are identified as a problem driver. How are mainstream adults 

identified through the licensing process of potentially being a problem?

Well, it’s the people around them. Somebody calls up and says this person’s 

having a problem. A family member says, this person shouldn’t be driving anymore. 

They’re at risk; they’re doing things that aren’t right. To be retested, reevaluated. 

Well, around a teenager, who is that audience? Who is that person or people that 

can see their driving behavior and skills? Their peers. Well because you can do this or 

that or the other. Do a cookie in the parking lot or whatever. Well, you’re cool and not 

necessarily seen as a bad-risk behavior. But it goes back to, again, the parents. 

We have a culture where parents are not necessarily stepping in nor are they 

willing to be the person that calls in to the DMV and say, I need to restrict my child’s 

license or need to have you place some restrictions, or they themselves say, I’m going to 

restrict you whether or not there’s a GDL. 

The only way I know of being able to be proactive, to answer the question, is that 

those that are around with a different pair of eyes watching that individual’s driving 

ability and skills to say, it’s not good enough. 

219
MR. BUTLER: When you look at the task of driving, we know that there are 

three aspects of driving: there are social aspects, there are physical aspects, and then 

there are mental aspects. And a lot of the crash problem that young people have is not the 

result of what skills they have, what they know, or what they can do. A lot of their crash 

problem is the result of what they choose to do and how they are motivated to use the 

safe driving practices that they are exposed to both in the classroom as well as in the car. 

We know from how people learn that we have not been very successful in 

teaching maturity and we haven’t been very successful at teaching people to interact with 

one another, but we have been pretty successful at teaching people skills. And I think that 

that’s where we have to start. And we can do a better job of teaching people skills. 

What we have to do is to look in some other areas to see how we can affect and 

do a better job of motivating young people to use the skills that they’re taught. And so, 

yeah, there are probably tests out there that you can give an individual to determine what 

their probability of future crash involvement is. But again, I think that we’re doing a lot 

of things right but we also can do a much better job of motivating young people to use 

the skills that they are taught. 

And I think right now that’s the greatest challenge for us, is how do we change 

the educational process, the licensing process, and the awareness process to get young 

people to do a much better job of actually employing safe driving practices that they 

probably have been exposed to in driver education. 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Another question to anyone who cares to respond. Fifteen, 

16, 14. What is the right age for young drivers to begin training, and would there be any 

advantage to introducing licensing and/or training at age 21?

DR. DONALDSON: Let me respond to that first, and then Chuck Hurley will of 

course jump into this. I had, for some strange reason before we started this panel, the 

notion that somebody was going to hit us with the hard number question, and they hit us 

with the hard number question. Here it is. 

I made a comment when I was doing my presentation about this quote, unquote, 

powerful political, cultural forces out there. And what those political and cultural and 

economic forces are always sending as a message is, we want that young person behind 

the wheel of a car as soon as possible. We don’t want any restrictions on his or her 

mobility. We want the flexibility to go anywhere when they want to, to drive as far as 

they want to, most especially down to the nearby mall. 

Vehicle makers would probably not be happy in having a lot of restriction on the 

initial stage of licensure. Certainly, a lot of people in important economic markets for 

young people would not like that. Young people are not going to get on a bus and get free 

transfer tickets to be able to get down to the Gap to buy anything. They want to get into 

the car and they drive down there. 

220
So what’s the answer? And somebody threw out a number here. Chuck (Hurley) 

threw out 17. Well, let’s analogize. What is it for commercial truck drivers? In interstate 

commerce, it’s 21. Some States have intrastate-only CDLs, as was mentioned yesterday, 

which go as low as 18. We have had initiatives by various interest groups and the 

commercial trucking community to lower the initial licensure age for commercial drivers. 

Anybody who does the nominal research on this, I know Allan (Williams) has, I 

have, a lot of other people have, know what the over-involvement rates are not just for 

young people behind the wheel but for young commercial drivers between the ages of 18 

and 21 in those States which allow them to drive either any truck or a specific type of 

truck, usually a straight and unarticulated, non-combination vehicle. It’s extraordinarily 

high. And we know that their over-involvement rates from 21 to 25 are extraordinarily 

high, and we also know, if we go do a little history, that up until 15 to 20 years ago the 

initial stage of licensure for a commercial driver was 25, not 21. 

Did we save lives? Yes. We absolutely did. Commercial mobility in this country 

right now wants to demand that that age be lowered below 21. 

Here’s my own feeling about it. The notion of a series of State legislators saying 

for all practical purposes, you’re not going to drive until you’re out of high school, 

sounds very implausible to me, and Chuck (Hurley) is sniggering over here because he 

knows that that is a very infeasible proposition for a State legislator. Our national culture 

is centered around the kid with the automobile, either his own or borrowing Dad’s, to go 

out particularly on the weekends to go to a movie, to go down to see the submarine races 

at the lakefront. 

But probably the hard answer, the abstract answer, and the answer that’s not 

grounded in policy and political and economic realities is that you probably shouldn’t 

have anybody licensed before the age of 18. And if they are, then they have to be licensed 

under extremely abbreviated circumstances, probably more restrictive than we have in 

any graduated licensing program in the country right now. 

So there’s the hard number answer. It is not a palatable answer, but each year that 

we can delay initial licensure, particularly with a graduated licensing program, is a year 

that we gain in reducing risk exposure and getting that curve that we all know, that nice 

shallow curve running from 16 and 17 down to the middle years and back up again and 

nearly approximating the young drivers’ fatal crash rate by the time you reach 75 to 80, 

we can reduce that rate and we can reduce the number of lives lost. 

DR. WILLIAMS: I should point out that there is a lot of variation in this country 

when we allow people to start -- 14, 15, 16 in some States -- and when they’re allowed to 

get a full license, which 15, 16, or 17. And of course, European countries mostly license 

at 18. So there’s no magical age. 

Obviously, the recommendation from a safety standpoint would be, the later you 

start, the better it’s going to be. And with a graduated system, it’s optimal if you start at 

221
16 and keep them in the system until 18 so you get the past first two years, 16 and 17, 

that we know from the statistics are very high-risk. 

But obviously you get into safety and mobility tradeoffs here. Each State has sort 

of decided where they want to set the starting age and the licensing age. There’s not 

really been much change in that over the years. 

MR. BUTLER: I don’t know what age it should be, but I can tell you, regardless 

of the age that you start anything, if you’re a novice at anything you do, you’re going to 

have a higher risk of crash involvement if the age is set at 18. You’re just delaying the 

learning curve there. 

MR. HURLEY: No, no. 

MR. BUTLER: So I don’t know what the age is. I don’t. I just think that, you 

know, that it’s the first six months of driving. The first year and a half, two years, from

all the research that I’ve seen, is the most dangerous time for novice drivers. So there is, I 

believe, a learning curve associated within it. There’s specifically a learning curve 

associated with driving. 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: It sounds like a perfect segue into a related question, and I 

can see that Mr. Hurley is going to want to answer it. We’re sort of using interchangeably 

age, maturity, and experience. What are we really talking about here, and what is it that is 

really critical in terms of developing safer young drivers?

And I’ll ask Mr. Hurley to go first. 

MR. HURLEY: That’s such a good question I’m going to answer the previous 

one first. 

There is a novice driver effect, but the data from, let me scare Allan (Williams), 

when I was at the institute (IIHS), I remember the data on New Jersey is that in fact it did 

save a large number of 16-year-olds and that the novice driver effect is less as age is 

increased. So the short answer is that higher is better. 

Sixteen would be my answer realistically, but I think what we found is that 

graduated driver licensing is the politically acceptable way of raising the driving age in 

the United States, that it is a very rational, data-based system that delays full licensure 

from the ages that are truly scary to ones that are less scary. 

And I think I was still at the institute (IIHS) when Governor Allen of Virginia in 

his wisdom decided he was going to lower the age to 15 and a half in order to get kids 

more experience, which leads to greater exposure, which leads to greater risk. 

That everything I’ve seen is that higher is better and that the best way to 

politically accomplish that goal if we could raise the driving age in the United States to 

222
17, I think we’d save a lot of kids. I don’t see that happening, and so the best way to 

accomplish that goal probably less well is graduated licensing. 

What was the second question?

(Laughter) 

DR. WILLIAMS: Since Mr. Hurley has forgotten the second question; I’ll take a 

first crack at it. 

Is it age or is it inexperience? Well, obviously it’s both that are risk factors. And 

you know, how much does one or the other contribute. They both contribute, and it’s a 

little hard since they’re very correlated behaviors to parcel out the effects of one versus 

the other. 

I think the kind of a summary answer is that in countries or in jurisdictions like in 

Europe where you license at 18 the studies indicate that experience is the more important 

factor than age. And in countries like the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, where you license 

at 16 typically, then age is a slightly more important factor. But they’re both there, and if 

it’s 50/50 or 40/60 or whatever, they’re obviously both factors that you have to work 

with. 

And graduated licensing really does that. As I say, it’s a system that deals with 

inexperience primarily, but in doing so it lengthens the process of getting a full license. 

So it works on the maturity factor, too. It gets people a little older and perhaps more 

mature before they get their full driver’s license. 

MR. COSTALES: I think in most States as far as looking at the records of the age 

of drivers, you don’t start to see that one-to-one number of licensees versus drivers in 

fatal injury crashes until you’re above the age of 25. 

I have a 13-year-old son at home. As far as he’s concerned, he believes it’s the 

law in Oregon that he can’t get his license until he’s 21. 

(Laughter) 

MR. COSTALES: Or at least his mother tells him I will be working on that law 

change before he gets to the age of 16. 

I had the fortune of visiting four European countries a year and a half ago, and 

this 18 discussion came up. And what’s rather interesting is to hear their research 

individuals and their licensing bureaus talk about because of the good experience in the 

United States of graduated driver licensing, they’re looking at backing their 18 down to 

16 and starting to develop skills and training at an earlier age. 

So one of the things we have to be careful of is that we’re bouncing off some of 

our thoughts and experiences based on the European model. They’re looking across the 

223
ocean back at us and saying, look how well it’s done so maybe we should be introducing 

our young drivers earlier. 

MR. HURLEY: Let me add two points to that. I think also in Europe its not just 

age, it’s economics. To get a license is very costly in countries like Germany, with $2-, 

$3000 of training costs and pretty stiff insurance costs as well. So it’s not just age but 

economics, I think, that is the barrier. 

The second point is some of the 14- and 15-year-old licensing ages in the United 

States are based on an agrarian society that has not existed in this country for 50 years. 

Now, there are still some States where that may be true, but that makes no sense for ages 

less than 16, in my view. 

MR. KISSINGER: I would certainly add that GDL has been remarkably 

successful based on what we’ve seen, including what we’ve seen from some pretty 

decent evaluations that have been done. And I think I agree with the panel that have said 

that we need to place our emphasis on further strengthening those laws and to enhance 

those provisions which are making the biggest difference. And that’s where I think we 

can have the biggest payoff in the next decade. 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: One final question, and some of you did address this in 

your presentation. For those of you who did not, I’d like to ask you to answer it. I’d like 

to go down the table, starting with Mr. Costales and work our way down. 

What do you envision and hope the NTSB will do as a result of this forum?

MR. COSTALES: First and foremost, I would hope to see that the NTSB 

publishes a document that identifies that there is a problem and there is a need and 

identifies that there are a small set of national federal entities that can be put in the point 

place of being responsible to further this discussion and send the charge to those agencies 

that they are to hold this discussion but also that NTSB puts a deadline on this. Every day 

we wait there are 10 fatal crashes involving teenagers. So a quick timeline. 

