Teen Driver Safety: Additional Research Could Help States Strengthen Graduated Driver Licensing Systems
Published: 2010-05-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Teen drivers ages 16 to 20 have the highest fatality rate of any age group in the United States. As a result, states have increasingly adopted laws to limit teen driving exposure, such as Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) systems, which consist of three stages: a learner's permit allowing driving only under supervision; intermediate licensure allowing unsupervised driving with restrictions; and full licensure. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), within the Department of Transportation (DOT), supports state teen driver safety programs by researching teen driver safety issues, working to limit teens' access to alcohol, promoting seat belt use, and encouraging states to implement GDL systems. This requested report identifies (1) key GDL system requirements and the extent to which state programs include these requirements, and (2) challenges states face to improve teen driver safety and how states and NHTSA have addressed the challenges. GAO examined state GDL systems, visited six states, and interviewed federal and state traffic safety officials and other experts.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Key requirements of a GDL system, according to traffic safety experts GAO interviewed, include a minimum entry age, a learner's permit phase that includes supervised driving, and restrictions on nighttime driving and driving with teen passengers. Additional key requirements sometimes addressed as part of a GDL system include seat belt use, bans on using electronic devices such as using cell phones while driving, driver education, and parental involvement. Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have a three-stage GDL system and most state systems include key requirements. For example, all states, including the District of Columbia, have a minimum entry age and learner's permit stage, 49 have nighttime driving restrictions, and 43 have passenger restrictions. However, specific provisions vary. For example, nighttime driving restrictions vary from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. in certain states to 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. in others. While research shows that GDL systems are associated with improved teen driver safety, additional research on specific requirements, such as minimum entry age, the learner's permit phase, nighttime driving and passenger restrictions, bans on electronic devices, drivers' education, and parental involvement could help state officials determine optimum provisions to strengthen their GDL systems. For example, limited research is available to indicate optimal times to limit teen driving at night or the effect of electronic device bans on teen drivers. In addition to limited research, officials identified several challenges to improving state teen driver safety programs, such as difficulty in enacting and enforcing teen driver safety laws, limited resources to implement a teen driver safety program, limited access to standardized driver education, and difficulties involving parents as their teens learn to drive, among others. For example, enacting teen driver laws can be challenging because some groups, including legislators, believe these laws infringe on an individual's personal freedom. Officials have identified a number of strategies to address these challenges. For example, several states created a commission or task force to rally public support for new teen driver laws. Strategies to address other challenges included implementing enforcement checkpoints targeting teen drivers, seeking funding from private companies, developing driver education standards, and encouraging parent participation in teen driver programs. NHTSA also helps states address these challenges in several ways, including providing information on its Web site, publishing an annual guidebook on effective traffic safety countermeasures for major highway safety problem areas, including young drivers, and regular contact with state officials.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Teen drivers ages 16 to 20 years have the highest fatal crash rate of any  age group in the United States. In 2008, there were over 5,700 fatal motor  vehicle crashes, resulting in nearly 6,300 fatalities, in which teen drivers  were involved. Several factors such as inexperience and immaturity may  be associated with teen risk-taking behaviors—such as alcohol  consumption, distraction, speeding, and driving without a seat belt—and  may increase crash risk for teens.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), within the  U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), conducts research on teen  driver safety issues, develops and demonstrates program strategies,  develops targeted media messages for teens and parents of teen drivers,  and provides grants to states that can be used to fund teen driver safety  initiatives. There is no federal grant program specific to teens, however,  and no federal law governs state teen driver safety programs. States have  adopted a variety of strategies to address teen driver safety including  passing Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) laws aimed at limiting teen  driving exposure to high-risk driving conditions. Research has shown that  GDL systems are associated with reduced teen driver fatalities. These  systems typically define requirements (based on state GDL laws) for three  stages of teen driving: a learner’s permit, intermediate licensure, and full  licensure. In response to your interest in the safety of teen drivers, this  report provides information on (1) the key requirements included in a GDL  system and the extent to which state programs include these  requirements, and (2) challenges that states have faced in improving teen  driver safety and how NHTSA and the states have addressed these  challenges.
To identify key requirements of a GDL system and the extent to which  state programs include these requirements, we reviewed  recommendations on specific requirements that should be included in a  GDL system, including those from NHTSA, the AAA Foundation for Traffic  Safety, and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). We also  reviewed and verified IIHS’s listing of state GDL systems identifying the  specific requirements for each state. In addition, we interviewed federal  officials and academic researchers and reviewed guidance and research  from NHTSA and other transportation associations, which we identified  based on certain selection criteria, including studies authored or provided  to us by experts or organizations we interviewed and other studies  published in the last 10 years. To obtain state and local perspectives on  key requirements for GDL systems, we interviewed selected state and  local transportation officials and representatives from traffic safety  organizations in six states: Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey,  North Dakota, and Oregon. We selected these states based on a range of  factors, including IIHS’s overall rating of states’ GDL systems, fatality rates  involving young drivers as well as fatalities in rural versus urban areas,  suggestions from NHTSA and association representatives, and geographic  dispersion. Since we used a nongeneralizable sampling approach, the  results of these interviews cannot be used to make inferences about all  states. To determine challenges states have faced in improving teen driver  safety, we interviewed state and local officials in the six states we visited,  NHTSA officials, and representatives of various transportation and safety  associations. We systematically analyzed information from these site visits  and other interviews to identify challenges that affected states’ ability to  improve teen driver safety programs, as well as strategies to address these  challenges. We found fatality rate and population data—obtained from  NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the Census Bureau— presented as background material for this report to be sufficiently reliable  for our purposes. We conducted this performance audit from June 2009 to  May 2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives. (For a detailed description  of our methodology, see app. I).
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Teens have the highest per-person rate of drivers involved in fatal  crashes—27.2 drivers per 100,000 people in 2008, the most current year for  which data were available (see fig. 1). Lack of driving experience and  immaturity may contribute to higher crash rates for teens. NHTSA and the  Transportation Research Board (TRB) have reported that research on  adolescent development suggests key areas of the brain involved in  decision-making do not fully develop until the mid-20s. Driving  inexperience and immaturity can be associated with risk-taking behaviors  related to alcohol consumption, driving without a seat belt, driving at  night, and distractions such as other passengers and electronic devices  (e.g., cell phones). For example, of those whose restraint use was known,  55 percent of 16-to-20-year-olds killed in crashes were unrestrained in  2008, compared to 50 percent for ages 21 and above. IIHS also reported  that, in 2008, 20 percent of teen crash deaths occurred between the hours  of 9 p.m. and midnight, and 63 percent of teen passenger deaths occurred  in vehicles driven by another teen. In addition, NHTSA has reported that  teens used hand-held cell phones and manipulated other hand-held  devices, such as video games, while driving at a greater rate than other age  groups and that use of these devices while driving may pose a greater risk  to teens due to their relative lack of driving experience.
