i dont think it worked
Driver education: how to get the results we are looking for
By: Lawrence P. Lonero and Kathryn M. Clinton
Date: Friday, 02. March 2007
Larry Lonero and Kathryn Clinton are principals of Northport Associates, a consulting company based in Ontario, Canada.
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Driver education effectiveness
- Rethinking driver education objectives and methods
- Driver abilities vs. driver motives
- Sources of information on target behaviors and traits for driver education
- Driver errors
- Expert opinion
- Unsafe driving acts (UDAs)
- Differences between novice drivers and experienced drivers
- Risk/Hazard perception research
- Risk acceptance studies
- Lessons from training of advanced skills
- Focusing driver training and education on the most critical objectives
- Focusing driver training and education on the most effective methods
- Linking driver education with other behavioral influences
- Summary
- Select bibliography
Introduction
Young, novice drivers are greatly overrepresented in crashes and contribute disproportionately to highway losses (e.g., Evans, 1987; Gebers et al., 1993; NHTSA, 1994; TIRF, 1991). Wilde (1994b) pointed out: 1) that the overrepresentation of novice drivers is an international phenomenon; 2) that it holds true both per mile driven and per person; and 3) that the overrepresentation is due to two different factors, immaturity and inexperience.
Flowing from his Risk Homeostasis Theory (RHT), Wilde (1993) suggested that DE should concentrate on two objectives: 1) improving collision-risk estimation skills; and 2) reducing young drivers willingness to take risks while driving. Wilde (1994a) has pointed out that young drivers have, except for a few more years of life, less to lose from risky driving, having fewer responsibilities to others, fewer accomplishments, etc. than older drivers. They also have more to gain from risky driving behavior, in terms of peer approval, expression of independence, feedback on task mastery, and actual learning of maneuvering skills under pressure (e.g., Jessor, 1987). The intent of this paper is to outline briefly how driver education (DE) might influence novice drivers cognitive abilities and motives sufficiently to actually reduce their tragically-high collision losses.
The safety mission of driver education has been to eliminate the excess risk of novices during their first few years of driving-to help them perform as safely as they will when they become more mature and experienced. While experience eventually teaches drivers to stop making immature mistakes, Fuller (1988, 1990) points out that it also teaches them to make different mistakes more typical of mature, experienced drivers. Waller (1983) wrote, "the question for driver preparation is whether the careful programming of clearly identified key events could improve upon experience as a teacher" (p.9).
In an increasingly complex world, more effective learning is central to safer behavior (Malfetti, 1986). Effective safety education facilitates learning of cognitive and psychomotor skills. However, desirable and lasting, beneficial behavior change is much harder to accomplish than is generally understood, and it remains a major challenge of the social, health, and other helping sciences.
To date, driver education has been unable to produce beginner drivers who crash substantially less than those who are trained by friends or relatives. Courses have been popular, because of convenience and mobility benefits, and parents think it makes their children safer drivers (e.g., Plato and Rasp, 1983). It has also become a major industry, with markets supported by insurance premium discounts and licensing provisions. In the U.S., "market penetration" apparently peaked in the early 1980s. Since the early 1980s, however, many high school DE programs have been dropped in the U.S and Canada (TIRF, 1991), and until recently driver education has been seen to be in decline.
More recently, the need for renewal of driver education has been recognized. The U.S. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) initiated renewed development with a Workshop (Young, 1993) and a research agenda for driver education and graduated/provisional licensing (GPL) (NHTSA, 1994). In 1995 the American Automobile Association Foundation for Traffic Safety (AAAFTS) supported a project to initiate the program development process to "reinvent" driver education. The principal product is a draft curriculum outline, intended to lead to a more intensive and comprehensive form of driver education for the 21st Century (Lonero et al., 1995). The Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada has more recently released two landmark reviews, on the effects of driving experience and the relationship of driver education to graduated licensing (Mayhew and Simpson, 1995 &1997). NHTSA and the AAAFTS are undertaking computer-based instructional development for novice drivers. As well, there is renewed interest in providing driver education as a commercial venture, and at least two major business developments are under way in the U.S., also with interest in high-tech instruction methods.
These initiatives are timely, as young driver crash losses are threatening to increase. While all serious crashes decline in periods of economic recession, young driver casualties decline even more. Economic recovery, and an increasing number of new drivers (the "baby-boom echo") may lead to increased concern with novice driver safety later in this decade and beyond.