There have been a lot of concurring themes and thoughts by all the panels over 

the last two days. So I think that taking the NTSB at its mission statement and its charge, 

which is to identify the problem and kick off the next level, at a minimum, we should be 

able to walk away from these two days with that in hand. 

MR. BUTLER: My hope is, is that the NTSB will be able to do basically three 

things. First of all, raise awareness that motor vehicle crashes are the number one health 

problem for young people in this country. And I think it will go a long way in doing that. 

I also hope that it will draw attention to the need to strengthen the way that we 

license young people in this country from a graduated driver-licensing standpoint. 

And the third thing I think that, hopefully what the forum is really about, is how 

in this comprehensive model that we’re going to be using to address the young novice 

224
driver crash problem, how can we improve the educational process in this country. 

Because, from my experiences, the public’s perception about driver education is simply, 

give it to me now, give it to me quickly, and give it to me cheaply. 

And if we’re ever going to get a handle on the young novice driver crash problem

in this country, we definitely have to change and turn around that perception, and we 

have to find a way to implement a comprehensive approach to the young novice driver 

problem with specific focus on how we can improve the educational process. 

DR. WILLIAMS: Well, I’m assuming that the NTSB will try to point out some

promising directions in which driver education can go. This panel has suggested some, 

and there may be others. 

I would hope, though, instead of just recommending more and better driver 

education, that we are very careful about insisting on scientific evaluation of whatever 

people come up with so that we don’t adopt and institute programs that don’t actually 

work. 

MR. HURLEY: This is a very good question. I think one of the things I certainly 

would hope is that the Board would continue its very active role in the States of not just 

talking about GDL but trying to bring it about and trying to get the votes behind some of 

the tougher provisions. 

Second is that I think in Washington we tend to suffer from the disease of 

hardening of the categories, and the idea of doing driver education separate from GDL 

doesn’t make as much sense as trying to do driver education as a way of strengthening 

GDL in some key areas that have been identified. That is, as a stand-alone program I’m

not sure driver education has a very bright future. But as a component part of a graduate 

education licensing, I think it could serve some very useful roles. I hope the Board would 

point that out. 

MR. KISSINGER: I guess I have a very simple answer, which is to take 

advantage of the power of the participants over the past two days and the credibility of

the Safety Board to turn this event into an ongoing process with some sustained focus 

that will in fact lead to changes in the months and years ahead. 

DR. DONALDSON: I guess the first thing I want to say is to agree with Chuck 

Hurley that I can’t even imagine talking about any potential novice driver training course, 

whatever that might be, without having it forged to complement the idea of graduated 

driver’s licensing. 

I think it is impossible that on the one hand we will control young drivers 

exposure to risk as they get older by putting them through the various levels of GDL and 

giving them training of any kind, and on the other hand providing driver training and 

simply looking the other way on trying to control those risks with a GDL program. I 

think they’re absolutely complementary. 

225
As far as the Board’s action in this area, the Board, as many of you know, has 

already been very active in the area of graduated driver’s licensing. I think it is much 

appreciated by those of us in the safety community that the NTSB has taken the lead on 

being vigorous about the need and the importance and the value of GDL. 

I would like to see the Board evaluate, as Peter Kissinger just said, any potential 

new promising directions for driver training which will not plow the same old ground 

that we’ve had before, the same uninnovative, one-size-fits-all approach, and that they 

would engage in an ongoing review and evaluation of any innovative driver training 

courses, particularly with regard to what Allan Williams has indicated repeatedly today 

as a necessity of vetting any of these programs on a strict scientific basis, use a proper 

protocol to evaluate them, and not just give a thumbs up to them because they sound 

good, feel good, and they’ve been advocated by some special association or interest 

group. 

DR. SIND-PRUNIER: Thank you very much. 

MS. BISHOP: And we hope that you aren’t going to wait until our report comes 

out in six months. We hope that you will take some of the information you’ve gathered 

here and use it when you go back to your organizations. 

Thank you very much, panelists. That was a great conversation. 

(Applause) 

226
Current Research 

DR. MOLLOY: Good afternoon, and welcome to our panel on driver education 

research. In this session, we’ll be discussing recent research projects in the areas of Texas 

youth driving accident statistics, the use of simulators in driver education, and the 

perceptions of teachers and students on the needs and deficiencies of driver education. 

We’ll also examine general issues in driver education research. 

Presentation by Terry Kline 

Our first speaker is Dr. Terry Kline with the Eastern Kentucky University Traffic 

Safety Center, where he’s served as an associate professor since August of 1997. He 

holds an Ed.D. from Texas A & M in industrial education, curriculum specialist. He has 

developed curricula for highway railroad grade crossings, elementary bicycle education, 

junior high school traffic safety, secondary alcohol and driver education, adult 

commercial driver skill enhancement, and adult alcohol education programs. 

DR. KLINE: The session that I’m involved with as far as the Texas youth crash 

statistics really was a result of a couple different forces coming together. The Houston 

Region AAA was very involved in trying to work with the GDL licensing requirements 

in Texas. The result of that, they came up with some stats that showed that there was a 

recent rise of 36 percent of 16-year-olds’ crash rate in Texas over the last four or five 

years. 

So what happened is, a group of legislators asked the TA to do a study and just try 

to check out what the data shows as far as a increase in the crash rate of the 16-year-olds. 

So really, what happened is, as a result of this Texas situation growing and they 

were trying to do some things with GDL at the same time, they really had a certified 

program of instructors up until 1995. And their State-certified program really is in three 

different options, which is rather unusual that they had three different standard options. 

Their first option is a half-credit course with 56 hours of classroom and 14 hours 

behind the wheel, seven of which has to be behind-the-wheel time. The other seven, 

directed observation. So really, they have a program that did a whole semester in their 

basic program. 

After some budget cuts occurred, they also had an after-school program or a noncredit program of 32 hours of classroom and 14 hours behind-the-wheel, with seven 

hours being behind-the-wheel instruction. So that became the most used option after 

227 Part 5
1995. And most of the programs went to after school, before school, during the summer 

sessions. 

During that time period, up until 1995, all the State instructors were Statecertified. After 1995, a law was passed through the legislature that allowed parents to 

certify program participants. What we mean by that is they were given the curriculum by 

the Department of Public Safety (DPS), and they were allowed to use the curriculum that 

was used by the regular certified instructor in the State of Texas and instruct their 

students based on 32 hours of classroom and 14 hours of behind-the-wheel time. 

And when they certified them as completing that program, they had the same

certification requirements as any student in the State of Texas for driver education. In 

other words, they did have their driver test waived at the test center just like any other 

student would have that has a certified program. So it’s a little different type of operation. 

The original concept was designed for home schooling, and that’s how the law 

really came into place. But in the process of the Senate bill and the House bill and the 

interaction between the House and the Senate as they finalized the bill, they made it into 

a parent training program and not just a home schooling program. 

So what happens is the certificates are purchased from the Texas Department of 

Public Safety, and they get full certification. And they also get the insurance certificate as 

well as any other certificates that would be applied to a regularly certified driver 

education student. 

What happened is that there were a lot of alternatives considered at this last 

legislative session. They talked about having a parent training certification course, which 

would allow the parents to have some training in using the new curriculum guide that 

they were using. There is no parent training except for the home schooling with the 

certification. That was another process that was thought about. And they also thought 

about having a completion certificate but would not be allowed to have a waiver for the 

driving test. None of those things changed over the last year in the process. 

The Texas legislature went on vacation to I think it was New Mexico and also to 

Oklahoma, and it sort of stalled the process as it went along. 

There are some assumptions as we looked at this data because, really, we just had 

a very short period of time to look at the data. And the person from the TA called me up 

and said that, you’ve already collected some of the data from 1993 to 1997, she’d like me

to just continue that process so she has some data to show to the legislators. 

So that’s really the process that occurred and how it occurred. And really, as we 

looked at this data, we had to assume that the DPS data was correct, the first big 

assumption. The second big assumption was the fact that in 1998 they changed the way 

they reported the crashes. So prior to that time period, if a person got their license in 

1995, let’s say, they had a crash in 1996, they were considered to be 16 years old. They 

228
could actually be 15, 16, or 17 in that time period. It depends on when they got their 

license. 

So you see it made a problem on really trying to identify was a person really 15, 

16, or 17 when he had his first crash. So that became a problem as far as those changes. 

Those changes occurred in 1998 that related the crash to the birth date. So that could be 

some differences in the reporting of the crashes. 

Also, after I think it was 1996, they went into a process where they raised the 

limit on property damage from $500 up to $1000. And in many cases in that time period 

that several larger cities really were having police sent out to injury crashes and not really 

property damage crashes. So there’s all of that. Many of the property damage crashes 

were really self-reported. So that could be another confounding problem when you’re 

looking at this data. All right. 

Also, trying to compare national age comparisons of data to this information was 

rather difficult because we really don’t know how the other data was collected other than 

collecting it from the National Safety Council’s accident report facts. 

So what we did is we put some information together. You can see the difference 

in the stats from 1995 to 2002, how the parents were more involved in the education 

process for new drivers. As you see, the program really didn’t get started till 1996, even 

though the law passed in 1995. That’s when the first certificates were issued. And it 

started out with about 35,000, and now, in the last year, it’s up over 75,000. Now, the last 

year that was reported was 72,000. 

So as you start to realize there is a growing population of parent-taught 

certification going on. And largely, if you notice where it’s coming from, it’s really 

coming out of the public schools. The commercial schools have really kept their numbers 

pretty much the same throughout that time period. So as they’re dropping programs from

the public schools, the parents, instead of taking them to commercial schools to be 

trained, they usually do the training themselves. 

There’s also another confounding effect in here because, especially in the 1999 

time period, there was a lot of persons who tried to do the training, got about halfway 

through, then decided to send them into a public school program or into a commercial 

school program. So that was another sort of confounding factor with this. 

So as you look at this idea, you can very easily look at the data and see how the 

age 15-year-olds, the data shows under-involvement. So what I put in this data is to show 

you how it’s set up. These are all 15-year-olds from 1993 to 2000. If you look at the data, 

up to 1997 they had an under-involvement in crashes compared to the national averages 

of 50 percent. And this is a time period that in Texas that they spend time with their 

parents, the whole age 15 years, they spend with their parents driving and also with the 

driver education instructor. So it’s really a permit time period and not a time when they 

drive themselves, unless they do it illegally, which you’ve heard some evidence of that 

today. 

229
In 1998 and 1999 and 2000, we started to notice a trend, that there were more 

crashes during that time period with that student, even though the licensure rate was the 

same. So as you’ve seen, there is a change in the crash rate. 

Now, what that’s attributed to is really hard to tell right now. It could be a 

combination of the parent training, a combination of the reporting system, or a 

combination of how the accesses are really recorded in the data. But we do see a very 

consistent rate up to 1997 and a very changed rate after 1998 for the 15-year-olds. 

Now, that’s the time they’re supposed to be in the training aspect of what they’re 

doing. So they don’t have a regular license themselves at this point. 

If you look at the 16-year-old age group, you can see again the change in their 

over- and under-involvement. As you see, they were over-involved with their crash rates 

for 16-year-olds to 1997. The over-involvement got a lot worse. Almost three times the 

difference of what it was in 1997. 