Fatalities due to motor vehicle crashes have decreased in recent years,  especially for teen drivers. While the number of fatalities resulting from  crashes for all drivers decreased by 10.2 percent (from 41,501 to 37,261)  from 1998 to 2008, the number of fatalities resulting from crashes for  drivers ages 16 to 20 decreased by 28.9 percent (from 8,585 to 6,289)  during that same time period (see fig. 2).
One factor that may have contributed to the decline in teen fatalities  during this time is state adoption of GDL laws, which are designed to give  new drivers experience under low-risk conditions. Florida was the first  state to implement GDL legislation in 1996, and a majority of states had  implemented a GDL system by 2000. GDL systems typically consist of  three stages: learner’s permit, which allows driving only under  supervision; intermediate licensure, which allows unsupervised driving  under certain restrictions; and full licensure. GDL systems can involve  several requirements including a minimum number of supervised practice  hours, nighttime and passenger restrictions, bans on electronic devices  such as cell phones, and driver education courses. Research, including  studies by IIHS and the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, has shown  GDL systems to be associated with significantly lower teen driver fatality  rates. For example, an AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study that  analyzed fatal crashes of 16-year-old drivers in 43 states before and after  GDL implementation indicated an 11 percent reduction in fatal crash  involvement in 28 states with a three-stage GDL system.
While states are responsible for implementing teen driver safety programs,  NHTSA focuses its efforts on three priorities: (1) limiting teen access to  alcohol, (2) promoting seat belt use, and (3) supporting state  implementation of GDL systems. As part of this approach, NHTSA  focuses efforts to reduce traffic-related injuries and fatalities among teen  drivers by promoting research, collecting and analyzing teen drive r data,  developing targeted media campaigns to encourage safe behavior among  teens, and conducting pilot projects. Recent pilot projects related to teen  driver safety include high-visibility enforcement campaigns on teen seat  belt use and access to alcohol as well as projects on driver education and  advanced driver training. NHTSA also recommends certain requirements  of a GDL system such as a minimum entry age of 16 and a 6-month  learner’s permit stage with 30 to 50 hours of required supervised driving  (see app. II for a comprehensive list of GDL requirements recommended  by NHTSA and others), and develops guidance on ways to improve teen  driver safety, such as Countermeasures That Work science-based strategies for major highway safety problem areas—and  efforts to develop training, curriculum, and administrative standards for  driver education.
Developed with the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA), this publication  describes current initiatives in areas of communication and outreach, licensing, and law  enforcement—and the associated effectiveness, use, cost, and time required for state  implementation. GHSA is a nonprofit association representing state highway safety offices  and promotes the development of policy and programs to improve traffic safety. U.S.  Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.  Countermeasures That Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State  Highway Safety Offices, Fifth Edition. DOT HS 811 258. Washington, D.C., 2010. teen drivers or governs state teen driver safety programs, Congress is  considering several bills that address teen driver safety issues. Federal  funding for transportation safety programs—including funding that could  be used to address teen driver safety—was authorized to states under the  Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy  for Users (SAFETEA-LU) from 2005 to 2009. Congress is considering the  reauthorization of the surface transportation program, and several bills  that address teen driver safety issues have been proposed, some of which  target teen drivers. For example, two bills would encourage states to  adopt a GDL system that meets certain minimum requirements, several  bills would prohibit the use of communication devices while driving and  one bill would establish a standard driver education curriculum for  states.
section_title: Most State GDL Systems Include Key Requirements, but Specific Provisions Vary By State and Research on These Provisions Is Limited
subsections: section_title: States Generally Include Requirements That Safety Experts Considered Key, but Specific Provisions Vary Among States
paragraphs: According to NHTSA officials, state officials, and other transportation  safety experts, key requirements of a GDL system include a minimum  entry age, a learner’s permit stage that includes supervised driving, and  restrictions on nighttime driving and driving with teen passengers.  Additional key requirements for teen drivers sometimes addressed as part  of a GDL system include seat belt laws, bans on electronic devices, driver  education, and parental involvement. Forty-nine states and the District of  Columbia have a three-stage GDL system and, as shown in table 1, most  states include the key requirements identified by officials. For example,    all states have a minimum entry age and a learner’s permit stage,    49 states have nighttime driving restrictions,    43 states have passenger restrictions,    50 states have seat belt laws,    33 states have bans on electronic devices, and    34 states require completion of driver education before obtaining a driver’s  license.
However, specific provisions vary among states. For example, nighttime  driving restrictions vary from “sunset to sunrise” or 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. in the  most restrictive states, while in the least restrictive states, nighttime  driving restrictions range from 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. or midnight to 4 a.m.  Appendix III provides additional detail on specific provisions for each  state.
section_title: Research Supports Most Key Requirements, but Limited Evidence Exists on Optimal Provisions
paragraphs: Research has shown that GDL systems—particularly more comprehensive  systems that include multiple requirements—are associated with  significantly lower teen driver fatality rates. For example, an AAA  Foundation for Traffic Safety study that analyzed GDL systems in 43 states  found a 21 percent reduction in fatal crashes of 16-year-old drivers in  states that implemented a GDL system with four requirements and a 38  percent reduction in states with five GDL requirements. Additional  research in states that have enacted various requirements separately has  shown lower teen crash rates after implementing, for example, nighttime  and passenger restrictions. However, limited evidence exists on the  optimal provisions for GDL requirements, such as the specific times to  restrict teen driving at night or the exact number of passengers to limit to  promote safer teen driving. Specifically, safety experts have identified  gaps in research on provisions for six of the seven requirements identified  by officials as key: minimum entry age, the learner’s permit stage,  nighttime and passenger restrictions, bans on electronic devices, driver  education, and parental involvement. Therefore, identifying the optimal  provisions to strengthen state GDL systems is difficult for state officials.