Driver education effectiveness
The DeKalb County Driver Education Project is the most comprehensive experiment in beginner driver education. It is best known for its impressive efforts to provide improved training and well-controlled evaluation (Lund et al., 1986; Ray et al., 1980; Smith, 1987; Stock et al., 1983). SPC-trained drivers showed better on-road skills and collisions per licensed driver over their first six months of driving. However, the reduction of collisions and violations per licensed driver was partially offset by earlier licensing of the SPC-trained drivers.
After six months collisions per driver were no longer different between the groups. In a follow-up study of the records of the DeKalb students over six years, it was found that both the SPC and minimal curriculum males had significantly fewer convictions, and both males and females in the minimal curriculum group had fewer crashes (6%) than the untrained controls (Weaver, 1987). Mayhew and Simpson (1997) have recently undertaken a highly detailed review of all the DeKalb findings and subsequent analyses. They concluded:
Thus despite significant effort, the DeKalb evaluation produced findings that failed to provide evidence of the beneficial effects of formal instruction. Not surprisingly, the equivocal nature of the results have led to substantial controversy that has had a profound impact on driver education/training (p.20).
Proper expectations and goals for DE continue to be controversial. Smith (1983) recommended the adoption of an intermediate criterion based on observed behavior in selected traffic situations. Waller had earlier written,
"To hold driver education instructors responsible for the subsequent driver records of students is a little like holding home economics teachers responsible for whether the students prepare well balanced meals two years later..." (Waller, 1975, p.17-18).
The finding that a particular DE program fails to improve safety does not mean that training or education cannot produce a lasting safety effect. Most people do eventually learn to drive reasonably safely. Some combination of experiences, influences, maturation, and motivational change eventually brings drivers to a mature, though usually still imperfect level of risk. The best current courses can improve some of the initial skills of their students. Some level of training, or some combination of training and other influences, could perhaps improve ultimate safety performance.
An evaluation in New Zealand used an experimental design with random assignment to eliminate self-selection bias. No statistically significant reductions in collisions or convictions were found for DE students. Females in the trained group reported significantly more collisions than those in the control group. This study again found that students obtained their licenses earlier (Wynne-Jones and Hurst, 1984). Potvin et al. (1988) evaluated the impact of mandatory driver training in Quebec with a time-series study. The main effect of the program was an increase in the number of crashes, as more 16-17 year old females became licensed. The authors theorize that the increase in early licensure occurred because there was no longer any economic advantage to waiting until age 18 to be licensed. The effect was stronger in females, because few males had waited before 1983.
More disturbing than lack of evidence for positive effects of DE is the contention that it causes harm by inducing increased exposure to risk. DE may encourage young people to start driving, and consequently crashing, at earlier ages than they would have in the absence of training (Robertson, 1980). Other studies (e.g., Wynne-Jones and Hurst, 1984) have shown effects of DE on licensing among 16 and 17 year olds, although the effect is probably less dramatic than Robertson seemed to suggest.
Differences in the amount or type of driving exposure, or differences in the amount of parental supervision or freedom influence the effects of training and contribute to young drivers' risk. Earlier licensing of new drivers occurs when parents consider them well-trained and therefore safer (e.g., Waller, 1983). It is possible that parents give better-trained students more freedom to drive when and as they choose, leading perhaps to more exposure to more severe risks. Parents do seem to show confidence in the ability of DE to teach their youngsters to drive safely (e.g., Plato and Rasp, 1983). Wilde (1994b) suggested that the better-trained SPC students became overconfident and that this offset the potential benefits of their superior skill and knowledge.
Rethinking driver education objectives and methods
Driver abilities vs. driver motives
What we decide to teach in DE is heavily dependent on our views, either explicit or implicit, of what is critical about drivers, what deficiencies are the ones most needing correction. Bower (1991) characterized the two principal approaches to understanding the driver. The first is the "human factors" approach, which sees the driver as an information processor. In this view, the driver is adequately motivated to avoid crashes but mishaps occur due to failures in their perception or judgment skills to cope with a given situation. The second approach identified by Bower is "to view the driver as a bundle of motivations" (p.10). The motivational perspective is expressed by Fuller (1984),
For most of the time on the road it is the driver's own actions which determine the difficulty of his task. Driving is essentially a self-paced activity. Because of this it may be argued that the driver's motivation is at least as important, if not more so, than limitations of his perceptual-motor capabilities in contributing to the safety of his performance (p.1139).
What drivers are able to do and what they choose to do (or choose to try to do) may be very different-probably every driver is capable of driving at the speed limit, for instance.