Again, it’s hard to relate exactly what the cause of that is. In fact, it’s one of the 

reasons why Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) is going to be working with NHTSA in 

the new few years trying to determine really what did cause this change. Is it the parent 

training, is it the anomaly with the change in the crash reporting system, or is it 

something else that we may not have figured into this. But this data really is the result of

trying to take a look at the future. 

It was rather interesting. The 17-year-olds were still under the old system at this 

time period. You notice there’s not much change in their data other than an anomaly in 

1997 of a very low licensure rate for 17-year-olds. No clue of why it’s a lower licensing 

rate, but you notice that there’s just that one-year that the licensing rate went down. And 

the next three years it was consistent at 1.3. 

As you’ve seen, the over- and under-involvement rate is pretty much the same, 

pretty consistent, for that 17-year-old group. 

If you look at the 18-year-old group, you may notice there’s a consistent overinvolvement growing and growing with the 18-year-old group. So really, it’s back very 

close to what it is at national stats. There’s the comparison. 

I just put together the 19-, 20-, and 21-year-old group because we try to use them

for a baseline. I wanted to let you see that they’re very consistent in their involvement. 

From 1993 up to 2000, they’re very consistent in their rate, very consistent in 

licensure, but as you see, the licensure rate is growing a little bit for the 19-year-olds. For 

the 20-year-olds, it’s very consistent. For the 21-year-olds, it’s very consistent. So we use 

them for a base rate as we did some comparisons. 

Now, what we try to do with the comparisons is just to give you some idea what 

we’re talking about. The box that’s outlined in red in the bottom, those are the 19-, 20-, 

230
and 21-year-olds that really make up our baseline. What it shows you from 1993 -- we 

grouped the 1993 to 1996 group together. And when they were compared with the 1997 

to 2000 age group, same 19-year-olds, and they had a 2 percent rise in their crash rate. 

And you also can see the same thing happen with the 20-year-olds. There was a 6 percent 

rise in their crash rate between comparing those two time periods. And for the 21-yearolds, there was a 1 percent rise in their crash rate. 

So what we try to do is average that out with a baseline rate change of 3 percent 

for the 19- to 21-year-old drivers. Then we went back and compared that with the 15-

year-olds, the 16-year-olds, the 17-year-olds, and the 18-year-olds to see if there was 

really any change over what they did in the past. 

And what you see, the rate of change in involvement is really a comparison of the 

15-year-olds to the 15-year-olds in both the groups. So as you see, from 1993 to 1996 

compared to 1997 to 2000, there is very little change of involvement from that base rate. 

And what we have is a change of baseline of 100 percent down. So the 15-year-olds 

really did do a lot better, all right, over the process. 

If you look at 15-year-olds and 16-year-olds over that process between 1993 and 

2000, you’ll notice that there’s a 50 percent rise in their crash rate comparing the 1993 

group to the 2000 group. 

And also, if you compare that to the base rate, the baseline, it’s 15.7 times higher 

than their base rate. So when you’re comparing the change from 1997 to 1996 of those 

three groups, it shows there’s a big change in their base rate. 

The 1997, 16-year-olds compared to the 1993, 16-year-olds. You’ll notice that 

they’re changing from the normal involvement, changed from 1996 to 2000 being 143 

percent up, right. So they had 143 percent change in their crash rate and that when you 

compare those two years of involvement. 

When you compare that with the baseline, it’s a 50 percent -- 50 percent change 

upward. So there is a definite change in the crash rate. We just don’t know exactly the 

reason behind it. 

As you look at the 17-year-olds, there’s a 7 percent change in their overinvolvement, and there was only a one-time change higher from the base rate. It’s not 

very significant as far as the change from the base rate. 

For 18-year-olds, 6 percent up in their rate of change involvement. It’s about the 

same as the baseline rate, about one time greater. So you see for 15- and 16-year-olds 

there’s been quite a change in their involvement rate, and we’re talking about people that 

are in the 17- or 18-year-old category, which weren’t involved in the changes yet that the 

rate is pretty consistent with the baseline rate. That’s what we found when we looked at 

just the Texas crash rate. 

231
When we compared them with the national rates, then, all right, we tried to take a 

look at how they compare with the national rates in that same area. So as you’re looking 

at the data that’s shown there for the people under age 16, or under age 15 is what it 

should say there, we had the normal rate for involvement for the 1993 to 1996 time 

period was about 9 percent. That’s up 33 percent over what it was in the years past. 

If you’re looking at the national crash rate in comparison to Texas drivers, all 

right, it’s about 14 percent up. If you look at the baseline rate, it’s up about 6 tenths or 

about 69 percent higher than it was before. 

If you look at 17-year-olds, it’s only about 129 percent up. So it’s interesting to 

see the 17-year-olds in this new period had a higher baseline rate change compared to the 

national averages. So what it’s saying, the national averages went down during that time, 

and the Texas averages went up just a little bit. So that’s a rather interesting change in 

that rate. 

If we’re looking at the 18-year-olds, you’ve seen that in comparison to the 

national rate, they went up about 5 percent. But they’re actually about 40 percent lower 

than the baseline for the national statistics. 

So what we tried to do with this is we gave this to the legislators to try to give 

them some idea what’s happening with it. The only thing we could actually show is 

there’s been a change. As far as what the change does compared to national statistics, it’s 

actually been going up over the last three years. Prior to that, the rate has gone down. So 

it’s interesting to show that there’s been a change in the rates of crash involvement over 

those last three years. 

Now, we had another problem, not getting the statistics for 2001 because they’re 

not fully entered yet with the DPS. So the furthest we could go is 2000. So hopefully, in 

the next study that comes out with this, it’ll show the rates for a little bit more current. 

But we did recommend that more research is needed to find what the causes of 

novice driver changes are and we hope that we can do some other States look at some

comparisons of their novice drivers and see if the rates are changing or not. 

We do notice that in as far as the vision for the future that there’s a lot of monies 

being directed to research problems of older driver populations and there’s not much 

being directed at the novice driver populations and trying to see what it is they need to 

change. We also need to find ways to improve our educational process instead of giving 

up an invaluable means of getting this reliable knowledge out for this database. 

What we have with the knowledge base in driving is expanding so greatly, but we 

really don’t have a curriculum that gives the information other than ones based in 1996, 

1960, and 1970 research information. So really, our database is pretty old as far as getting 

new information out to the students. 

232
So we’d like to just in the summary point out to you that the TTI, the Texas 

Transportation Institute, is going to work with NHTSA to try to study this problem of 

novice driver crash rates, especially related to the parent training area. We need to 

develop an educational base for basing knowledge and skills for Phase I driver education. 

We also need to develop an educational base for crash causation for Phase II. And we 

need to provide some materials for parent training that have positive training 

reinforcement. All those things you’ve seen being supportive of all the other things that 

have been done so far in this program. 

I think it’s important to realize that which we really don’t have enough data, not 

reliable data, out there to see what we’re really doing right now in the programs. And 

hopefully, efforts will be done in the future to make a change in that kind of data. 

But that’s what we had. We just collected some data, and hopefully the TTI can 

come up and get some good analysis of what that data’s saying to us. And that’s what I 

have to show you for today’s session, okay. 

Thank you very much. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Bimal Aponso 

DR. MOLLOY: Our next speaker is Mr. Bimal Aponso. Mr. Aponso is the 

technical director for Systems Technologies, Incorporated, and was a key contributor and 

software engineer for the initial development of their PC-based driving simulator. He was 

also a primary contributor to the functional specification for the National Advanced 

Driving Simulator. 

Mr. Aponso has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the University of 

Manchester in the United Kingdom, an M.S. in aerospace engineering from the 

University of Maryland, and an M.B.A. from the University of Southern California. 

MR. APONSO: Thank you, Robert, and thank you for the NTSB for convening 

this session and for inviting me to be here. It’s a great honor to be included in this august 

crowd of people with the depth of experience and passion for the subject that’s involved 

here. 

What I’d like to talk about today is a project that we’ve been involved in. We’re 

about halfway through the project. The people involved in the project at Systems 

Technology, Incorporated, my colleagues, Wade Allen, Ted Rosenthal, George Park, 

Marcia Cook, and our collaborators at Southern California Research Institute, as well as 

Dr. Eric Virre from the University of California, San Diego. 

233
I’m not one of the authors. I’m here representing Wade Allen, who could not be 

here, but I’ll try to do their work justice. 

The project is being funded by the Centers for Disease Control, the National 

Center for Injury Prevention and Control. The Phase II of this project started in 

September 2001. The Phase I was completed somewhere in 1999. And they expect to 

complete this project in September 2005. 

Actually, I should have added in the introduction I’m not a driver educator and 

neither are any of my colleagues. We are coming at this from a driver behavior 

perspective. We have been involved in driver behavior research for the past 30-odd years, 

which is why we developed the simulator for driver behavior research. 

The present status of this project is that the subject training has been completed 

and the data analysis and driving record data collection is underway. 

Let me go on to explain what the project is about. The basic premise of the project 

is to look at how to include, or how best to include, a driving simulator in a driver 

education curriculum and how effective it is. So our task here, as outlined in this slide, is 

to train 500 -- actually, we trained more than that -- high school students, novice drivers, 

and then compare their violation and accident history to a demographically matched 

control group after two years of driving. 

And a side objective which was actually suggested as a part of the peer review 

process that the research proposal went through was to evaluate the simulator 

configurations that would best suit the purpose. Should it be a single monitor system, a 

wide field of view system, and so on?

Not being driver educators and coming from behavioral aspects, we started off 

doing some research to determine how best it would fit in a driver education curriculum.

We went through the past research, in this area. And all the things that are on this slide 

here have been covered previously. 

The primary issue was the whole issue of the licensure paradox, which somebody 

in the previous panel just mentioned. You need to drive to gain experience, but when you 

start driving to gain experience, you increase your exposure to accidents. 

Also, we read in the literature there’s not much evidence of the effectiveness of

formal driving instruction. And also, the various the risk components that novice drivers 

are exposed to, the peer pressure, the natural optimistic bias, and the emotionality and the 

maturity issues. Basically, there were a lot of issues that came up here, and we had to 

target which ones we would try to attack that would correlate best with what a simulator 

can be used for. 

So out of that we came out with some training objectives, basic road safety and 

traffic safety instruction, that would be part of the driver’s education curriculum of the 

schools that we would be involved with. And also, the importance of simulator aspect is 

234
to teach some critical skills in a real-time environment: primarily, the situational 

awareness, hazard perception, decision-making, as well as the steering and braking and 

normal vehicle control aspects. 

So we focused on the psychomotor cognitive perceptual skill deficiencies and 

tried to include experiences that demonstrated the value of being a safe driver. The other 

objective was to make the novices aware of their limitations and to counteract problems 

of overconfidence. All these goals were encompassed to create the driving scenarios that 

the students would be subject to. And we tried to go back and tried to include all these 

aspects in the scenarios that they would be exposed to. 

The simulator itself had to serve an assessment function as well as a training 

function, and there were common elements to both. And in this case, we were primarily 

using it in the training function because the assessment function would come later on 

when you evaluated the driving record. 

The primary initial focus was, how do we create the software platform because 

the simulator on it’s own wasn’t suitable for use in a school environment. There were 

several requirements. We worked with a couple of local schools, and one big requirement 

was that in order to include this as part of the driver education curriculum you had to 

minimize the teacher involvement in this extra time. And so what we did was to create an 

almost self-administering series of tests and evaluations that the teacher could oversee 

and which would complement their regular driver education classroom teaching. 

So we developed a platform that allowed for the logging in of students, record 

keeping, presentation of background on safety and the normal driver education 

curriculum as well as performance feedback. We tried to develop a fairly generic 

platform with application beyond the novice driver education issue. 