Minimum entry age and learner’s permit. Establishing a minimum entry  age and a learner’s permit stage—which all states do to some extent—can  delay teen licensure and provide teens with more driving experience prior  to driving unsupervised. An IIHS study found 13 percent fewer fatal  crashes for 15-to-17-year-old drivers in states that delayed licensure by 1  year, compared to those that delayed licensure by 1 month. However, this  study also reported that significant differences in fatal crashes for this age  demographic were not found for states with a 6-month supervised driving  stage versus a 1-month stage, or for extending supervised driving by an  additional 10 hours. Another study in Connecticut found that the number  of fatal crashes of 16-year-old drivers declined during the first year after  that state instituted a 6-month holding period for the learner’s permit  stage, but the number of 17- and 18-year-old drivers in fatal crashes was  higher during the same period. NHTSA is researching the effects of  delaying full licensure for 15-, 16-, and 17-year-old drivers on crash and  moving violation rates and the role of supervised driving in GDL systems  to determine whether supervised driving requirements influence parental  or teen driver behavior during the learner’s permit stage, as well as the  effect on crash rates after licensure. However, the AAA Foundation for  Traffic Safety and the TRB have reported it is unclear whether differences  in crash rates are due to age or lack of more general driving experience,  and that limited research is available on the role of experience or the  development of driving competence.
Nighttime driving restrictions. Multiple studies have found lower teen  crash rates after states implemented nighttime driving restrictions for teen  drivers during intermediate licensure. NHTSA has reported that teen  drivers in states with nighttime driving restrictions have up to 60 percent  fewer crashes during restricted hours. In North Carolina, one study found  the likelihood of nighttime crashes for 16-year-olds was 43 percent lower  when a 6-month nighttime driving restriction was implemented from 9 p.m.  to 5 a.m. Another study in Michigan, which implemented a 12-month  nighttime driving restriction from midnight to 5 a.m., found that nighttime  crash risk for 16-year-olds was 59 percent lower within 4 years after  implementation. However, the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety and  TRB have reported that insufficient research has been conducted to  suggest which provisions are optimal, including the time when the  restriction begins, the number of months it is in place, or the presence of  exceptions for certain activities such as driving to work or school.
Passenger restrictions. Numerous studies have shown lower teen crash  rates after implementing a passenger restriction for teen drivers. NHTSA- sponsored research in three states indicated that crashes involving 16- year-olds decreased annually by about 740 in California, 170 in  Massachusetts, and 450 in Virginia in the years immediately after  implementing passenger restrictions. Furthermore, IIHS research has  shown lower teen fatal crash rates when no passengers are allowed versus  when one passenger is allowed. Although NHTSA is researching the  social dynamics and increased risk that teen passengers have on teen  drivers, TRB has reported that little information is available on the details  of this increased risk, the impact of different numbers of passengers or the  duration of the restriction, or whether and how passengers who are family  members influence crash risks for teen drivers.
Electronic device bans. Cell phones and other electronic devices present  distractions for drivers and may contribute to higher crash rates. NHTSA  reported that drivers ages 16 to 24 used hand-held cell phones and  manipulated hand-held devices at a greater rate while driving than other  age groups, and concluded that the use of these devices while driving  may pose a greater risk to teen drivers due to their relative lack of driving  experience. As of January 2010, we identified only one study—in North  Carolina—that examined the impact of an electronic device ban specific to  teen drivers. This study did not show a significant change in the  proportion of teen drivers using cell phones after implementing a cell  phone ban for teens. NHTSA is funding additional research in North  Carolina that combines high-visibility enforcement and social marketing to  see if teen cell phone use while driving can be reduced. However, TRB and  IIHS have reported that limited research demonstrates the effect of  electronic device bans on driver performance or compares the efficacy of  different types of bans, particularly for teen drivers.
Driver education. Studies on driver education have shown mixed results.  NHTSA has reported that the most well-known evaluation of driver  education programs in the United States occurred in the late 1970s in  Dekalb County, Georgia. Although an initial analysis showed no difference  in crash outcomes for teen drivers who took driver education versus those  who did not, further analysis showed fewer crashes for students in the  first months of driving. Another study evaluating the effects of Oregon’s  GDL system observed lower crash rates among teen drivers who reported  taking formal driver education and 50 hours of practice with their parents,  when compared to teen drivers who reported 100 hours of practice with  their parents without formal driver education. However, this difference did  not exist among 16-year-old drivers in their second year of driving or 17- year-olds 7 to 12 months after receiving their licenses. NHTSA has also  reported that driver education, which was developed to teach driving skills  and safe driving practices, may actually be associated with an increase in  teen crash rates in states that allow for earlier licensure or reduce practice  driving hours for teens who complete driver education. In 2005, the  National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the United  States had not conducted a systematic evaluation of effective methods for  teaching safe driving skills. In response, NHTSA worked with  stakeholders to develop the Novice Teen Driver Education and Training  Administrative Standards—published in October 2009—for program  administration, education and training, instructor qualifications, parental  involvement, and coordination with driver licensing authorities to assist  states in planning and implementing driver education programs. However,  development of these standards did not include a systematic evaluation of  driver education. NHTSA is assessing the status of advanced driver  training programs nationwide and cosponsoring a comprehensive  evaluation of driver education in Montana and Oregon to determine the  impact of driver education on teen driver crash rates, fatality injury rates,  driving violations, and traffic convictions in those states. However, NHTSA  and TRB reports indicate that research examining driver education  programs on teen driver safety is limited and the impact of such programs  is unclear.
Parental involvement. Research has shown that parental involvement has  been associated with positive safety outcomes. For example, the American  Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently identified a significantly lower rate  of reported crashes and reduced likelihood of using a cell phone while  driving for teens whose parents were generally more involved, compared  with teens whose parents were uninvolved. Other research has found  that parents could use driver monitoring technologies to encourage their  teens to drive more responsibly. One study showed that combining in -car  monitoring technologies and parental involvement significantly reduced  unsafe driving events among teens. Specifically, this study used an event- triggered video camera that captured footage before and after a sudden  change in velocity or other movement indicating potentially risky driving  behavior, and alerted the driver when the camera was triggered. Parents  then reviewed a weekly summary of their teen’s performance relativ e to  their peer group and video clips of all safety-related events. Results  indicated a reduction in unsafe driving behavior, such as taking a turn too  fast, and an increase in safe driving behavior, such as wearing a seat belt,  during the period of combined in-car monitoring and parental review. NHTSA is also conducting a similar evaluation, which examines an in- vehicle video intervention that includes parental feedback. However,  NHTSA and TRB have reported that programs involving parents have not demonstrated a clear impact on teen driver crashes or fatalities, and little t of parental involvement on  information is available regarding the impac teen driver safety due to limited research.