The error analysis approach of Reason (1990), Rasmussen (1987), and others is helpful for understanding driver failures, since it focuses specifically on critical, accident producing actions and the human causes of those actions, motivations as well as skills or abilities. Reason et al. (1990) have used the error model as a base for survey research on drivers' errors and violations. Among other findings, men of all ages reported more mistakes and women more lapses. In this framework, slips or lapses are defined as failure to achieve a correct intended action, while mistake is defined as a wrong intention.
Certainly, young, novice drivers' choose to operate in risky ways, and this makes their decision making processes and the factors that go into them the most critical concerns. Nevertheless, skill deficiencies and inadvertent errors may have a more important role in novice drivers, at least very early in their careers, than in experienced drivers. Decisions are also based on information acquiring and processing skills, and not all erroneous decisions are "deliberate" ones.
Sources of information on target behaviors and traits for driver education
It is not easy to choose the best driver behaviors or characteristics as targets for change, given the limitations of theory and data in road safety. There is limited information on the details of behavioral causes of collisions. While there is no one definitive source of data on what drivers do to produce collisions, there are a number of sources that can provide partial answers. For instance, for drivers of all ages, data from Indiana in-depth and on-site collision investigations indicate the importance of attention and environmental scanning behavior in crash causation, which Dewar characterized as "looking in the right place at the right time" (in Dewar, 1991).
In the absence of strong empirical data, expert opinion has been the dominant traditional approach. While we are not in a position to reject this approach, we should try to inform it with empirical support wherever possible. Waller (1983) wrote, "...until there is a careful empirical analysis of the driving task, our programs will continue to be based on nothing more than the collective judgment of "experts" in the field, which is often no more than pooled ignorance" (p.10). While the systematic research envisioned by Waller has not taken place, we do have the advantage of more data on critical driver deficiencies than was available in the early 80s.
In preparing background for AAA Michigan's recent report (1994) Portrait of a Young Driver, Streff investigated Michigan collision data for precrash hazardous actions by young drivers (15 to 18 years old). The actions identified, in order of prevalence were: 1) Following too closely; 2) Failure to yield; 3) Speed too fast; 4) Improper lane use; 5) Improper turn; and 6) Improper backing/start. The prevalence of these actions declined over individual years, and the hazardous action category "None" increased. In fatal crashes, the order of the categories was: 1) Speed too fast; 2) Failure to yield; 3) Following too closely; and 4) Improper lane use.
Rothe (1986) summarized young driver faults causing crashes from a review of literature as follows: 1) failure to keep in proper lane, running off road; 2) failure to yield right of way; 3) speeding; 4) driving on wrong side of the road; 5) failure to obey traffic signs; 6) reckless driving; 7) inattentiveness; 8) overtaking; 9) being fatigued; 10) poor equipment. In a longitudinal study Harrington (1972) observed changes over the first four years of driving. Right-of-way violations were more common in females' records, and in their fatal crashes, warranting an increase in emphasis on them. Over time single vehicle crashes declined, and the proportion of crashes where the young driver was cited as committing a violation went down. Evans (1987) showed that single vehicle crashes are much more prevalent among male drivers than females, and drastically higher among young males.
McKnight and Resnick (in Young, 1993) summarized frequent youth violations as: speeding, sign non-observance, equipment defects, turning unlawfully, passing unsafely, right of way violations, major infractions, and alcohol. However, they concluded, "Of several hazardous driving practices thought to be engaged in by young drivers, the authors believe that only speeding can be said to occur more often among youthful than among experienced drivers" (p.c-3). Acceptance of shorter gaps when turning was also reported, although they could not relate this to crashes. They point out that young males' higher incidence of rear end collisions could result either from their shorter headway choice or higher speed. It could also, of course, result from poor closing rate perception or some other skill deficiency.
Trankle et al. (1990) reviewed predominantly European research and concluded that young drivers are overrepresented in only a few types of crashes: speed related, loss of control, and nighttime crashes. Inappropriate speed in curves and cutting curves were frequent factors.