Just a quick overview of the platform -- and I’m showing this slide just to show 

the various aspects that are involved. On one side, you have the driver assessment and 

training system, which ties-in with the actual driving simulator component. To try and 

make this as generic as possible and to be able to adjust it as the need arose as we learned 

more as the project progressed, we had the educational component in a PowerPoint 

presentation that could be presented with voice-overs to the student. 

Subject registration procedures where the students had their performance data all 

recorded on a floppy disk. So the student could at any time pick up their floppy disk, put 

it in the computer, and it would start up the evaluation and pick up from where they left 

off, if they had been doing it previously. Also, a performance assessment and a progress 

monitor. 

In the driving simulator component, the important things were the configuration 

of the simulator itself, simple aspects like sounds to more detailed aspects like what is the 

field of view that’s going to be displayed. And a very important component was the 

scenario. Different scenarios had to be presented to the subject at different stages of their 

training. And you had to have to a platform that could accommodate easily. 

235
Just a sample of what was involved in the PowerPoint presentation, just a couple 

of slides -- regular situational awareness issues. We developed this in collaboration with 

the driver education teacher that we were working with. 

As I said earlier, we augmented the program to look at the effect of different 

configurations of the driving simulator. The system you see up there, that actually is one 

of the high schools. And they were really enthusiastic about joining with us in the 

program, and I’ll talk a little bit more about that later on. 

They provided half the computers in their computer lab, which we converted to 

driving simulators. We had headphones so that the teacher and the students wouldn’t 

interfere with each other. And we had simple game-type driving controls, which, if the 

computer was not being used as a simulator, the driving controls are kept just underneath 

and the computer could be used for whatever else the computer is used for during school 

time. 

In this particular school, what the teacher did was when the driver education class 

came along, they’d send half the class to the simulator training and half the class would 

continue with the classroom training, and they’d switch. 

The simulators were always available for the students to come in and drive 

through the program. 

We also had a wider field of view system, which is a three-monitor system. I 

should add, with the single-monitor system, the drivers had the capability of scanning left 

and right by pressing buttons. The configuration you see at the bottom is a three-monitor 

system also with a simple game-type driving control. Tests with this configuration were 

administered at the Southern California Research Institute and the University of

California at San Diego. And the cab arrangement on top was used at systems technology 

itself, and we had students come in and drive that. 

Six hundred twenty seven students were taken through the program, of which 

about 250 went through the single-monitor system in the high school and about 160 went 

through the three monitors with the game controls, and less than that used the cab. So the 

lowest amount of people was with the cab configuration. 

One important aspect -- I talked a lot about setting up the scenarios. And one of 

the things we were trying to do was, I guess in a way, trying to get the students up the 

experience process, try to speed it up using the simulator -- improve the situational 

awareness and decision-making skills. 

And one variable that we used for that was the concept of the time-to-collision. 

The time-to-collision is simply the distance to the vehicle in front of your vehicle or 

object in front of you divided by a closure rate to that object. If you don’t do anything, 

you will collide with that object at the time-to-collision. 

236
We actually used the time-to-collision to trigger events. So we kind of worked it 

backwards. We said, okay, to force quick decision-making you had to set a time-tocollision of around three seconds. And we set different events with time-to-collision that 

varied around that three seconds. 

So we triggered the events. So if it’s a pedestrian that is crossing the road, we 

triggered that pedestrian to start walking when you are about three or five or less seconds 

away from colliding with that pedestrian. 

These are some just examples of the scenarios, showing the different types of 

traffic. And we could fill it up with as much traffic as we wanted or as little. We had a lot 

of other things going on in the background, but the events that we were measuring were 

all based on time-to-collision as well as just other basic issues, such as looking at mirrors 

and so on. 

Like I said, there were 627 students who went through it, and currently we’re at 

the stage where everybody’s gone through the training and we are going to be following 

up. We have an arrangement with the California DMV where we can track their driving 

records for a year. 

What I’m going to show are some very preliminary data from the project. What’s 

shown here are the average accidents per subject. And we had six trials that the students 

had to go through. There was a graduation criteria. And if they didn’t graduate in six 

trials, they could go on to seven trials, eight, or a maximum of nine. If they hadn’t 

graduated by a maximum of nine, they were told to drive safely, and there were no other 

consequences. 

This shows the difference in the average accidents per subject in the three 

different simulator configurations what is obvious from this is that the single-monitor 

system had a greater amount of accidents than the three-monitor or the cab. And the big 

difference there is the field of view available. So not a big surprise there. 

The next two slides show the average speed in miles per hour as well as the timeto-collision. They’re kind of related. I’ll show what’s happening here. Again, you see the 

difference in the field of view, but you also see that toward the end of the trials, when 

they are getting close to their six trails, the average speed starts dropping off. And what 

we think is happening here is kind of a coping mechanism by the students. They needed 

no accidents essentially to graduate, so they started becoming more cautious as they went 

along. 

And a similar trend is shown by the average time-to-collision. A smaller time-tocollision means you’re coming closer to objects before you avoid an accident. So they 

started off high. As they got more confident, the time-to-collision started going down, but 

then, as they needed to graduate, the time-to-collision went back up again as they wanted 

to graduate. 

237
Let me just go quickly through some of the anecdotal -- just our experience in this 

whole project working with the high schools. The driver’s education licensing 

requirements in California are no different than anybody else. The California Department 

of Education requires that schools must teach driver’s education but it need not be a 

graduation requirement. The DMV requires, the usual 30 and six that a lot of people have 

talked about here. 

What we experienced when we tried to go to the local area -- this being the south 

bay area of Los Angeles. We contacted local schools, and offered them software, and 

hardware, if necessary, at no cost in return for including the simulator training in their 

driver’s education curriculum.

I’m sorry to say most of the schools basically didn’t want to talk to us, but three 

schools did. Actually, one school was in San Diego, and the other two in the south bay 

area of Los Angeles. And the schools that responded were very enthusiastic about the 

program. One in particular, the one I showed the picture of, the teacher there was really 

enthusiastic about it. They went and fought with their management to get this included, 

and they were really committed to it. And that’s why the whole program went quite well. 

And some of the schools we contacted didn’t have a driver’s education program. They 

outsourced the whole thing. 

We got feedback from the teachers, which is one of the more interesting things 

here, from the Peninsula High School. And the teachers, and this is a quote, said “The 

simulator added a valuable dimension to the instruction,” and “They had a basis on which 

to base their instruction on.” 

And the majority of students enjoyed the experience. It was something different. 

Each time the simulator came up, we had a picture of a vehicle of some kind, usually 

some kind of an exotic car, and I think that’s one of the things that the students had liked 

most. They wanted to find out what car they were going to drive that day. 

And they wanted it back next year. Even though the CDC to do that does not fund 

us, we might continue just because of the enthusiasm, plus they are in close proximity to 

us, so we can support them easily. 

The bad news. This is the one school we found in that area that had driver’s 

education as a graduation requirement. Well, no more. It’s been removed as a 

requirement the next year. 

So let me go back to my summary. As of now, we have a general-purpose 

platform for assessment and training, which can administer training, and assessment 

without involvement of a teacher full-time. There we’ve created some flexibility in 

preparing the orientation and instruction where the teachers could, if needed, put a 

PowerPoint presentation together with the driving simulator for autonomous operation. 

And it’s designed to be run very easily by teachers. The simulators we set up at the 

school just ran by themselves with very little involvement from us. 

238
Future issues. I think we’ve just scratched the surface. There are many issues 

related to driver education and how to make it better that a lot of people here have better 

knowledge of than us. 

We think one of the biggest issues is for transfer of training studies and also to 

understand the effective amount of simulator training. I think a previous speaker put it 

quite well. The whole issue of driver education is like a jigsaw puzzle. The components -

- there are not that many components, but the interaction is quite complex. And so if 

you’re using the simulator, how best can you use the simulator in this kind of an 

environment?

And the last point is something that one person in our group just threw out, and I 

haven’t heard it mentioned. There’s a potential of on-board data recording devices. When 

we were doing our work in San Diego, we happened to come across an article in the San 

Diego newspaper about some person who was selling an on-board -- basically a package 

data recorder, not as sophisticated as the aircraft data recorders that I’m sure the NTSB is 

very familiar with, but simpler aspects. 

It monitors speed, lateral acceleration, longitudinal acceleration, and so on. Not 

only can the parent then take the information out, plug it into a computer, and see what’s 

happening, you can have it trigger alarms or voice messages. So it’s kind of like having a 

parent on board. 

So that’s another dimension that possibly can be used. It’s not driver education as 

such, but it probably would help this whole overall issue. 

And that’s all I have today. Thank you for your time. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Dale Ritzel 

DR. MOLLOY: Our next speaker is Dr. Dale Ritzel. Dr. Ritzel is the director of 

the Safety Center and a professor of health -- health education at Southern Illinois 

University, Carbondale, and has been teaching driver education and traffic safety for 39 

years. He has been involved in driver education research, including high school students 

driving and drinking, aggressive driving, et cetera. 

He is the founder -- he is also the founder of the DE-L, the Driver Education 

Listserv. 

DR. RITZEL: I want to first of all thank you for the opportunity to be here, and 

particularly thank Mary (Jones) for the arrangements she made for me to get here and 

Jennifer (Bishop) for arranging this whole thing and for Robert (Molloy) with the panel 

and organizing this whole aspect of the presentations. 

239
Looking at the four presentations they are giving in this panel, they are very 

different from each other in many ways, but also very much closely related to the whole 

area of driver education. 

I wanted to talk a little bit about some of these items because of the fact that I’ve 

got quite a few figures in here and charts in here that some of these I will be going 

through relatively quick. 

But a little bit of background, we know that driver education has been around for 

a long time, but in Illinois it started in the 1940s, probably around 1947 to 1948, and 

really took hold in the early 1950s. Illinois was one of the early States after Michigan to 

actually set up a driver education law act in 1957 where driver education at that time and 

since that time has been required of all students if they want to get a license before the 

age of 18. It wasn’t that way in 1957, but has come that way since the mid 1960s. 

Well, we really did not know up until a few years ago exactly what the teachers 

were doing in teaching driver education in Illinois as well as what the students were 

seeing and perceiving they were seeing in regards to topic areas in driver education. So 

the Safety Center at Southern Illinois University was contracted by the Illinois 

Department of Transportation and the Illinois Transportation Research Center, which is a 

center that’s about 15 years old that’s actually funded by the Illinois Department of 

Transportation, to take a look at some of these issues. 

The purpose was basically to take a look at specific subject content areas covered 

in driver education in the State of Illinois and the time spent on each of the subject areas 

and what would need to be included that’s probably not included in the current topics that 

are being taught in driver education. 

One of the things we did as we normally always do, and I just wanted to put this 

in there and let you know that we did do this, we took a look at everything that had been 

done up until that point and really felt it was important to do that before we started 

anything else. 

In order to determine the specific areas that were being covered in driver 

education and the time that was spent on each, we developed two separate but very 

similar questionnaires. The only difference between the questionnaires was the 

demographic information that we collected. We did reliability checks on these 

instruments, and you can see what they are in relation to the versions of “did spend” 

versus “should spend” in regards to the teacher sections as well as the student surveys, 

too. They were very, very high in regards to reliability. 