NHTSA and other leading highway safety organizations generally agree some GDL provisions, such as establishing a minimum entry age of 16  years and prohibiting the use of cell phones for teen drivers during certain  stages of licensure. However, recommendations for other GDL provis nstrating limited research in these areas (see app. II). For  vary, demo example:    The AAP recommends that states restrict nighttime driving for  intermediate licensure between 9 p.m. and 5 a.m., while recommends restrictions between midnight and 5 a.m.
While most agencies and organizations recommend at least a 6-month  supervised driving stage, recommendations on the m supervised driving hours vary from 30 to 50 hours.
NHTSA recommends that states restrict the number of passengers for the  first 12 months of licensure, while the AA recommends only a 6-month restriction.
Daniel V. McGehee, Mireille Raby, Cher Carney, John D. Lee and Michelle L. Reyes,  “Extending parental mentoring using an event-triggered video intervention in rural teen  drivers,” Journal of Safety Research, vol. 38 (2007) pp 215–227.
While NHTSA has research under way addressing most requirements  identified by officials and experts as being key to a GDL system— including evaluating the impacts of delayed licensure, supervised driving,  passengers, cell phones, driver education, and parental involvement—a  single study will likely not determine optimal provisions for each of these  requirements. For example, the study that NHTSA is conducting on teen  driver cell phone use in North Carolina may not provide sufficient  evidence to identify an optimal provision for an electronic device ban  specific to teens for all states since the results (1) are based on the specific  provisions included in North Carolina’s cell phone ban and (2) may be  influenced by other variables, such as socioeconomic or geographic  factors within the state.
NHTSA officials stated that additional research on specific GDL provisions  is needed. However, they noted that isolating the impact of specific  provisions on teen driver crashes is difficult because states typically enact  numerous provisions simultaneously. We recognize that GDL requirements  and other variables may interact to affect teen crash and fatality rates. Our  analysis of previous teen driver studies found that studies analyzing GDL  systems often did not measure the independent effects of individual GDL  requirements, or the interplay among them. For example, by analyzing a  count of individual GDL requirements in a given system, but not  differentiating which requirements are in place in each system, studies  cannot identify associations between any specific requirement or  combination thereof and driver outcomes. In addition, we found that some  studies did not adequately control for the influence of external variables,  such as whether lower crash outcomes for teen drivers were due to GDL  requirements or lower rates of driving for teens. These studies  acknowledged limitations of the research, including the difficulty of  controlling for other variables. Without controlling for external variables,  however, it is not possible to determine the extent to which changes in  teen driver behavior and crash and fatality rates are due to GDL or to these  confounding variables.
section_title: States Face Research, Legislative, and Other Challenges to Improve Teen Driver Safety and Have Developed Strategies to Address Them
paragraphs: Officials from 77 federal, state, and national organizations we interviewed  highlighted several challenges to improving state teen driver safety  programs, including research limitations discussed previously and barriers  to enhancing teen driver legislation, among others. These officials also  highlighted a variety of strategies to address the challenges. (See table 2.)
Limited research identifying effective approaches for improving teen  driver safety. Officials from 32 of the 77 organizations we interviewed  commented on the limited amount of teen driver safety research in several  areas, such as parental involvement, understanding how novice drivers  learn to drive, evaluation of specific teen driver safety programs, and  effectiveness of teen driver safety laws—including many of the  requirements discussed in the previous section. In particular, many  officials highlighted the lack of research on the effectiveness of driver  education programs. As previously discussed, driver education is not  proven to improve teen driver safety, though several ongoing projects are  attempting to evaluate its impact on teen driver safety. In addition,  officials in one state and several NHTSA officials identified a lack of  information on proven best practices for teen driver safety, including ways  to implement specific programs.
We identified a variety of strategies in our discussions with officials to  enhance teen driver safety research, including:    As noted previously, NHTSA is undertaking research in a number of areas,  including examining the impacts of delayed licensure, supervised driving,  passengers, cell phones, driver education, and parental involvement.  However, gaps still exist.
Officials discussed efforts to develop and evaluate teen driver safety  programs through pilot projects, which allow state officials to determine  whether individual programs successfully increase teen driver safety  before implementing the programs on a larger scale. NHTSA is sponsoring  several pilot projects in a number of states, such as a project assessing the  North Carolina teen driver cell phone ban, and a study examining driver  education in Montana.
NHTSA headquarters and regional officials also stated they pass along  information on existing research and best practices to address teen driver  safety through the agency’s Web site. This information includes previous  and ongoing teen driver safety research, parental responsibility for teen  drivers, seat belt use, GDL, and youth access to alcohol. In addition,  NHTSA provides information on teen driver safety through the  Countermeasures That Work guide—which is updated annually and  outlines a number of science-based strategies for major highway safety  problem areas, including a section on young drivers. Finally, NHTSA  officials regularly contact each state’s Highway Safety Office to discuss  possible strategies for addressing highway safety.
Enacting state teen driver legislation. Although all states have laws  restricting teen drivers, the extent of the restrictions vary and officials  from 52 of 77 organizations we interviewed commented that passing  additional legislation is difficult. Many officials stated that groups,  including some legislators, oppose new teen driver safety laws because the  laws infringe on an individual’s personal freedom and may restrict teens  from driving themselves and others to and from activities such as school  and work. In addition, efforts to pass teen driver legislation often depend  on key stakeholders’ willingness to support proposed laws, and reaching  consensus on specific provisions can be challenging. For example, North  Dakota recently attempted to enact a new teen driver safety law that  included numerous changes to existing licensure laws. Several officials  commented that the proposed bill was too complex and attempted to  satisfy too many stakeholders. The North Dakota Legislative Assembly  ultimately failed to pass the legislation by a 52 to 42 vote.
We identified several strategies in our discussions with officials on ways to  enhance teen driver safety laws. For example:    Officials noted that establishing a task force to act as a champion can  improve a state’s ability to strengthen teen driver safety laws. Officials also  noted that highly publicized teen driver crashes can create momentum to  establish a task force and change state laws. For example, a rash of fatal  teen crashes in 2006 and 2007 in New Jersey led the state legislature to  pass a bill—which the governor signed—to create the New Jersey Teen  Driver Study Commission. Ultimately, the Commission issued 47  recommendations resulting in two pieces of legislation that changed New  Jersey teen driver laws in several ways, including requiring teen drivers  with a learner’s permit or intermediate license to display a decal on their  vehicle, and extending the nighttime driving restriction from a start time of  midnight to a start time of 11 p.m. In another instance, a series of media  reports in the Chicago Tribune spurred Illinois’ Secretary of State to create  a Teen Driver Safety Task Force in 2006 that issued 10 recommendations  and led to a number of legislative changes that became effective in January  2008.