Differences between novice drivers and experienced drivers
Waller (1983) suggested that driver education should address those skills that differ between novice drivers and experienced drivers with good records. This was again identified as a research need in the 1991 Traffic Injury Research Foundation/Insurance Bureau of Canada Symposium New to the Road (TIRF, 1991). Based on an extensive review of research on experienced versus inexperienced drivers, Mayhew and Simpson (1995) identified empirical research support for eight skills and capabilities that are central to reducing the risk of collision for young drivers. These are:
Steering control
Speed control
Parallel processing/multitasking - skill integration
Visual search/scanning
Hazard detection
Risk assessment
Decision making
Risky lifestyle and risk taking
Risk/hazard perception research
Research addressing young drivers' excess collision risk was also reviewed in a detailed study by Jonah (1986). Young drivers perceived specific actions, such as speeding, tailgating or driving impaired as less risky than did older drivers, and they rated traffic offenses as less serious. He contrasts these with Finn and Bragg's (1986) finding that young drivers rate potential pedestrian conflicts and driving on snow-covered roads as more hazardous. Other research showed young drivers were more likely to rate fixed roadway objects as hazards and less likely to rate moving objects as hazards than older drivers. Young drivers are more likely to strike fixed objects, so perhaps there is some basis for their concern with them. Drivers under 25 were slower to recognize potential hazards. Jonah suggests novices are so preoccupied with lane tracking that they lack the spare mental capacity to search ahead for potential hazards. Mourant and Donohue (1977) found that young drivers looked at their side mirrors less, and novices were more likely to make direct looks instead of using the mirrors.
Brown and Groeger (1988) reviewed earlier work that showed poor hazard perception in inexperienced drivers, including work by Brown that showed young drivers to be relatively worse at estimating distant hazards than near ones, compared to experienced drivers. They also cited some earlier work that suggests training in self-perception of ability to handle hazards can be helpful, as was found by Schuster (1978).
Matthews and Moran (1986) suggested that young drivers overestimate the risk of low and medium risk situations and underestimate risk in high risk situations. Jonah (1986) suggests, "The weight of empirical evidence tends to support the view that young drivers may take risks more often because they are less likely to recognize risky situations when they develop. The evidence seems to be more supportive of this view when the driving situation is specific (e.g., impaired driving, tailgating)" (p.265). This raises the difficult question of why young drivers engage in riskier practices, whether it is caused by failure to perceive risky situations and potential hazards or by greater acceptance of risk.
Risk tolerance, risk perception, and skill are seen as the most critical factors for young drivers' crashes by Trankle et al. (1990), with risk perception seen as most important. In their research, young males rated slides of driving scenes involving dark, hills, and rural environments as being less risky than did older drivers. Young female drivers rated curves as more hazardous. Young males rated high speeds as less hazardous than did young females. The authors concluded that the underrated situations "provide few explicit danger signals" (p.123).
Trankle's findings are consistent with other findings that young drivers have a reduced ability to extract the full richness of available information from the environment. Lonero et al. (1995) speculated that inability to extract information from the environment, along with a high need for stimulation, may account for young drivers' tendency to drive faster than more experienced drivers. They also pointed out that common "moderate" speeding and very high speeds present different hazards and that these have not been clearly explained previously. Regardless of causes, slow or inaccurate hazard detection and choice of high traveling speeds are a particularly risky mix.
Jonah provided a good summary of research on the positive and negative value (or "utility") of risk for young drivers. He summarized positive utilities as: outlet for stress, impressing others, increasing stimulation or arousal, taking control and acting independently, opposing adult authority, frustration, fear of failure at school, peer acceptance. He lists "disutilities" of risk as: death or injury, injury to others, property damage and higher insurance premiums, loss of driving license, fines, and parental censure. He also pointed out the lack of empirical evidence regarding the relative importance of these motivational factors in the young driver's risk equation. Clement and Jonah (1984) found a significant relationship between sensation seeking and driving speed on the highway. Ultimately Jonah seems to opt for higher risk acceptance, or even risk seeking, as the explanation for young drivers' risky driving, outlining Jessor's earlier work on "psychosocial proneness to problem behavior" (see also Jessor, 1987).
Naatanen and Summala (1975) and Summala (1987) referred to "extra motives" of young drivers, that is extra to the "official" goal of the transportation system, i.e., safe transport" (Summala, 1987, p.84). These include: competition; tension reduction; showing off; sensation seeking; deliberate risk taking; and social norms or models from advertising, rally drivers, peers, and other drivers on the roads. Based on Finnish data, Summala suggests it takes about 50,000 kilometers (30,000 miles) of driving "before a young driver has satisfied his strongest extra motives and learnt to use the car rationally-or as rationally as the older driver" (p.87). Basch et al. (1987) studied young drivers' expressed attitudes, concluding, "Although as adults we may view risky driving behavior by young drivers as irrational, the results of this study produce convincing evidence that risky driving behavior can, for young people, provide valuable social rewards" (p.109). It is important to consider all factors that influence the novice drivers' decisions.