Each of our questionnaires was developed for the teachers and mailed to every 

high school in Illinois. We had at that time approximately 621 schools in Illinois that 

offered driver education. They were sent to the driver education program, and in many 

cases we knew the specific person in charge of the program so it was specifically 

addressed to them. In some cases, we did not know who that person was. 

240
We did receive back approximately 43 percent of the surveys that were sent, and 

if you’ve done much survey research, particularly with schools and teachers and so on, 

getting 43 percent back is a very, very good response, even though we would have liked 

to have seen more. 

We also, as I mentioned, used a second survey or questionnaire that was 

administered by our project staff to students in randomly selected districts from all the 10 

regions of Illinois as defined by the 10 driver education regions of Illinois as defined by 

the State driver education association. 

It was basically a geographic stratified random sample process in which we 

selected schools randomly from each of the 10 areas, and from that we contacted the 

schools and asked for permission to come into the school, which is totally another 

different kind of issue right now because trying to get schools to participate in research is 

not always easy. And since you have to use right now an active response for parents to 

give permission to allow students to even participate in a paper-and-pencil survey, active 

basically meaning they’ll take something home and bring something back signed. We

can’t do that, as we were able to do it one time. If they didn’t bring it back, then they 

cannot participate. 

Because of the size of some areas of the State in regards to number of schools and 

population, we did get more from some districts than others. We found out from our 

selection process that the schools really represented different parts of the State and that it 

really represented very well the gender and racial mix, urban, rural, large, small schools 

that we have in Illinois. 

The questionnaire itself included 26 possible topic areas that after looking at the 

research you can see that these are the topic areas that were included. We relied upon a 

lot of the recent research at that time, particularly the novice driver education curriculum

from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and Peter (Kissinger), we thank you for 

your ongoing use of that good piece of information as well as other sources. 

I’m not going to say that this listing is comprehensive, but it’s as comprehensive 

as we could find in relation to taking a look at a lot of different surveys. We also have a 

validation process of various types of experts in the field to help us determine that these 

were probably the best and probably as inclusive as we could get. 

Let’s see. We also took a look at what should be spent and what was actually 

being spent from the standpoint of how the teachers looked at it and how the students 

looked at it. 

We actually end up using the median time that the schools or the teachers 

indicated, and we also used the median time in regards to what the students indicated 

because we found we had some good skewed information if we used the mean. We found 

that if we used the median, which in this type of research is probably a better means of 

measurement anyhow, that we could determine a better response. 

241
The median time that the teachers indicated for 15 of the 26 topics they would 

like to spend more time. In other words, at least one hour or more. For one topic they felt 

that the area of alcohol, drugs, and their effects on driving they would like to spend at 

least two more hours than what they had indicated they were actually spending on the 

topic. And then we find out today from listening to what was said by the AAA that the 

alcohol and other driving is one of the low issues in regards to crash involvement. So 

that’s an interesting point to at least think about. 

The students indicated that for four cases they wanted more time spent on the 

topics than the teachers did. The two topics were: one, they liked the amount of time on 

the visual scanning and the item predicting the actions of others. 

Two topics the teachers wanted to have more time spent included rules of the 

road. I think we have found over the years that teachers, in 30-hour courses, if that’s what 

they’ve got, would like to spend at least half that time on the rules of the road. And we 

know that’s not an efficient use of time in regards to what needs to be taught. 

I’ve got 26 slides like this, and I’m going to go through them pretty quick because 

I think you can get a sense of the blue line being what students indicate the program

spent on driver education. The yellow one indicated what students thought should be 

spent. And you notice in some cases the “should be spent” is a lot less than what was 

actually being spent. The gray is what the teachers spent, as they indicated, and the red is 

what the teachers said should be spent. 

Now, in some areas like social and economic consequences, you’ll find that 

teachers in this case, and most cases, felt that they should spend more time and the 

students felt they should be spending less time. I’ll let you make your own judgments as 

we go through these. 

This is on emotions and driving. You’ll notice that the teachers in some cases 

from the standpoint of the number of hours, particularly if they got over two hours or 

more, they thought they needed to spend more time in teaching this than what they were 

doing. 

This is the relation to the rules of the road. You’ll notice that almost everybody 

said, at least a high percent indicated that they spent a lot of time on the rules of the road. 

And one of the problems with having a category of “five or more,” because of the fact 

that we were using a bubble sheet to have the teachers and the students respond, we were 

limited by the number of spaces that we had. And one of the limitations was the fact that 

we might have maybe found with the rules of the road part that the teachers were actually 

spending a lot more than five hours. Maybe a lot more than that. 

From the standpoint of physical limitations of other drivers, it seems like the 

lesson one to about two hours was probably what needed to be spent, at least from the 

standpoint of what should be spent versus what was being spent. 

242
Vehicle dynamics. You’ll find out that a good percentage of the teachers spent 

one hour approximately on this topic, and it’s an area that probably should have a lot 

more time spent on than one hour. 

The impaired states of alertness. You’ll notice there that in most cases the 

teachers would like to spend a little bit less than one hour, or one hour or so. 

The basic vehicle control. And again, you have to realize that a lot of our topics, 

the reason we used the ones that we did was that we didn’t want to separate classroom

from the behind the wheel or the laboratory part. And so one of the instructions said they 

had to take a look at what they did both in classroom and what they did in both behind 

the wheel or laboratory, and they should look at what they should be doing the same way. 

And so you’ll find out later that is how we came up with some of the numbers we came 

up with as a part of this. 

Basic vehicle control. Again, a lot of this relates to the behind-the-wheel portion. 

Visual scanning. I find that probably a lot of this was stuff that was being done 

out in the vehicle, but we did find that teachers saw a lot more than students, at least from

the standpoint of two hours, and five and more, and four, that there should be more time 

spent on that. 

The hazard identification recognition. Quite a few hours spent on this. And again, 

it’s our feeling that, a lot of the hazard identification recognition, as has been said by 

many speakers over the last two days, can be and should be done in the classroom and 

that we should be putting more focus upon that in the classroom as well as continuing to 

put more focus on that out on the street. 

The time-space-distance estimates. Teachers mostly spending one hour, but 

there’s a feeling out there, at least from the standpoint of students, that a lot more time 

should be spent on this because I think you have to realize that the students that we 

surveyed were basically seniors in high school. In other words, they had two years of 

driving experience. In some cases, we dealt with juniors, so they had one year of driving 

experience. 

And so we were getting some of this information from the students that really 

related more to spending more time on the perceptual processes of driving than what we 

were getting from the teachers. So the experience, I think, helped the students realize that 

they probably should have more time in some of these areas. 

Like, for example, predicting the actions of others. You’ll notice that at least from

the standpoint of three or more hours, that students felt there should be more time spent 

than what there was. 

Decision-making in traffic. Again, this is one where the students felt there should 

be more time spent. 

243
From the standpoint of increased time, not necessarily in relation to what the 

instructors are doing. When instructors over here say they’re spending two hours, but 

those that indicated two hours felt that they should spend less than that. That was kind of 

interesting. 

The speed control. Again, an issue that needs to be spent more time on, both in 

the classroom and behind the wheel. 

Vehicle positioning. You’ll notice that we tend to spend a lot of time about one 

hour or two hours. 

Handling driving emergencies. Again, teachers indicated as well as students that 

we should spend more time on this one. 

Handling special situations. Likewise, some of the same kind of responses. 

Vehicle maintenance. What do you notice there? Both students and teachers feel 

that we need to spend a little bit more time on this, particularly students. I would say in 

most cases students are showing a greater need to spend some time on this. And again, 

this doesn’t necessarily have to be done in driver education, but as a part of the basic 

program, but it could be done as a continuing or second phase type of course. 

Self-assessing of driving performance. Need to spend a little bit more time with 

this. 

Alcohol, drugs, and driving. You’ll notice that is the biggest category. We tend to 

spend two or three hours, and there is a tendency to want more with that, probably five or 

more.

Driving responsibility. 

Accident protection. This is one I was happy to see that there was at least a need 

to spend a little bit more time on it since we do have a fairly low rate, at least in the State 

of Illinois, in regards to young people wearing safety belts. 

Having a positive attitude. 

Communication techniques, and the whole range of communication techniques. 

Mostly there was one hour spent, and probably need to spend another hour or so, at least 

from the sample of the students’ feelings on this one. 

Fuel-efficient driving. There’s not many programs that get into fuel-efficient 

driving, and we decided to add this as one of our topic area primarily because of the fact 

that gasoline is still pretty high, and it will continue to go up, in my estimation. But you’ll 

notice that the teachers don’t want to spend too much, and the students don’t, either. 

Vehicle ownership responsibilities, and we’re talking about insurance and buying 

a new car and things like that. 

244
And then driving in adverse conditions. Spending probably more time than what 

we are currently doing. 

Some of the things that we hinted upon as I’ve gone through this is that teachers 

who teach in and students who have completed high school driver education want more 

hours devoted to most of the topics covered in the program. Teachers and students really 

want to spend additional hours on the topics that I’ve mentioned here. I’ll let you go 

through those. But to highlight, almost every one I talked about, except for a couple of 

them. But I think you’ll notice that a large number of them relate to the visual skills and 

visual habits and perceptual processes. 

And then both teachers and students want a lot more time spent on alcohol and 

drugs. And then students in particular want more time spent on various topics than 

teachers. 

Some of the key recommendations, and again, these are recommendations that 

we’ve made to the State of Illinois recently, and it’s recommendations that I think can 

pertain to any State or at the national level too. And again, I don’t think this is saying 

anything different than what we’ve said the last couple days, and, except the fact that we 

looked at it based upon the number of hours that were being shown by both students and 

teachers and that we need to spend probably at least 10 hours on the street. 

And I’ve heard suggestions the last couple days up to 50 hours and even more. I 

wouldn’t have a problem with that, either. But I think a lot of that has to do with parent 

involvement, too. But we recommend at least 45 hours for classroom and at least 10 

hours for on-street instruction. 

One of the problems that we started in driver education in 1949, and a couple 

people have talked about, the first driver education conference in 1949 where the 

recommended minimum number of hours of driver education was 30 hours of classroom

and a minimum of six hours of behind-the-wheel. Over the years, the 30 hours minimum,

six hours minimum, have become the minimum, maximum, and everything in between. 

And I think we have to go back and take a look at the fact that this was a minimum

recommendation and not just 30 and just six. 

We also need to consider additional funding. I don’t think that’s something new. 

But we do get fees from a variety of different sources, and I think we need to look at 

doing more of that. 

Some of the things that we had on our survey was an opportunity for teachers and 

students to indicate some other topics, and some of the ones that were listed are cellular 

phones, carjacking prevention, particularly in larger city areas, emergency off-road 

recovery, and standard transmission driving, which we do very little of in the United 

States today. 

Also, we looked at some recommendations pertaining to a lot of the groups that 

have been mentioned not necessarily from a standpoint of just Illinois but that we need to 

245
look at trying to strengthen a program through a lot of key leadership. And I would add 

the National Transportation Safety Board to this, too, if I were doing these 

recommendations today. They were done a couple years ago, so at that time that wasn’t 

the case. 

And I thought also that we needed to take a look at increasing areas being 

covered. And again, as I’ll say and I’ll emphasize again, most of this deals with driving. I 

think the focus for a long time in driver education has been on topics that don’t relate 

directly to driving. And we need to put a focus more on topics in the classroom that 

relates to driving, even though some of these other topics are important, like rules of the 

road and other issues. But the focus should be more on driving. 

I’ll just mention some of the limitations that I feel any time I do any type of 

research. I should probably start out by talking about some of the limitations. You start 

with your limitations, and that’s a good way to do it, too. 