Officials noted that using data and research on teen driver safety can help  convince key stakeholders, such as legislators, of the need to strengthen  teen driver safety laws. For example, Oregon officials stated that  testimony from the Oregon Department of Transportation on the rise in  teen deaths and research demonstrating increased teen driver safety as a  result of GDL laws led to the state enacting its first GDL system in 1989. In  addition, NHTSA officials commented that one way they help states  strengthen teen driver safety laws is to provide research and  recommendations on GDL systems. Specifically, NHTSA provides  information via the Countermeasures That Work guide and discussions  with state officials on the effectiveness of youth programs based on prior  research and evaluations. NHTSA distributes information in a number of  areas, including GDL, learner’s permit length, supervised driving hours,  nighttime restrictions, passenger restrictions, seat belt use, cell phone  restrictions, and intermediate license violation penalties. NHTSA also  recommends that states enact a three-stage GDL system containing  NHTSA-recommended requirements in these areas (for a detailed list of  NHTSA-recommended requirements, see app. II).
Enforcing teen driver safety laws. According to officials from 26 of 77  organizations we interviewed, enforcing teen driver safety laws is  challenging for a variety of reasons. Such reasons include the difficulty in  determining a driver’s age and enforcing secondary laws, which allow  police to issue a citation only after stopping the driver for a separate  offense. A number of officials stated that exemptions for transporting  family members make identifying offenders difficult. In addition, several  state officials noted that law enforcement officers are not always aware of  teen driver safety laws and do not always issue citations or arrest teen  driver offenders because they require additional time to process through  the judicial system.
We identified a variety of strategies in our discussions with officials to  enhance enforcement efforts and improve compliance with teen driver  safety laws. These strategies include:    Several states use law enforcement checkpoints outside schools or in  areas teens frequent to target teens violating driving laws. In addition,  NHTSA supports efforts in several states to encourage teen seat belt use  and limit access to alcohol through high-visibility enforcement campaigns,  which combine traffic safety law enforcement with media to inform the  public about the campaign. For example, beginning in 2008, Mississippi  partnered with NHTSA on Rock the Belt, a 2-year demonstration project  that combines enforcement, media campaigns, and outreach to encourage  teen drivers to use seat belts. Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas have  instituted similar programs.
Another strategy recently adopted in New Jersey requires teen drivers to  display a removable decal on the vehicle they are operating as of May 1,  2010, to enable law enforcement officers to more readily identify drivers  subject to teen driving restrictions. (See fig. 3.) In addition, the Michigan  Sheriffs’ Association offers a voluntary program—Sheriffs Telling Our  Parents and Promoting Educated Drivers (known as “STOPPED”)—that  allows parents to voluntarily register and affix decals to motor vehicles  that will be operated by a driver under age 21. Law enforcement officers  use the decals as an indication to notify parents when the driver is stopped  by sheriff’s deputies and inform them of potential problems and provide  the opportunity to enforce parental rules. Some officials, however,  expressed concern that a decal might allow others to profile and target  teen drivers.
Limited resources. Officials from 46 of the 77 organizations we  interviewed highlighted resource challenges for implementing teen driver  safety programs, including limited funding and staff. Several officials  noted they are forced to prioritize finite resources in difficult economic  and budgetary environments to fund specific education and prevention  programs. Costs to implement teen driver safety programs could include  costs for conferences, public service announcements, law enforcement  personnel, and efforts to test and license new drivers. In addition, many  state officials raised concerns over limitations of teen driver data, such as  getting timely access to data on teen driver crashes, and not having the  resources to analyze existing data sets.
We identified several strategies in our discussions with officials to address  resource limitations, including:    State officials are partnering with private companies to conduct and fund  research on teen driver safety. For example, two insurance companies we  spoke with—Allstate and State Farm—provide grant funds for projects  designed to research and address teen driver safety. In one instance,  Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee, conducted research on  disparities in seat belt use across ethnic groups and subsequently  partnered with State Farm Insurance Company, which provided fun continued study in this area. Based on this research, officials from  Mississippi’s Jackson State University applied for and received grant funds  from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to address low teen  In another instance, the North  driver seat belt use rates in Mississippi. Dakota National Safety Council received a grant from the North Dakota  Department of Transportation and State Farm Insurance Company to  implement the Alive@25 program—an interactive education program  designed to teach new drivers the risks of driving and e take personal responsibility for their driving behavior.
NHTSA officials also commented that their data center annually provides data at the state and county level to help each state identify and address highway safety concerns, and can provide additional data to individual  states upon request. Furthermore, NHTSA has contracted the ser data analyst to assist states with individual data analysis needs.
Limited access to standardized driver education for teens. Officials fro 36 of the 77 organizations we interviewed indicated that teens may not  have access to driver education for a number of reasons, including t he  price of these programs—which may cost hundreds of dollars. For  example, state officials in Oregon said the availability and cost of driv education varies greatly across the state and only about one-third eligible students participate in these courses. Many officials also  commented on the limited oversight of driver education programs, which  has led to many different course delivery methods across the country and  within states. In addition, officials noted that, typically, the goal of dri education programs is to teach students to pass a driving test, which  involves learning driving mechanics as opposed to driving safely. Finally,  several state officials commented that existing driver education progr may be of poor quality and do not always employ qualified teachers.
We identified a variety of strategies in our discussions with o provide increased access to driver education. For example:  fficials to    One approach states are taking to increase access to driver education is to  subsidize the cost of these courses. Oregon, Florida, and Mississippi, for  example, subsidize driver education by reimbursing schools that provide  it. In Oregon, the Department of Transportation reimburses driver  education providers up to $210 per eligible student choosing to take driver  education, which, according to one official, typically costs $350 to $425.
Officials noted they have developed or are developing driver education  oversight and curriculum standards. For example, officials highlighted  efforts in Oregon to develop driver education instructor and curriculum  standards, which recently served as a model for North Dakota officials as  they developed new state driver education standards. Nationally,  representatives from the driver education community recently partnered  with NHTSA to develop administrative driver education standards, which  establish standards for overseeing, delivering, monitoring, and evaluating  state driver education programs.
Getting parents involved. According to officials from 24 of the 77  organizations we interviewed, states are challenged to get parents involved  in teen driver safety. Specifically, many officials commented that some  parents are not aware of the dangers involved in teen driving and do not  actively teach their teens to drive or promote compliance with laws  designed to protect them. For example, officials noted that parents may  not know the specific teen driver provisions in their state. Moreover, even  when parents are aware of teen driver requirements, a few officials noted  instances when parents actively sought to circumvent the requirements.  Specifically, officials noted that, in states requiring teens to keep a log of  driving practice hours, parents may forge required supervised driving logs.
