Driving: A positive analysis

By: Allen Robinson

Date: Friday, 23. March 2007

The following article is based on a research report, "Effectiveness and Role of Driver Education and Training In A Graduated Licensing System" by D.R. Mayhew and H.M. Simpson.

Read a summary by the report's authors.
Read the entire report.

Dr. Robinson is CEO of the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association, based at the Indiana University of Pennsylvania Highway Safety Center, Indiana, PA.

Many of us in the driver education community have already heard or read excerpts of the negative results of the study mentioned above. However, in an article about the study in the most recent issue of its newsletter Status Reports , the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), which funded this project, has chosen not to discuss the entire study.

The purpose of the study was to determine if the practice of incorporating education/training into a graduated driver license system (GDLS) is justified. In the review of literature an analysis of the benefits of formal instruction was considered. The report began with a review of the historical and contemporary empirical evidence on the effectiveness of driver education/training and then considered the role that driver education/training can or should play in a graduated license system.

To those of us working in the field of driver education, it is no surprise that the DeKalb County project was used as the primary reason for indicating that driver education is not producing "safer" drivers, defined in terms of collision involvement. Neither have we been able to demonstrate that driver licensing results in safer drivers. This is the primary reason that progressive-thinking planners in other countries have come up with the graduated driver licensing program.

Whether driver education is successful in America is not the important question. The question should be: can driver education, as a part of a graduated driver licensing program, contribute to the reduction of collisions? Driver education alone, or driver licensing alone, cannot be expected to have the same results as a combined program of driver education and driver licensing.

The authors state that "some beneficial effects have been observed from advanced skill training, although the benefits vary as a function of the type of program or skill as well as the age and gender of the driver. There is also evidence that training in nighttime driving can produce reasonably long-term safety benefits among male drivers."

One example I like to use in viewing the role of driver education is to compare the traditional 30-hours in-class, 6 hours-in-car program to taking a college-level accounting course. Would General Motors, Ford, or Chrysler hire a one-course wonder to head up, or even work in, their accounting department? Obviously the answer is no. But we do expect 30-and-6 driver education to be the ultimate tool in training novice individuals to drive motor vehicles.

These are certainly examples of how driver education needs to be changed to be an integral part of graduated driver licensing. Driver education as it existed the past 20 years should not be included in a graduated driver licensing system. We must change what we are doing and first train the driver with fundamental driving skills, and then, after a period of driving time, conduct a follow-up course on safe driving practices.

The research cited here is similar to most research in the field of driver education. There is no conclusive evidence that driver education does or does not produce the desirable results. However, the summary does state, "There is some evidence that at least some driver education programs can successfully teach driving skills and impart knowledge."

The role of driver education and training must first determine the potential role that education/training might be able to play as a traffic safety countermeasure if modified in some way.

A second, related issue, involves the specific role that education/training can play in a graduated licensing system. "Among the possible reasons why driver education has not been effective are:

the skills and capacities that have been shown to reduce the risk of collisions are either not taught or are given superficial treatment in most driver education courses;
adequate attention has not been paid to the importance of motivation in determining whether young drivers will apply the skills they have learned."

The authors tells us "there are opportunities for improvement and a considerable amount of contemporary activity is directed at such improvements." This is exactly what is happening. What needs to be done is that the critics (such as IIHS) need to join those seeking to develop solutions and strive to ensure these solutions meet the desired objectives.

The second part of this discussion is whether or not driver education/training should be linked with graduated licensing. Critics such as the IIHS take the position there is no role for driver education in a graduated licensing system.

The report referenced here, which was funded by the IIHS, "does not adopt such a rigid, unilateral position, for two reasons. First, such a position fails to acknowledge the practical reality that driver education/training is already an integral part of several existing graduated licensing systems and this relationship is likely to be retained when graduated licensing is implemented. Second, it fails to acknowledge potential benefits that might accrue from the linkage of formal instruction with graduated licensing.