But I think the fact that we have a limit of having just five-plus and not breaking 

it down further. And I think there was some problem with people not knowing that. Is it 

done in the classroom and is it done on the street. And the answer in many cases is, yes. 

How do you break that down? How much time do we spend on street, how much do we 

spend in the classroom situation?

I appreciate your attention, and I enjoyed being here today. Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Presentation by Jean Shope 

DR. MOLLOY: Our final speaker is Dr. Jean Shope. Dr. Shope is Senior 

Research Scientist and Director of Social Behavioral Analysis at the University of 

Michigan Transportation Research Institute, where she’s worked since 1991. She’s also 

on the faculty of the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education in the 

University of Michigan School of Public Health. 

Dr. Shope’s Ph.D. from Wayne State University is in the theoretical and 

behavioral foundations of education. Her research involves the driving behavior of 

adolescents, young adults, and older drivers. Special interests include at-risk drinking and 

drink/driving as well as graduated driver licensing. 

DR. SHOPE: Thank you. I want to thank NTSB for this privileged opportunity 

and awesome challenge to be the last speaker at the end of two very full days. 

I’m not a driver education professional. Although I did help my own three 

children survive that process. I am a health educator and researcher, and my research has 

been originally on alcohol and other substance abuse prevention, school-based by the 

246
way, and that led very logically to an interest in young people’s driving. So I hope I can 

bring a bit of a fresh perspective to what kind of research we need at this point. 

I have a colleague who coauthored this presentation, Ray Bingham, who’s an 

adolescent development expert obviously, one of the kinds of experts we need in this 

area. 

I want to also say that our research support has primarily come from the National 

Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, as 

well as NHTSA for our GDL work and other work with young drivers. 

I did prepare these slides ahead of time, and many of them I’ll be able to gloss 

over because previous speakers covered the topic very nicely. 

It is indeed timely to examine driver education. Many of the reasons have already 

been detailed, but we have more cars, more congestion, and more aggressive driving. We

have cell phones; we have all kinds of electronics coming into vehicles -- you can get 

your fax, your e-mail. Just think about a 16-year-old with all that potential in the car. 

We have more complex driving environment. The roadways and the highways are 

not only congested but they’re getting arranged in all kinds of new ways that some of us 

didn’t grow up driving on. 

The fact that enforcement is not optimal just makes it all too easy for youngsters, 

as well as us to develop bad habits and just keep right on doing them. For young people, 

speed, alcohol, and the use of safety belts are very important risk factors that need to be 

monitored and enforced. So the fact that enforcement doesn’t often happen is something 

to keep in mind. 

The high crash rates I don’t have to repeat again. This is a MAJOR public health 

problem. The deaths, the injuries, the incredible costs just deserve our attention. 

It’s good that GDL has started to show nice reductions in those crash risks, but we 

really need to understand a lot more to reduce the crash risks even further. 

We talked quite a few times in the last two days about what the appropriate 

outcome of driver education should be. Is it learning to drive; is it getting licensed: is it 

reducing crashes; is it reducing violations; is it learning to drive safely? Obviously, the 

outcome needs to be considered for those of evaluation and us that do research. The first 

thing we’ll ask is, “What’s the expected outcome?” for a program we’re trying to 

evaluate. 

One conference that hasn’t been mentioned in the last couple days is the Young 

Drivers Expert Conference in March of ‘02 that Bruce Simons-Morton from the National 

Institute on Child Health and Development pulled together with people from CDC and 

NHTSA. Several of the things you’ve heard here were summarized at that conference and 

published in “Injury Prevention” if you want to take a look at that. Driver education is 

247
insufficient to reduce the initial high crash risk of teens. It’s an important infrastructure; 

and it could be improved and modified to address young driver safety. That statement 

was in Bruce’s (Simons-Morton) introduction to the published conference papers. And 

Allen Robinson was at that conference, very eager to look beyond tradition, the licensing 

age, the way we train drivers, to broaden our driver education view, improve it, and 

change the way we evaluate driver education. 

You’ve heard speakers refer several times to Mayhew & Simpson’s review, also 

from that conference. But, I think it’s important again to emphasize that we need these 

programs to be empirically based and to address critical age- and experience-related 

factors. 

One paper that’s also been mentioned is Vernick’s paper on driver education 

effects, summarized on the slide in three bullet points. You’ve already heard these 

results, but they keep us tuned into what we really need to be focused on. 

Another paper you may not have seen yet is in the “Journal of Safety Research” 

by Hirsch and talks about the mobility/safety tradeoff. He asks some questions we need 

to consider, has a bias toward mobility ignored safety and hindered the driving research 

that we need to do? And he asks also, our parents really aware of the risks, and do they 

really prefer mobility? I think this is a question we need to think about a lot. Or is it 

optimism bias, the one that if I surveyed you all and everyone out there on the street, they 

would all be above average drivers. “Compared to all other drivers, how well do you 

drive?” “I’m above average.” And I suspect people probably think their youngsters are 

also above average. But we need to help them be a lot more realistic on behalf of their 

youngsters health and welfare. 

To use a health education approach to this problem, which is the most complex 

public health problem I can think of, we would be looking at skills, attitude, and 

behavior. We know that knowledge is necessary but not sufficient to affect or change or 

prevent behaviors. It’s really difficult to change behaviors. Allan Williams referred to 

adolescent substance abuse prevention work with a negative take. Some of us have been 

somewhat successful, but it’s really, really, really hard for reasons I’ll get to in the next 

few slides. Driver education happens once, and then you release the kids on their own -- 

the rest of their lives and their driving career with no monitoring and no follow-up. In 

health education approaches we would want to do booster sessions, and monitor, and 

have reminders. There must be some follow-up interaction if we really expect a behavior 

to change. There’s a whole continuum of skills and behaviors here to be affected that 

make it very complex. 

We have to keep in mind all those other factors that have been mentioned in the 

last couple days, the other influences on teens’ behavior. These youngsters are little 

bundles of physical, and cognitive, and emotional development going on. Wonderful 

brain research is coming out teens’ brains aren’t even developed fully yet. So having 

them assume that because they live in the U.S. they ought to have a car because that’s our 

culture is a really awesome thing to think about. They grow up, of course, mimicking 

their parents and the other drivers on the road. When you stop and think about the culture 

248
and the examples that we’re all setting, why should we expect them to behave 

particularly safely and differently from us. 

Teens also have a social context. Only an adolescent has such a social context 

they have friends and peers and dates and issues and popularity and sports and many 

other things going on in their lives, let alone in their cars, that are going to influence what 

they’re doing behind the wheel. 

Here’s part of a figure that I showed at the Young Driver conference. Some of 

these factors affecting crashes, and this is just a framework of them, are influenced by 

GDL. You can see that we use age, and we try to build in experience. The driving 

environment can be restricted, as well as night driving and transporting passengers. 

We’re trying to get more of those restrictions transporting. The driving behaviors are the 

obvious ones: drinking, speeding, and unsafe maneuvers. 

My role at that conference was to discuss a paper by Allan Williams and Sue 

Ferguson, and I thought that we should think about all the other things going on that are 

influencing the crash risk of a young driver. And as we’ve said before, there’s a whole 

social environment. To what extent have parents been involved all along in the child’s 

reading, in their selection of friends, in their time to be home at night? All that parental 

monitoring buildup to suddenly, “What are we going to do about driving?” 

The parents’, the siblings’, the peers’ norms and behavior are a big influence on 

these young people. And what’s going on in the community. Does the community really 

care about their kids; do they want them to stay safe; are they enforcing the restrictions 

from GDL or the safety belt laws that they ought to be? Even the media play their part in 

setting norms and expectations that influence these kids. 

The driving behaviors are pretty much the same in this figure, and the driving 

environment, but look at the driver characteristics. We had age and sex before, but 

personality is an important factor and you basically can’t change people’s personality. So 

teens come into driver education and into their driving career with that personality. Some

have a risk-taking propensity. I don’t think very many young people really are going out 

deliberately taking risks with their car or their parent’s car, or wanting to crash. But they 

may use bad judgment that puts them in a very risky situation or causes them to do risky 

behaviors. 

Knowledge and competence; probably driver education does affect those. We’ve 

seen that. But it could affect experience, if we added more experience. It could affect 

attitudes, depending on the kinds of content and teaching methods. And it certainly could 

affect risk perception. We can see that in the British studies of hazard perception that can 

be improved by training. But all those other factors certainly give driver education some

assurance that just because it hasn’t reduced crashes, it’s not all their fault. 

There are several approaches we could take at this point. And I just took one. 

Larry Green and his Health Education Planning Model may be familiar to some of you. 

But it takes you through a process of developing an educational diagnosis before you 

249
start treating, and it can guide this process. It gives you a structure for applying some of 

the behavioral theories that we have, so that the most appropriate interventions can be 

identified and implemented. 

You’d start with a social epidemiological diagnosis, which is kind of what we’ve 

been doing. We know the numbers; the statistics are terrible. We know some of the 

influences. That’s kind of where we are now. We need to move on to the behavioral and 

environmental issues that contribute to the problem and then think about predisposing 

factors, reinforcing factors, enabling factors. What should be intervened upon in our 

approach to this complex system, and then what administrative and policy interventions 

could also be adapted and enhanced in addition to what we already have?

The symposium on GDL has been mentioned. It was held last November, and 

here’s the citation if you want to look at the papers that were included. I’ve summarized a 

few of the points made that are relevant to the topic of this forum. Certainly, we have 

good scientific evidence that crashes and injuries are reduced under GDL. We also know 

that public acceptance is high, which we weren’t sure of earlier. We’ve learned that the 

extended learner phase of driving is very critical, and that if you reduce the learner phase 

length just because someone’s gone through driver education that will probably increase 

crashes. 

Some future research issues were also addressed very nicely in the last papers in 

this GDL issue. We need to look more at how to structure the learner phase how to 

integrate driver education into GDL, and then particularly, what is learned and how is it 

learned in the learner phase; how does the novice driver learn? Several folks over the last 

couple days have mentioned that we know how to do that research but we probably need 

to do a little more of it. Also, the highly recommended, seldom implemented, two-phase 

driver education needs to be evaluated. And since I’m in Michigan, we’re going to try to 

do that soon. 

Clearly, we need a fresh look at all this, and I think this forum has given us a nice 

chance to do that. I think about the kinds of training that other roles in our society would 

require where someone would have the potential to injure or kill someone, a physician, 

and a nurse, here we give these teenagers a powerful vehicle and the keys to it! Although 

they don’t often hurt other people, they really could and do sometimes. We need to really 

think about that potential and plan the right approach to driver education and training, 

instead of just going along with the common practice that we’ve gotten used to. 

We need to understand more about the driving task before we work on driver 

education. Sometimes I’d like to create that small town effect that lets a youngster know 

that there are people who care about them, that there are people that are watching them. I 

didn’t mind mentioning to one of my son’s friends, “Oh, I saw you driving on Stadium

and Main the other day.” It doesn’t hurt him to know that people are watching, people 

who know him, who know his parents. 

My husband told me when he was learning to drive in a small town outside 

Princeton, New Jersey, he had a real cool car and he was getting into it over the first few 

250
months. He was stopped by the police officer in this little town. And he thought, “Oh, 

what’d I do? What’d I do?” And the officer said, “I’ve been watching you for a few 

months. You keep that up and you will get a ticket.” My husband thought that was very 

effective. That was all it took for him to stop fooling around. Achieving that effect might 

be something to think about. The down side, as I hear in these little rural towns, is that 

everybody knows everybody and they don’t really want to enforce some of the things that 

they should be. 