We identified several strategies in our discussions with officials to  increase parental involvement in their teens’ driving, including:    States encourage parents to participate in teen driver activities, such as  events where they receive information on parental responsibilities. For  example, Oregon requires parents of students enrolled in driver education  to attend a “parent night”—an orientation meeting at which parents are  provided materials to help them support teens as they learn to drive. In  addition, the New Jersey Teen Driver Study Commission recommended  that New Jersey pass legislation requiring all teen drivers to attend a  driving orientation meeting with their parents as a condition of obtaining a  learner’s permit.
States try to educate parents on the dangers of teen driving and ways to  mitigate the associated risks through a variety of methods, including Web  sites and written guidance. For example, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey,  and Oregon have developed booklets for parents that identify teen driver  safety laws and outline tactics for supervising teen drivers, some of which  include driving logs for parents to monitor hours spent in the car with  their teen driver.
NHTSA’s Countermeasures That Work highlights five programs to assist  parents and beginning drivers, including two that have been evaluated for  effectiveness. While no parent program has been proven to reduce teen  crashes, programs—such as Checkpoints—have encouraged parents to set  limits on their teen’s driving opportunities, which studies have shown can  be associated with reduced risky driving behavior, traffic violations, and  crashes. NHTSA has also supported several additional efforts to assist  parents as they teach their teens to drive, including developing a parental  responsibility toolkit that is available on NHTSA’s website, providing  grants to associations to develop guidance for parents, and working with  organizations to provide this guidance to parents and implement a  parental responsibility program.
Other challenges. In addition to those mentioned above, a number of  officials mentioned other challenges states face in improving teen driver  programs, including:    Overcoming public attitudes that lead to reckless behavior. Several  officials commented that parents and teens do not always understand the  risks associated with teen driving. In particular, officials were concerned  about attitudes toward alcohol, including parents who permit teens and  their friends to consume alcohol when they are at home and teens’  tendencies to binge drink.
Challenges with the judicial system. Many officials suggested several  challenges related to punishing teens who violate driving laws, such as  allowing teen drivers to enter into plea bargains, and the large degree of  judicial discretion that may result in minimal and inconsistent penalties.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Despite the recent decline in fatalities, teen drivers remain at greater risk  than any other group of drivers in the United States. Available research  indicates that GDL systems are associated with lower teen fatality rates,  and most states have a three-stage GDL system that includes key  requirements recommended by safety experts. However, because limited  research has been conducted on the optimum provisions and how they  might interact with other variables, states might be missing opportunities  for strengthening their GDL systems. While NHTSA and other researchers  have conducted a range of studies concerning teen driver safety and a  number of additional research initiatives are under way, gaps still exist in  researching the effectiveness of specific GDL provisions. In particular,  research is lacking on specific provisions for minimum entry age, the  learner’s permit stage, nighttime and passenger restrictions, bans on  electronic devices, driver education, and parental involvement. We  recognize that opportunities to study specific effects of GDL provisions  and other programs may be limited. However, additional research on  certain requirements could provide states with important information on  the optimal provisions and, thus, help states to develop more effective  teen driver safety programs.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To assist states in understanding and implementing key requirements of a  teen driver safety program and to help identify the optimum provisions of  GDL systems, we recommend that NHTSA conduct additional research on  specific GDL provisions, including minimum entry age, nighttime and  passenger restrictions, the effect of bans on electronic devices, driver  education, and parental involvement.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOT for its review and comment.  DOT officials concurred with our report and recommendation to conduct  additional research. They noted that many states have revised and  improved their GDL provisions since 2006 and that these changes should  facilitate new research to clarify the benefits of the various GDL  provisions. Consequently, DOT officials proposed conducting a meta- analysis—an analysis of evidence from several separate but similar studies  to test for statistical significance—using available research and data to  enable DOT to provide more specific guidance on the potential benefits of  particular GDL provisions. We agree this approach would meet the intent  of our recommendation. DOT officials also provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, the report  will be available at no cost on GAO’s Web site at www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We were asked to evaluate states’ efforts to address teen driver safety  issues. Specifically, this report (1) identifies the key requirements of a  Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) system and describes the extent to  which state programs include these requirements, and (2) describes  challenges that states have faced in improving teen driver safety and how  NHTSA and the states have addressed these challenges.
To identify the key requirements of a GDL system, we reviewed  recommendations on requirements that GDL systems should include from  the: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), AAA  Foundation for Traffic Safety, Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety,  American Academy of Pediatrics, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety  (IIHS), and National Transportation Safety Board. We also interviewed  individuals from these organizations on the recommended requirements of  a GDL system. In addition, we interviewed representatives from the  Governors Highway Safety Association, American Automobile Association  (AAA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation  Officials, and other transportation and traffic safety organizations about  their opinions on the key requirements of a GDL system. (See table 3 for a  list of associations and other organizations we interviewed.)
Additionally, we visited six states to interview state officials about their  opinions on the key requirements of a GDL system. Specifically, we visited  the states of Florida, Michigan, Mississippi, North Dakota, New Jersey, and  Oregon. We selected these states based on a combination of  characteristics, including the IIHS’s overall rating of states’ GDL systems,  fatality rates involving young drivers as well as fatalities in rural versus  urban areas, suggestions from NHTSA and association representatives,  and geographical dispersion. Selected states were chosen because they fell  into a range of these characteristics. For each state we visited, we  interviewed officials from the Governor’s Highway Safety Office as well as  the agency responsible for issuing driver licenses, representatives from  law enforcement agencies, and representatives from safety organizations  such as the state’s AAA or Safety Council association. In addition, where  applicable, we met with state officials or individuals involved in driver  education and state legislators who had been involved in legislation to  improve teen driver safety laws. Since we used a nongeneralizable  sampling approach, the results of these interviews cannot be used to make  inferences about all states. We also interviewed NHTSA regional officials  responsible for each state we visited. (See table 4 for list of agencies and  organizations interviewed in each state.) Finally, we interviewed  researchers involved in studying teen driver safety. (See table 5 for list of  researchers interviewed.)