It is important to be careful in attributing motives. For instance, Quadrel et al. (1993) studied feelings of invulnerability and found adolescents to be no different from adults, who also see themselves as facing less risk than others. This rather unexpected finding reinforces the need for empirical research results rather than assumptions as a basis for effective programs-assumptions and common knowledge may well be wrong. As well, Wilde (1994b) has recently pointed out that driving may not be a fully self-paced task for drivers whose skills are very low. These drivers are not able to fully adjust their manner of driving to their skill level, because they operate as a small minority among the majority of experienced, more highly skilled drivers. If this hypothesis is correct, it reinforces the need for rapidly increasing new drivers' hazard recognition and related skills, and for diagnostic feedback for self-awareness of skill and risk.
Elander et al. (1993) reviewed behavioral correlates of differences in crash risk. They concluded that both skill (what the driver can do) and driving style (in effect, what the driver chooses to do) are critical. In skills, they found perceptual ability (to perceive targets in complex environments, to switch attention, and the speed of detecting hazards) as most important. A number of researchers have shown that measures of attention predict crash records (e.g., Arthur et al., 1994).
Differences in young drivers' risky decisions were studied by observation in an intersection situation by Konecni et al. (1976). They found that young males traveled much faster on a major arterial road and that they were more likely to run yellow and red lights. However, they were also seen to slow down more often before running the yellow, making it even more likely that they would be caught by the red. Their longer decision time in deciding whether to stop was attributed to their higher speeds and therefore greater distance from the intersection during the critical decision period. Their inexperience may also make it harder for them to respond as quickly in this complex decision situation, because they do not have the judgment skills or decision rules as well-established as more experienced drivers. The traditional assumption that young drivers have quicker reactions may be incorrect, or at least an oversimplification.
Lessons from training of advanced skills
Lonero et al. (1994) reviewed evaluations of advanced driver training programs, (e.g., McKnight, 1982; Lund and Williams, 1985; Whitworth, 1983). These evaluations suggest that raising levels of driving skill does not necessarily reduce crashes. In some cases car handling training is actually associated with a higher crash risk (e.g. Glad, 1988; Jones, 1993; OECD, 1990, 1994; Siegrist and Ramseier, 1992).
Advanced training models hold out attractive possibilities for skill improvement, at least in certain segments of the driving population. However, it is reasonably clear that practical safety benefits will only occur if these programs are coordinated with motivational influences. Otherwise, there is a clear danger that, "...increased skills raise the level of aspiration in driving (higher speed, more frequent overtaking, smaller margins of safety, etc.)" (Naatanen and Summala, 1974, p. 243). Gregersen (1996) found that a very modest slippery roads driving course increased confidence. The skills training produced no increase in actual driving skill. A comparison group were given "insight" experience in the same setting to gain an appreciation of their skill limitations, but received no skills training.
Focusing driver training and education on the most critical objectives
Young drivers' collision risk is the result of individual and social factors, operating primarily through their cognitive abilities and motivations. To make a major impact on their safety performance we have to influence the most critical aspects of both what they can do and what they choose to do on the roads. A number of clearly distinct "educable qualities" influence new drivers' safety outcomes, as suggested below (Lonero et al., 1995).
The full range of 'educable qualities' of novice drivers are identified as:
- Motivation and drives, emotions, utility expectations
- Knowledge and rules, principles
- Attention and control, dividing, switching cognitive resources
- Detection and search, scan, stimulus templates, noticing
- Perception and expectancy, recognition, identification
- Evaluation and outcome expectations, situation templates, attribution
- Decision and option matching, response selection
- Motor Skill and intended action delivery
- Safety Margin and time, speed & space
- Responsibility and self-monitor, transient states, social values
As identified in the above list, these qualities are defined primarily in relation to real-time driving tasks. The decision function is seen as pivotal in drivers' behavior. Other factors either feed into decisions or result from them. Of course, several other levels of decision, outside real-time driving, affect risk. Decisions to seek training and become licensed, equipment choices, trip planning, speed choice take place ahead of critical driving situations, but are also critical to outcomes. The other qualities also have broader impacts and influence the more remote decisions.
Focusing driver training and education on the most effective methods
Curriculum resources and other influences need to be driven by the objectives and organized according to the objectives structure (Robinson et al., 1985). Driver education methods have traditionally centered around textbook and lecture transmission of knowledge, with 25-30 classroom hours being typical. This is supplemented with limited instruction, observation, and supervised driving practice on the road, typically between 6 and 10 hours. Some DE programs have included range driving or driving simulators of various types.