"The move toward graduated licensing may provide the mechanism and rationale for examining not only what is taught in driver education/training, but how it is taught.

"Driver education/training might be able to provide the structure for the orderly and efficient acquisition of critical safe driving skills during the graduated licensing phase."

Driver education/driver licensing should provide the motivational framework for encouraging young drivers to use safe driving skills. They must use these safe driving skills to remain collision- and violation-free.

It may be desirable to increase the motivation for learning both basic driving skills and safe driving skills by increasing the licensing test requirement. Currently, in the state of Michigan, this is being done. The test administered prior to Level Two licensing is substantially more difficult than standard licensing tests.

When driver education is included as a part of graduated driver licensing, it must be multi-phased. The whole concept is based on increasing the time that new drivers have to acquire skills and to provide ample time for supervised instruction and practice. Learning and maturity requires repeated practice over time. Graduated licensing which includes two-phase driver education and parent involvement provides for increased learning.

Guidance for such a system comes from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators. They recommend a two-stage driver education program: a basic driver education course in the learner stage of graduated licensing, and a more advanced safety-oriented course in the intermediate stage.

Graduated driver licensing/driver education is based on the premise that beginning drivers are not prepared to understand or appreciate safety instruction in driver education. Learning to drive and maintaining basic control of the vehicle are so demanding that safe driving concepts can not be taught or applied.

This approach is the first new initiative to consider how young people learn to drive a car safely. We know young people can learn how to maneuver a vehicle. Therefore, by applying safety-oriented driver education following basic driver training and intermediate licensing, these drivers gain necessary experience which will enhance the use of safe driving practices.

Multi-staged driver education provides an opportunity for combining formal and informal learning. The learning process is enhanced by an extended period of supervised instruction.

ILLUSTRATIONS

To help illustrate a multi-staged driver education program, the following examples demonstrate how driver education can be structured.

Example 1

Segment One

All concepts and skills required of a new driver should be taught during Segment One. This would be the basic information required for skill development. During Segment Two, this information, along with the experiences acquired during practice between Segment One and Segment Two would allow for problem solving. Enhanced decision making and safe driving practices will be emphasized in Segment Two.

Example: Segment One- Teach the laws relating to drinking and driving. Also cover the statistical problem associated with this major problem.

Segment Two

Now we deal with appropriate decisions and safe driving practices concerning drinking and driving. We emphasize the loss of judgment and driving ability associated with impairment. Using problem-solving techniques, students could make decisions about who they ride with; what they do about a friend who is drinking; what clues they follow to avoid those on the highway who have been drinking (time of day, place, driving characteristic of other driver).

Example: Segment Two- We must teach perceptual driving practices and introduce decision making skills. Students should be taught where to look and what to look for. They need to make basic decisions concerning lane placement, where to turn, gap selection in low moderate traffic; how night driving affects their perceptual skills.

Example 2

Segment One

Students can use experience gained from actual driving to improve and practice their decision making skills. Emphasis would be on high-risk situations such as running off the road, passing, and intersections. This is where most crashes occur. Using problem-solving techniques, students will need to make choices as to the best course of action. In most cases there will be more than one right solution. If their solution is incorrect then they need to see what the consequences are.

Example: Segment One- Night driving. They will be taught problems with reduced vision and encouraged to drive in light to moderate night-driving situations.

Segment Two

Section Two would deal with night driving in more complex situations: congested traffic; bad weather; other people in the car; how to handle mechanical problems; what to do when arriving at an accident scene.

CONCLUSION

It is simple to say that something is broken and should be discarded. However, this approach doesn't save any of the young drivers' lives that are lost each year.

When critics choose to use only portions of the research they fund to build a case against driver education, they are simply self-serving. The question then becomes, who are they serving and what is the value to society?

I have obviously selected the positive aspects of the identified research study. My purpose is to encourage everyone to consider what might be if we channeled our resources in a positive manner towards building solutions to the young-driver problem.