To determine the extent to which state programs include recommended  requirements, we reviewed and verified IIHS’s listing of state GDL systems  identifying the specific requirements each state included. We also  reviewed a 2008 report from the American Driver and Traffic Safety  Education Association that identified driver education provisions within  each state. In meetings with officials in the six selected states, we also  identified requirements these states included, both within each state’s GDL  system as well as other programs that may not have been part of GDL,  such as driver education and programs to involve parents. To determine  what research exists on key requirements of teen driver safety programs,  we consulted NHTSA research and guidance and identified select national  and state publications on overall effectiveness of GDL systems as well as  research focusing on specific provisions. The research studies selected for  this review do not constitute a comprehensive review of research on key  requirements of a GDL system. The studies we reviewed included those  authored or provided to us by experts and organizations we interviewed,  as well as any studies referenced by those reports, limited to those  published between 2000 and 2010. Each of these studies was evaluated for  relevance and reviewed by social science specialists to ensure that any  findings presented reflected the methodological approaches and  limitations of each study.
To determine challenges states have faced in improving teen driver safety  and strategies to address these challenges, we interviewed NHTSA  officials, representatives of various transportation and safety associations,  and state and local officials in the six states we visited. We systematically  analyzed information from these interviews and our site visits to identify  challenges that affected states’ ability to improve teen driver safety  programs and reduce teen driver fatalities and injuries. As part of these  interviews, we also discussed and identified several strategies to address  challenges.
We found fatality rate and population data—obtained from NHTSA’s  Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the U.S. Census Bureau— presented as background material for this report to be sufficiently reliable  for our purposes. We previously tested FARS to assess the accuracy of  required data elements, including conducting data comparisons and logic  tests and testing for missing data and errors. We also reviewed basic  aspects of the design and purpose of the Census Bureau data and  determined that it was appropriate to use these data to create national age  tabulations for 2008. We conducted this performance audit from June 2009  to May 2010, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Recommended GDL Requirements
section_title: Appendix III: Requirements of a GDL System and State Driver Safety Provisions
paragraphs: Midnight – 6 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
No more than 3  passengers from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
Beginning July 1,  2010:  No more than 1  passenger from  age 16 to 17 (1  year)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, 12 hours  in a simulator, and 3  hours in a car  6 month holding  period and 40  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night or  in inclement  weather  1 a.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 16, 6 months  (6 months)
Midnight – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 16, 6 months  (6 months)
Unknown if required  for licensing  Students that have  taken driver  education are not  required to undergo  supervised driving  hours  Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training or  equivalent  6 month holding  period and zero  supervised driving  hours  11 p.m. – 4 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 18 (2 years)
No more than 1  passenger from age  16 to 18 (2 years)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction (must not  be completed in less  than 15 days), 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training, and  6 hours of  observation  6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  11 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
Midnight – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
No passengers for  the first 6 months of  intermediate  licensure and no  more than 1  passenger for the  second 6 months of  intermediate  licensure (1 year)
Program includes a  4-hour awareness  course, 30 hours of  classroom  instruction, and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training  6 month holding  period and 40  supervised driving  hours  11 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16, 4 months to 18  (1 year, 8 months)
No passengers other  than parents or  driving instructor for  the first 6 months of  intermediate  licensure and no  passengers other  than parents, driving  instructor, or  members of the  immediate family for  the second 6 months  of intermediate  licensure (1 year)
Required for  licensing (if under  18)
Students that have  taken driver  education reduce  their learner’s permit  holding period from  6 months to 4  months  Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction (if taken  in a commercial or  secondary school),  and 8 hours of  behind-the-wheel  training  6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  10 p.m. – 6 a.m.  restriction from age  16, 6 months to 17  (6 months)
No more than 1  passenger from age  16, 6 months to 17 (6  months)
September to June:  11 p.m. – 6 a.m.  Sun. through  Thurs.; 12:01 a.m. –  6 a.m. Sat. through  Sun.
July to August:  12:01 a.m. – 6 a.m.
No passengers for  the first 6 months of  intermediate  licensure and  thereafter no more  than 2 passengers  until age 18 (1 year,  6 months)
Restrictions are  from age 16, 6  months to 18 (1  year, 6 months)
Text messaging ban  for all drivers  1 year holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  11 p.m. – 6 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)  1 a.m.– 5 a.m.  restriction from age  17 to 18 (1 year)
Program includes a  4-hour course  (total of 2 years)
Midnight – 6 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 18 (2 years)
No passengers for  the first 6 months of  intermediate  licensure and no  more than 1  passenger younger  than 21 for the  second 6 months of  intermediate  licensure. After 1  year no more than 3  passengers until age  18 (2 years)
Students that have  taken driver  education reduce  the required amount  of supervised driving  hours from 40 to 20  Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training  6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  11 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
No more than 1  passenger younger  than 18 (household  members excepted)  from age 16 to 17 (1  year)
Required for  licensing (if under  18)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training (or a  simulator course  and 2 hours of  driving)
Sunset to sunrise  restriction from age  15 to 16 (1 year)
Unknown if required  for licensing  Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training  9 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  10 p.m. – 6 a.m.  Sun. through  Thurs.; 11 p.m. – 6  a.m. Fri. through  Sat.
Required for  licensing (if under  18)
Restrictions are  from age 16 to 18  (2 years)
First 180 days of  intermediate  licensure: 10 p.m. –  5 a.m.
After 180 days: 11  p.m. – 5 a.m. Sun.  through Fri.; 1 a.m.  – 5 a.m. Sat.  through Sun.
Restrictions are  from age 16, 9  months to 18 (1  year, 3 months)
Students that have  taken driver  education reduce  the age at which  passenger  restrictions are lifted  from age 17, 3  months to 17  Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training  6 month holding  period and 20  supervised driving  hours, 2 of which  must be at night  12:30 a.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training (not  to be completed  more than 30 days  after classroom  instruction)
1 year holding  period and 25  supervised driving  hours in learner’s  permit phase, 25  hours before age  16, and 10 of the  50 hours must be  at night  9 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 16, 6 months  (6 months)
Program includes  not less than 8  hours of classroom  instruction, and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training (must  total at least 20  hours)
Midnight – 6 a.m.  restriction from age  16, 6 months to 17  (6 months)
No more than 1  passenger younger  than 20 unless  supervised by a  driving instructor  from age 16, 6  months to 17 (6  months)
Program includes a  4-hour GDL course  within 1 year of  license or high  school course of 30  hours of classroom  instruction and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training   6 month holding  period and 35  supervised driving  hours  11 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training (or 12  hours of simulator  training)
Midnight – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 16, 6 months  (6 months)
Midnight – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16, 6 months to 18  (1 year, 6months)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training  6 month holding  period and 40  supervised driving  hours  12:30 a.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16, 6 months to 18  (1 year, 6 months)
Midnight – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
Required for  licensing (if under  18)
Midnight – 5 a.m.  restriction for the  first 6 months of  intermediate  licensure from age  16 to 16, 6 months  (6 months)
No more than 1  passenger younger  than 20 for the first 6  months intermediate  licensure and no  more than 3  passengers younger  than 20 for the  second 6 months of  intermediate  licensure (1 year)
Required for  licensing (if under  18)
Text messaging ban  for all drivers  1 year holding  period and zero  supervised driving  hours  10 p.m. – 6 a.m.  Sun. through  Thurs.; 11:30 p.m. –  6 a.m. Fri. through  Sat.