There are two principal trends currently emerging that will move DE away from its traditional methods:
1) More participation and group work by the students in the classroom; and
2) Individualized, computer-based, interactive multi-media training and testing.
Greater efficiency in the mastery of driving abilities is important to free up teacher resources to address the driver qualities of higher safety criticality-Motivation, Decision, and Responsibility, which determine what drivers choose to do. The need for and possibility of these trends is not new-they were identified in the Automotive Safety Foundation's Resource Curriculum for driver education, developed by Richard Bishop and others in 1970.
Many improvements in technology and understanding have taken place in the last two decades. Participational and interactive teaching methods are widely seen as desirable in general education, and they are now both desirable and feasible for driver education (e.g., Geller et al., 1990; Lonero et al., 1995). Computer-based instruction and part-task simulation have reached a point where we are now ready to make use of their largely-untapped potential for training relatively complex capacities, such as allocation of attention (e.g., Gopher, 1992). Different people have different preferred learning styles. They may be more or less efficient in learning through the different sensory modalities and instructional structures (Gagne & Briggs, 1988). Optional media permit different students can use the medium that best suits their needs. The highest risk young drivers may be the very ones who learn least well through conventional lecture/text methods.
The highest risk young drivers may also have low self esteem, low self control, low social responsibility, and irrational beliefs (Rolls and Ingham, 1992). Social responsibility and the intrinsic motivations for self worth, task mastery, autonomy, and self control are critical to the achievement of DE's safety goals. Therefore DE should both target the growth of these qualities and provide opportunities for practicing them in the curriculum (Caine & Caine, 1994). Self-pacing, diagnostics, frequent performance feedback, rewards for process effort and interim accomplishments, and a certain amount of self-direction and group goal planning should be included. Participation in goal setting will help maintain learning motivation along the way (as opposed to the overriding motive of obtaining a driver's license). Group work will help consolidate rational peer influences (Kay, Peyton, & Pike, 1987).
Computer-based multi-media resources can facilitate self-paced learning, by providing equivalent optional paths through the learning process, with ongoing diagnosis, evaluation and feedback. Self-pacing and diagnostics can give "advanced standing" to those who enter with greater knowledge and skills. Those who learn faster can progress rapidly, keeping up their motivation and reaching higher levels of achievement. Some of the high risk young drivers are also among those who come to DE with a great deal of knowledge about, and interest in, cars and driving (Rolls and Ingham, 1992). It is not helpful for DE to bore these students.
Linking driver education with other behavioral influences
Lasting improvement of collision rates probably requires a comprehensive influence program stronger than even an advanced driver education curriculum. Offsetting increased licensing rates of trained teenagers adds to the challenge. Motivational, social, family, and community influences, and improved licensing are required. Changing organizational behavior becomes as much of an issue as individual change. A comprehensive health promotion model has been adapted by Lonero et al. (1995) for more specific application to the planning and management of comprehensive behavioral influence programs for road safety. A derivative of this behavior change approach applied to driver education development is reflected in Figure 1 below.
The boxes in the figure represent needed components for support of basic driver training, to help make it an effective behavioral influence. Programs, materials, and leadership are needed to provide an infrastructure for support of the safety objectives of driver education within families and communities. A number of these suggested training and influence modules are already under development in various jurisdictions. In North America, an interesting new development is the entry of well-funded private corporations into this field, along with the more traditional government, private foundation, and not-for-profit associations. A strong injection of capital, technology, and marketing expertise could perhaps create a competitive market for high quality, continuously improving driver education.
Summary
In North America, reaction to the SPC/DeKalb experiment knocked the wind out of DE, even though it showed some positive effects. Novice drivers are greatly overrepresented in crashes, and their casualties are strongly affected by the economic cycle. Novice drivers are less able to control attention, scan the environment effectively, detect potential hazards early, and make tough decisions quickly. They perceive less risk in specific violations and high-risk situations but more risk in lower risk situations. Novice drivers choose to drive too fast, too close to others, accept small gaps in traffic, have unrealistic confidence in their own abilities, and leave inadequate safety margins.
Training needs to be more sharply focused on perceptual and cognitive skills. Education needs to better involve novice drivers' individual motivations and social responsibility. Performance objectives are to be focused on: 1. improving novice drivers' ability to better perceive and evaluate the risks they face while driving; and 2. reducing the amount of risk they are willing to tolerate on the roads, both for themselves and for others.
DE is given a tougher mission than other forms of education and should therefore become a leader in participational education in the classroom and self-paced, automated training in the lab. Effective reduction of novice drivers' crashes will likely require linking DE more closely with parental and community influences, licensing, and other behavioral influences such as incentives and disincentives. New developments and synergies among education methods, training, technologies, and demand for quality promise a new and more effective role for driver education in the 21st Century.