Don’t forget public transportation. I know kids don’t like to ride in the school bus 

or the city bus, but it really is safer, and if it’s what a particular youngster should be 

doing a little longer before driving, we could try to make that more cool. Some towns let 

you put your bike on the bus. It just shouldn’t be ignored as a possibility. 

We’ve got this big complex picture, and driver education is part of it. I did also 

like the puzzle analogy presented earlier, which lets us start thinking about what the 

pieces are and how to put them together. So we need to figure out where driver education 

should make its contribution. What is its appropriate purpose; and, how do we achieve 

that. 

The issue of parental involvement is really, really big. Bruce Simons-Morton has 

developed a program to work with parents pre-licensing. We’re going to be evaluating 

that in Michigan within our driver education and GDL program. I think a lot of parents 

don’t really realize the risk that their kids are exposed to. They think the big risk is drugs, 

and it’s not. It’s cars. There’s a lot we need to do to help them understand the risk. We

pick up the paper every day and we discover risks. “If you’re this or that, you’re two 

times more likely to get this kind of cancer or that kind of heart disease.” We could 

probably do a lot to help parents understand Ken’s crash risk if we just put it in those 

kinds of terms. The risks are increased with factors that we clearly know about (such as 

age and gender). 

And parents are in charge more than they realize. They need some support. Many 

of them think, “Oh my goodness, it’s all peers now; I’m out of it.” We have plenty of 

research evidence from teens that they really, really care about what their parents think. 

They do listen and pay attention, and it does affect their behavior. 

So parents need to kind of feel a little bit empowered and remember that it’s 

probably their car. They have the keys. It’s their child who they taught to walk and ride a 

bike and cross streets. And here we have the most dangerous thing of all, the number one 

killer of teens, and parents need to remember that they are in charge. 

In Michigan, all parents have to do is call up and say, “I’d like my child to stay at 

GDL Level 2; please don’t graduate him, I don’t think he’s ready. Who’s in a better 

position to decide if this child is ready to go to the next level of driving?” 

We need to evaluate new programs, and parts of programs before they’re 

implemented. Allan Williams, I think, said it three or four or five times a while ago. 

251
Clearly, we need to evaluate these programs. So a big change is needed and it’s needed 

around the culture of teen driving, and I think we can change it. 

I started to pull together some research questions, and I suspect if we got a group 

of us brainstorming there would be many more. But here’s a start, some ideas. 

Around crash risk, we need to know what driving safely really means. As 

someone else put it, what should the final product of driver education look like? What is 

it that causes these risky behaviors? We talked about inexperience, poor judgment, 

maturity, risk-taking or just risky behavior, and the question: how do age and 

inexperience interact. A few studies have looked at that. There’s probably more we can 

do. 

I’ve always wanted to do a study looking back at every teen crash that took place. 

What exactly was going on? Were you talking? Were you playing music? Were you 

passing big drinks of Coke around the car? What was going on in the car? With that we 

could have a better sense of what factors precede a crash. 

Vehicle selection was mentioned once. That’s probably very important to protect 

teens, and we haven’t done much with it. 

Someone asked the question about crashes during the learner phase, the practice 

phase. Apparently, we don’t have a good enough answer to that question yet. 

And we also think about how to convey teen crash risk to parents and to others. 

There are a lot of different State policies. We may have an opportunity to 

compare some of them. What happens when you require driver education for teen 

licensing? What happens if you permit earlier license for completing driver education, or 

if you lower insurance for driver education? How do these policies and the outcomes 

compare? 

There’s a whole host of questions about learning to drive that need some research. 

What are the optimal approaches? We’ve heard many. Some of them have been studied; 

some have yet to be studied. 

I’m also interested in what goes on in families while the teen is learning to drive. 

How does each parent manage the practice driving? Should there be a common 

supervised practice approach? We’re seeing more and more parent materials come along, 

which is great because the parents were desperate for those. But is there a good optimal 

approach all should be using? How can we help those parents?

How should driver education link best with GDL? I think one wonderful thing is 

that GDL has at least spread out the moment a teen gets licensed to drive independently. 

Where I lived teens used to take a day off school to go to the motor vehicle office to get 

their driver’s license on their 16th birthday. When we looked at our data in a longitudinal 

study, many teens were licensed right on their birthday. That date of license has spread 

252
out a lot more now, with more hurdles to be crossed before licensing, and that’s good. 

That’s taken a little bit of rush to license the old pattern away. 

How could driver education link better with parents? We’ve talked about that a 

lot, and I think parents should be given some help. The driver education folks, when 

they’re watching a teen drive, have a good sense of what more needs to be worked on. If 

that knowledge was handed off to the parent, as the young woman said earlier today, that 

would be a very useful thing for the parent to know-exactly what they should be working 

on. 

Parents can monitor, and they can enforce. Very few GDL restrictions are 

enforced by law officers. It’s really up to the parents to be sure teens are home by the 

night restriction hour. I think they’re glad to have the law behind them, but it’s the 

parents that need to be sure it happens. 

And finally, we have quite a few research questions about driver education and 

the training involved. 

What is going on? We heard about Illinois. I know North Carolina’s done a 

survey and can more or less say what’s going on in their State, but what do we know 

about existing practice? What performance standards are being used; what are successful 

techniques; what should be the sequence, the length, the timing, the information, the 

skills, the segments? Should we be using a more individualized approach, something 

competency-based, or more flexible? People really vary a lot in their abilities, and teens 

perhaps the most of any age group. 

Another research question involves the second stage of driver education. 

Michigan requires it just before independent driving. It’s short and I think probably we 

haven’t gotten all the kinks out yet. It would be good to revisit the second, or third stage. 

Or, think about a better issue of a sequence of training or timing. Do we need more 

checkpoints for competency along the way?

And finally, there is the whole issue of the background training, monitoring, and 

updating of teachers. That’s come up a lot and is an important, unanswered question. 

How do we make driver education empirically-based. How do we address the critical 

age-experience question? 

One thought that people have been kind of flirting with in several of the 

presentations is expanding driver education to include other lifestyle factors, and 

decision-making. Michigan is kind of unique. I’ve been in school health education for a 

while as well, and we have something called the Michigan Model for Comprehensive 

School Health Education, K through 12. It resulted from seven different State agencies 

realizing that everybody was wanting isolated bits of students time for kidney education, 

for blood pressure education, for heart, et cetera. They got together and developed a 

comprehensive sequential curriculum in a loose-leaf notebook (so it could be easily 

updated), and it is an implemented K through 12. Some students actually received high 

school driver education as part of their high school semester of health education. That’s a 

253
nice platform because you’re already talking about substance use; you’re already talking 

about healthy decisions to protect your body the best you can. So that’s something we 

could think about. I honestly don’t know if that would be a good approach, but we might 

consider it. The hierarchical model that Dr. Siegrist mentioned with self-assessment skills 

is also related to that. These are higher order skills that certainly need to be taught at 

some point and do relate to driving. 

So where are we; what do we recommend; where do we go from here? I’m glad 

I’m not the only one making recommendations. NTSB will come up with 

recommendations, but I’ll be happy to mention a few, too. 

We need to flesh out and prioritize the research agenda. There are all kinds of 

experts in all the pieces of this comprehensive context. We need to create awareness of 

the problem, as several people have said, and some suggestions for solutions. We

probably need an advocacy group. MADD is a great example for the areas they work in, 

and I’m not sure I’m hearing a lot from the traffic safety community. Maybe we need to 

think about how to build that piece in. 

We need to clarify and refine the research questions, and add to the ones I’ve 

proposed here. We need to obtain funding to carry out the research. That’s going to be 

hard. Right now to get funding to study driving, we can go to NHTSA, and we can go to 

CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. NIH doesn’t institute that 

study driving. You’d think for the size of this public health problem, it wouldn’t be quite 

so hard to get funding. Corporations are helping. But clearly, we don’t have the funding 

issue completely solved yet. 

We’ll also need to modify policies as we obtain the research findings and modify 

driver education to link better with GDL and parents. 

So that’s a start. It’s a big, big task, but I think and I know you all think, from

talking to you, that our young people are well worth it. 

Thank you. 

(Applause) 

Question and Answer Session 

DR. MOLLOY: I would like to apologize for Dr. Kline, who had a flight to catch. 

So he will be unable to answer any questions regarding his research. 

If you do have any questions about his research, I believe there’s someone in the 

audience who is continuing that program and they might be able to help you. 

254
Mr. Aponso, would you expect the results of your study on simulators to 

generalize to other simulators, such as the ones we have outside? And why?

MR. APONSO: Sure, I don’t see why not. What we are trying to focus on is 

something else. The simulator platform we’re using is just that, a platform. 

I think what’s critical here is to find out how best to integrate it because it’s a cost 

benefit issue. If you want the simulator to attack all the problems, from are they using the 

turn indicators right, are they scanning right, to how good is their judgment or perception 

of risk, cognition, if you want to cover all those, then the fidelity of the simulator and all 

the different things it’s got to do increased. And as you build a lot of functionality, the 

cost goes up as well. 

My personal opinion on it is kind of the way the flight simulator industry has 

progressed. It started off with very expensive full-flight simulators, and more and more 

simple computer-based trainers are being used per task to train on particular areas. 

Now, the tasks are different. These are more procedural tasks, but yet I think that 

the same model can be applied here. So, yes, it’s more the content that you want to 

deliver that is important. 

DR. MOLLOY: Dr. Ritzel, you mentioned that you had made recommendations 

to the State of Illinois regarding the kind of shared opinion by both educators and 

students for increased education. How have those recommendations been responded to?

DR. RITZEL: Not much at all, which is not necessarily atypical. I think it’s 

important to note that we have had budget problems, like many other States in recent 

years, and we went from maybe 30 years ago having eight people working full-time in 

driver education at the State level to, currently, nobody. Our most recent person retired, 

and so there’s not that kind of leadership that is actually involved in it. Probably our main 

leadership right now in Illinois is probably through the Illinois Secretary of State’s 

Office, who is providing us most of our interest and working with schools to generate. 

But it takes a legislative process, which has been proposed to a couple of the 

important committees in regards to increasing the amount of time that we spend 

particularly with behind-the-wheel instruction. I think we’ve got a history of almost 60 

years of having one level, and it’s going to have to take some real sound research to show 

that increasing the number of hours is going to help a young person how to drive. Until 

we do that, I don’t think we’re going to have much changes made. 

DR. MOLLOY: Another question for Dr. Ritzel. Can you provide information on 

the driver’s education listserv? 

DR. RITZEL: Besides having a big virus and a few other things attack it in more 

recent months -- yes. The driver education listserv is a listserv that was started 

approximately five years ago as a result of interest. I’ve helped develop four of them over 

the years, and there was an interest from the driver education community to have a way 

255
that they can ask questions and respond to each other in a very timely and quick fashion. 

And the driver education listserv was set up for that purpose. 

And we have periods of time where the activity is pretty good, and other periods 

of time where there’s not much activity. But I think one of the big things that we have 

had is initially we promoted it a lot and there was a lot of promotion on it, but in more 

recent times there’s not been as much. 

I think we find too that listservs don’t function as much as they did at one time. I 

think four or five years ago there was a greater interest. 

But if anybody’s interested in subscribing to it, there’s been a couple times when 

the website for the ADTSEA was given. If you go to the ADTSEA website, you can 

subscribe to it through that way. The other way is to e-mail a message to DE-L@siu.edu. 