Restriction from age  16 to 16, 6 months  (6 months)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, 6 hours  of behind-the-wheel  training, and 12  hours of simulator  training   6 month holding  period and 40  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  1 a.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17, 11 months  (1 year, 11 months)
No more than 1  passenger younger  than 19 for the first 6  months of  intermediate  licensure and  thereafter no more  that 3 passengers  younger than 19 until  age 17, 11 months (1  year, 11 months)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, 6 hours  of behind-the-wheel  training, and 12  hours of observation 6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  11 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  15 to 16 (1 year)
No more than 1  passenger younger  than 18 for the first 6  months of  intermediate  licensure and no  more than 3  passengers younger  than 18 for the  second 6 months (1  year)
Required for  licensing (if under  16)
Midnight – 6 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
Text messaging  ban for all drivers  6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  10 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 18 (2 years)
Required for  licensing (if under  18)
No holding period  and 40 supervised  driving hours, 10  of which must be  at night  1 a.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17, 1 month (1  year, 1 month)
Required for  licensing (for 16 to  18 year olds)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, 10 hours  of behind-the-wheel  training, and 6 hours  of observation  6 month holding  period and zero  supervised driving  hours  11 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  17 to 18 (1 year)
No more than 1  passenger (only  drivers’ dependents  excepted) from age  17 to 18 (1 year)
Midnight – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  15, 6 months to 16,  6 months (1 year)
No more than 1  passenger younger  than 21 from age 15,  6 months to 16, 6  months (1 year)
Program includes 33  hours of classroom  instruction, and 7  hours of behind-the- wheel training  6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 15 of which  must be at night  9 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16, 6 months to 18  (1 year, 6 months)
No more than 1  passenger younger  than 21 from age 16,  6 months to 18 (1  year, 6 months)
Students that have  taken driver  education reduce  the length of  nighttime and  passenger  restrictions from 1  year, 6 months to 6  months  Program includes 24  hours of classroom  instruction, 6 hours  of behind-the-wheel  training, and 18  hours of observation  1 year holding  period and zero  supervised driving  hours  9 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 16, 6 months  (6 months)
No more than 1  passenger younger  than 21 (if a family  member younger  than 21 is already a  passenger then no  other passengers  younger than 21 who  are not family  members is  permitted) from age  16 to 16, 6 months (6  months)
Required for  licensing (if under  18)
Midnight – 6 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
No more than 1  passenger from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
Required for  licensing (if under  18)
1 a.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  17 to 18 (1 year)  (total of 2 years)
Program includes 24  hours of classroom  instruction, and 8  hours of behind-the- wheel training  6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  10 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
No more than 1  passenger from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
Midnight – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
No passengers  younger than 20 for  the first 6 months of  intermediate  licensure and no  more than 3  passengers younger  than 20 for the  second 6 months of  intermediate  licensure (1 year)
Students that have  taken driver  education reduce  the number of  supervised hours  from 100 to 50  Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, 6 hours  of behind-the-wheel  training, and 6 hours  of observation  6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours  11 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16, 6 months to 18  (1 year, 6 months)
Students that have  taken driver  education reduce  the length of  nighttime restrictions  from 1 year, 6  months to 6 months  Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training  6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  1 a.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16, 6 months to 17,  6 months (1 year)
Text messaging ban  for all drivers  6 month holding  period and 40  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  6 p.m. – 6 a.m.  during EST; 8 p.m.  – 6 a.m. during EDT Restrictions are  from age 15, 6  months to 16, 6  months (1 year)
No more than 2  passengers younger  than 21 (driving to  and from school  excepted) from age  15, 6 months to 16, 6  months (1 year)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, 6 hours  of behind-the-wheel  training, and 6 hours  of observation  6 month holding  period and zero  supervised driving  hours  10 p.m. – 6 a.m.  restriction from age  14, 6 months to 16  (1 year, 6 months)
Unknown if required  for licensing  Students that have  taken driver  education and score  80 percent on an  exam reduce their  learner’s permit  holding period from  6 months to 3  months  Unknown program  6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  11 p.m. – 6 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
No more than 1  passenger from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
Midnight – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
No more than 1  passenger younger  than 21 from age 16  to 17 (1 year)
Midnight – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
No passengers  without exception for  the first 3 months of  intermediate  licensure and no  passengers for the  second 3 months of  intermediate  licensure (6 months)
Required for  licensing (if under  18)
Midnight – 4 a.m.  restriction from age  16, 3 months to 18  (1 year, 9 months)
No more than 1  passenger younger  than 18 for the first  year of intermediate  licensure and  thereafter no more  than 3 passengers  younger than 18 until  age 18 (1 year, 9  months)
Required for  licensing (if under  19)
Program includes 36  hours of classroom  instruction, 7 hours  of behind-the-wheel  training, and 7 hours  of observation  6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  1 a.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
No passengers  younger than 20 for  the first 6 months of  intermediate  licensure and no  more than 3  passengers younger  than 20 for the  second 6 months of  intermediate  licensure (1 year)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training  6 month holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  10 p.m. – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 17 (1 year)
No passengers  younger than 20 for  the first 6 months of  intermediate  licensure and no  more than 1  passenger younger  than 20 for the  second 6 months of  intermediate  licensure (1 year)
Midnight – 5 a.m.  restriction from age  16 to 16, 9 months  (9 months)
No more than 1  passenger from age  16 to 16, 9 months (9  months)
Required for  licensing (if under  18)
Program includes 30  hours of classroom  instruction, and 6  hours of behind-the- wheel training  10 day holding  period and 50  supervised driving  hours, 10 of which  must be at night  11 p.m. – 5am  restriction from age  16 to 16, 6 months  (6 months)
No more than 1  passenger younger  than 18 from age 16  to 16, 6 months (6  months)
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Other key contributors to this report were Sara Vermillion (Assistant  Director), Lynn Filla-Clark (Analyst-in-Charge), Katherine Bowman,  Matthew Cook, Colin Fallon, Kathleen Gilhooly, Terry Richardson, Beverly  Ross, and Steven Putansu.