Select bibliography
AAA Michigan (1994). Portrait of a young driver. Dearborn, Michigan: AAA Michigan.
Arthur, W., Strong, M.H., & Williamson, J. (1994). Validation of a visual attention test as a predictor of driving accident involvement. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67, 173-182.
Automotive Safety Foundation (1970). A resource curriculum in driver and traffic safety education. Washington, D.C.: Automotive Safety Foundation.
Basch, C.E., DeCicco, I.M., & Malfetti, J.L. (1987). Perceptions, attitudes, motivations and behaviors of drivers 18 to 22 years old. Safety Research and Education Project, Teachers College, Columbia University. Falls Church, Virginia: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Brown, I.D., & Groeger, J.A. (1988). Risk perception and decision taking during the transition between novice and experienced driver status. Ergonomics, 31, 4, 585-597.
Caine, R.N., & Caine, G. (1994). Making connections, teaching and the human brain. Menlo Park, CA: Innovative Learning Publications, Addison-Wesley.
Clement, R., & Jonah, B.A. (1984). Field dependence, sensation seeking and driving behavior. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 87-93.
Dewar, R. (1991). Driver and pedestrian characteristics. In J.L. Pline (Ed.), Traffic Engineering Handbook (pp. 1-28). Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Elander, J., West, R., & French, D. (1993). Behavioral correlates of individual differences in road-traffic crash risk: An examination of methods and findings. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 2, 279-294.
Evans, L. (1987). Young driver involvement in severe car crashes. Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving, 3, 63-78.
Evans, L., & Wasielewski, P. (1982). Do accident-involved drivers exhibit riskier everyday driving behavior? Accident Analysis and Prevention, 14, 1, 57-64.
Finn, P., & Bragg, B.W.E. (1986). Perception of the risk of an accident by young and older drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 4, 289-298.
Fuller, R. (1984). A conceptualization of driving behavior as threat avoidance. Ergonomics, 27, 11, 1139-1155.
Fuller, R. (1988). Psychological aspects of learning to drive. In T. Rothengatter & R. de Bruin (Eds.), Road user behavior: Theory and research (pp. 527-537). Wolfeboro, New Hampshire: Van Gorcum.
Gagne, R.M., Briggs, L.J., & Wagner, W.W. (1988). Principles of instructional design (Third edition). Orlando, Florida: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Gebers, M.A., Romanowica, P.A., & McKenzie, D.M. (1993). Teen and senior drivers (CAL-DMV-RSS-93-141). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Motor Vehicles.
Geller, E.S. (1991). If only more would actively care. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 4, 607-611.
Geller, E.S., Berry, T.D., Ludwig, T.D., Evans, R.E., Gilmore, M.R., & Clarke, S.W. (1990). A conceptual framework for developing and evaluating behavior change interventions for injury control. Health Education Research, 5, 2, 125-137.
Glad, A. (1988). Phase 2 driver education effect on the risk of accident. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Center for Research.
Gopher, D. (1992). The skill of attention control: Acquisition and execution of attention strategies. In D.E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV, Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 299-322). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Green, L.W. (1980). To educate or not to educate: Is that the question? American Journal of Public Health, 70, 6, 625 & 626.
Green, L.W., & Kreuter, M.W. (1991). Health promotion planning: An educational and environmental approach. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.
Gregersen, N.P. (1996).Young drivers' overestimation of their own skill-An experiment on the relation between training strategy and skill. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 28, 243-250.
Harrington, D.M. (1972). The young driver follow-up study: An evaluation of the role of human factors in the first four years of driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 4, 191-240.
Jessor, R. (1987). Risky driving and adolescent problem behavior: An extension of problem-behavior theory. Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving, 3, 3-4, 1-11.
Jonah, B.A. (1986). Accident risk and risk-taking behavior among young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 4, 255-271.
Jones, B. (1993). The effectiveness of skid-car training for teenage novice drivers in Oregon. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles.
Kay, C.R., Peyton, S.K., & Pike, R. (1987). Diagnosing the training situation: Matching instructional techniques with learning outcomes and environment. In J.W. Pfeiffer (Ed.), The 1987 Annual: Developing human resources. San Diego, CA: University Associates.
Konecni, V.J., Ebbesen, E.B., & Konecni D.K. (1976). Decision processes and risk taking in traffic: Driver response to the onset of yellow light. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 3, 359-367.