And that will permit you to subscribe to it if you provide the appropriate information. 

Also, if you type in safety@siu.edu, I will respond. That’s one of my e-mail addresses, 

and I will tell you what to do. 

DR. MOLLOY: This is a question for any panelist. If you could design and 

conduct any research project you wanted and have all the funds you needed provided, 

what project would that be?

DR. SHOPE: Oh dear. 

(Laughter) 

DR. SHOPE: Well, I’d need at least overnight to think it through, but I probably 

have a drawer full of ideas. And of course, it would be very comprehensive, so it would 

have multiple stages. 

From the very basic, what’s this learner driver going through with their family 

and their teachers trying to learn to help with interventions -- to assessing the real 

outcomes, the crash outcomes, there’s whole range of ideas and stages. I’d like more time 

to design the project! What about you?

DR. RITZEL: I think if I had that opportunity, what I would look at, and I 

appreciate Jean (Shope) for reminding me of something I’ve believed in and worked in a 

long time, and that’s the aspect of looking at driver education not just being a part in 

relation to a graduated driver’s license but being a comprehensive traffic safety program

that starts when the child is born until they get into adulthood and probably going on with 

that. 

Because I think we’ve put too much on driver education at one level at one time 

and really haven’t built upon the strengths that we could have by having a very defined, a 

very exact and by the way, we do use the Michigan model in our county in Illinois in the 

schools. 

256
And I think something like that is what I would like to spend more time 

researching if I had the money to actually take a look at a broad-based traffic safety 

program and where driver education is a part of that. So that we can really focus upon in 

the high school driver education part among those tasks that are important to driving. 

And we can deal with not having to teach sign signals, roadway markings, and the rules 

of the road and all the other issues that really can be taught a lot earlier, and we focus 

upon driving an automobile or driving a vehicle and focus upon that. 

MR. APONSO: I’d like to build the most expensive simulator you could buy. No. 

(Laughter) 

MR. APONSO: Seriously, I think -- there’s one in Iowa. 

(Laughter) 

MR. APONSO: I think one place it could be used where there’s a little bit of talk 

early on incorporating new technologies. And one area that it could be used for is to look 

at new technologies, simulation being one of them, and on-board data recording being 

another. 

But you know, like a couple of the previous panelists said, to figure out which 

ones are effective, you need to do long-term studies, look at records and effectiveness 

studies. So that requires a lot of funding, but it’s I think what I’m trying to say here is, 

when using any new technology, the trick, I think, is to try and find out how best it fits 

and try to pick out the areas where driving simulation would work best, like I said 

previously, without just trying to build a simulator and have it do everything a car would 

do, try to focus on those tasks that you’re trying to teach in terms of behaviors. So that’s 

what I would take a look at. 

DR. MOLLOY: Have any of you actually seen or done any research that looks at 

the textbooks used by driver education programs? And how effective are the school 

textbooks when teaching driver’s education?

DR. RITZEL: Is there an answer to that question? Yeah, we’re looking at a 

textbook at 6:30 this evening, matter of fact. 

I think one of the challenges that textbooks have is the fact that they have to 

develop something that’s appropriate for 50 States and other parts of the world, too. And 

it becomes a challenge to be able to include things that are somewhat consistent now. If 

you’re dealing with the basic tasks of driving and things like that, they are what they are 

and that doesn’t need to change. But when you get into other issues, it becomes a lot 

more difficult. 

My research in regards to looking at driver education textbooks actually occurred 

about 30 years ago. And there have been a lot of changes made since then. I think there 

have been a lot of good things that have developed over those years in regards to 

257
readability and usability and practicality and a lot of those other issues, and I think that 

will continue to happen. 

I think as we develop newer techniques of approaching instruction, the textbook 

may not be an item that’s used as much as we have in the past because of the fact that 

we’ve got new media and new forms of instruction that will probably replace part of the 

textbook. But I think what I see right now, and I’ve looked at all the textbooks in recent 

months again, I think they’re appropriate for what they’re doing right now. 

DR. MOLLOY: This is for Dr. Shope. What are the necessary steps to move 

forward on a research agenda for driver education and training, and how do we do this?

DR. SHOPE: We’d need a lot of help. I mentioned some of the steps. I think we 

have to get a good group of folks together to do some brainstorming. Probably, that 

would take some funding and some good organization and preparation (a subcommittee 

doing the planning to organize topics) to make the brain storming really come out with a 

useful product. It would be helpful to have some papers prepared ahead of time. 

I’ve been involved in a couple similar efforts and they have been quite successful. 

You get people away from their office and their phones, and focus for a couple days, do 

some breakout sessions and some prioritizing, and they can come up with a research 

agenda that’s prioritized based on their collective wisdom: what should we do first, 

second, and third. And then something has to happen with it afterward. 

We’ve done it with TRB workshops and some of the others that have been pulled 

together on a special topic. So that might be a good next step. 

DR. MOLLOY: Thank you all very much. 

258
Appendix A 

Panelists

Dr. Jim Nichols 

2712 Abbey Oak Dr. 

Vienna, VA 22182 

Dr. Allen Robinson 

CEO 

ADTSEA 

Director, Highway Safety Center, IUP 

629 Fisher Avenue 

Indiana, Pennsylvania 15705 

Sean McLaurin 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

400 Seventh Street, SW

Washington, DC 20590 

Dr. Stefan Siegrist 

Swiss Council for Injury Prevention bfu 

CH-3001 Bern Switzerland 

Larry Lonero 

North Port Associates 

3625 Alnwick Hill Road 

RR-1 

Baltimore, Ontario K0K1C0 Canada 

Elizabeth Weaver 

Idaho Department of Education 

P.O. Box 83720 

Boise, Idaho 83720-0027 

Greg Lantzy 

Michigan Department of Education 

P.O. Box 30008 

259 Part 5
608 West Allegan 

Lansing, Michigan 48909 

David Huff 

Montana Office of Public Instruction 

P.O. Box 202501 

Helena, Montana 59602 

John Harvey 

Program Manager, Driver Education 

Oregon Department of Transportation, Transportation Safety Division 

235 Union Street, NE 

Salem, Oregon 97301-1054 

Barry Ford 

Vermont Department of Education 

120 State Street 

Montpelier, Vermont 05620 

Debbie Cottonware 

P.O. Box 1024 

Havre, Montana 59501 

Steve Cebulka 

William Penn High School 

713 Basin Road 

New Castle, Delaware 19720 

Kayla Craddick 

16618 CR 2220 

Lubbock, Texas 79423 

Brad Wells 

721 Q Hall 

Provo, Utah 84604 

Dr. Randy Thiel 

President 

American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association 

2711 North 26th Street 

Sheboygan, Wisconsin 53083 

D. Keith Russell 

Driving School Association of the Americas 

639 Eastern Boulevard 

Suite C 

260
Clarksville, Indiana 47129 

Wayne Tully 

National Driver Training Institute 

4432 Austin Bluffs Parkway 

Colorado Springs, Colorado 80918 

Frederik Mottola 

Executive Director 

National Institute of Driver Behavior 

P.O. Box 98 

Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 

Dr. Richard Harkness 

Chief Executive Officer 

ADEPT Driver, Inc. 

7311 Greenhaven Drive 

Suite 165 

Sacramento, California 95831 

Troy Costales 

Administrator 

Oregon State Department of Transportation 

235 Union Street, NE 

Salem, Oregon 97301-1054 

Charles Butler 

Director, Traffic Safety Sales and Product Development 

American Automobile Association 

1000 AAA Drive - MS 33 

Heathrow, Florida 32746 

Dr. Allan Williams

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

1005 N. Glebe Road 

Suite 800 

Arlington, Virginia 22201 

Chuck Hurley 

National Safety Council 

1025 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 1200 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Peter Kissinger 

Foundation President and CEO 

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety 

261
607 14th Street, NW

Suite 201 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dr. Gerald Donaldson 

Senior Researcher 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

750 First Street, NE 

Suite 901 

Washington, DC 20002 

Dr. Terry Kline 

Eastern Kentucky University Traffic Safety Center 

1216 Parkview Way 

Richmond, Kentucky 40475 

Bimal Aponso 

Systems Technology, Inc. 

13766 South Hawthorne Boulevard 

Hawthorne, California 90250-7083 

Dr. Dale Ritzel 

Safety Center 

Southern Illinois University 

Carbondale, Illinois 62901-6731 

Dr. Jean Shope 

University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute 

2901 Baxter 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 

262
Appendix B 

NTSB Staff 

Jennifer Bishop 

Senior Project Manager 

Office of Highway Safety 

490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20594 

Peter Kotowski 

Senior Motor Carrier Investigator 

Office of Highway Safety 

2001 Route 46, Suite 504 

Parsippany, New Jersey 07054 

Dr. Rafael Marshall 

Senior Project Manager 

Office of Highway Safety 

490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20594 

Dr. Robert Molloy 

Transportation Research Analyst 

Office of Research and Engineering 

490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20594 

Mr. Kevin Quinlan 

Division Chief 

Office of Safety Recommendations and Accomplishments 

490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

Washington, DC 20594 

Dr. Paula Sind-Prunier 

Senior Human Performance Investigator 

Office of Highway Safety 

490 L’Enfant Plaza, SW

263 Part 5
Washington, DC 20594 

Mr. Gary Van Etten 

Investigator-in-Charge 

Office of Highway Safety 

1515 W. 190th Street, Suite 555 

Gardena, California 90248 

264
Acronyms and Abbreviations 

ADEPT - Advanced Driver Education Products and Training 

AAMVA - American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators 

AAA - American Automobile Association 

ADTSEA - American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association 

ABS - antilock braking systems 

ASSSDE - Association of State Supervisors of Safety and Driver Education 

ACTS - Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety 

ASF - Automotive Safety Foundation 

CAA - Canadian Automobile Association 

CDC - Centers for Disease Control 

CEO - chief executive officer 

CDL - commercial driver's license 

DARPA - Defense Advanced Research Project Agency 

DMV - Department of Motor Vehicles 

DPS - Department of Public Safety 

DSAO - Driving School Association of Ontario 

DSAA - Driving School Association of the Americas 

DUI - driving under the influence 

ESC - electronic stability control 

EVOC - Emergency Vehicle Operators Course 

EU - European Union 

GM - General Motors Corporation 

GHSA - Governors’ Highway Safety Association 

GDL - graduated driver's license 

HSDE - high school driver education 

IUP - Indiana University of Pennsylvania 

IIHS - Insurance Institute for Highway Safety 

LOS - line of sight 

LOS-POT - line of sight, path of travel 

MPI - Manitoba Public Insurance 

MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving 

NBA - National Basketball Association 

NCSE - National Commission for Safety Education 

NHTSA - National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NIDB - National Institute for Driver Behavior 

NIH - National Institutes of Health 

NSC - National Safety Council 

NSSP - National Student Safety Program 

NTSB - National Transportation Safety Board 

NETS - Network of Employees for Traffic Safety 

265 Part 5
NYU - New York University 

ODOT - Oregon Department of Transportation 

PSU - Pennsylvania State University 

PDL - pre-driver licensing 

R&D - research and development 

SPC - safe performance criteria 

SUV - sport utility vehicle 

SADD - Students Against Drunk Driving 

TEA - Texas Education Agency 

TTI - Texas Transportation Institute 

TIRF - Traffic Injury Research Foundation 

TSD - Transportation Safety Division 

YMCA - Young Men’s Christian Association 

266