Lonero, L.P., Clinton, K.M., Wilde, G.J.S., Roach, K., McKnight, A.J., MacLean, H. & Guastello, S.J. (1994). Methods to influence road user behavior. Toronto, Ontario: Ministry of Transportation.
Lonero, L.P., Clinton, K.M., Brock, J.F., Wilde, G.J.S., Laurie, I., Black, D. (1995a) Novice Driver Education Model Curriculum Outline, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Washington, D.C.
Lund, A.K., & Williams, A.F. (1985). A review of the literature evaluating the defensive driving course. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 17, 6, 449-460.
Lund, A.K., Williams, A.F., & Zador, P. (1986). High school driver education: Further evaluation of the Dekalb County study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 4, 349-357.
Malfetti, J.L. (1986). Traffic Safety Communication Rating Scales (TSCRS) with guidelines for preparing and testing a safety message. Falls Church, VA: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.
Mayhew, D.R and Simson, H.M. (1995). The Role of Driving Experience: Implications for the Training and Licensing of New Drivers. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Traffic Injury Research Foundation.
Mayhew, D.R and Simson, H.M. (1997). Effectiveness and Role of Driver Education and Training in a Graduated Licensing System. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Traffic Injury Research Foundation.
Mathews, M.L., & Moran, A.R. (1986). Age differences in male drivers' perception of accident risk: The role of perceived driving ability. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 18, 4, 299-313.
McKnight, A.J. & Hundt, A.G. (1971). Driver education task analysis: Instructional objectives. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.
McKnight, A.J. (1982). An experimental evaluation of driver license manuals and written tests. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 14, 3, 187-192.
Mourant, R.R., & Donohue, R.J. (1977). Acquisition of indirect vision information by novice, experienced, and mature drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 9, 1, 39-46.
Naatanen, R., & Summala, H. (1974). A model for the role of motivational factors in drivers' decision-making. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 6, 243-261.
Naatanen, R., & Summala, H. (1975). A simple method for simulating danger-related aspects of behavior in hazardous activities. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 7, 63-70.
NHTSA (1994). Research Agenda For An Improved Novice Driver Education Program. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Department of Transportation.
OECD (1990). Behavioral adaptations to changes in the road transport system. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Road Transport Research.
OECD (1994). Improving road safety by attitude modification. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Road Transport Research.
Plato, K.C., & Rasp, A. Jr. (1983). Parental views on issues related to traffic safety education and the licensing of teenage drivers. Olympia, Washington: Washington Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Potvin, L., Champagne, F., & Laberge-Nadeau, C. (1988). Mandatory driver training and road safety: the Quebec experience. American Journal of Public Health, 78, 1206-1209.
Quadrel, M.J., Fischhoff, B., & Davis, W. (1993). Adolescent (in)vulnerability. American Psychologist, 48, 2, 102-116.
Rasmussen, J. (1987). The definition of human error and a taxonomy for technical system design. In J. Rasmussen, K. Duncan & J. Leplat (Eds.), New Technology and Human Error. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Ray, H.W., Sadof, M., Weaver, J., Brink, J.R., & Stock, J.R. (1980). Safe performance secondary school driver education curriculum demonstration project. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.
Reason, J. (1990). Human Error. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and violations on the roads: A real distinction? Ergonomics, 33, 10/11, 1315-1332.
Robertson, L.S. (1980). Crash involvement of teenaged drivers when driver education is eliminated from high school. American Journal of Public Health, 70, 6, 599-603.
Robinson, F., Ross, J., & White, F. (1985). Curriculum development for effective instruction. Toronto, Ontario: OISE Press.
Rolls, G.W., & Ingham, R. (1993). The perspectives of young car drivers. In G.B. Grayson (Ed.), Behavioral research in road safety III, Proceedings of a seminar at the University of Kent, 22-23 September, 1992 (pp. 11-18). Crowthorne, Berkshire: Transport Research Laboratory.
Rothe, J.P. (1986). British Columbia secondary students: Lifestyle and driving survey. North Vancouver, Canada: Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.
Schuster, D.H. (1978). Cognitive accident-avoidance training for beginning drivers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 3, 377-379.
Siegrist, S., & Ramseier, E. (1992). Evaluation of advanced driving courses. Bern, Switzerland: BFU.
Smith, D.L. (1983). The DeKalb driver education project. The same mistakes: Improper criteria. Journal of Traffic Safety Education, XXX, 2, 14.
Stock, J.R., Weaver, J.K., Ray, H.W., Brink, J.R., & Sadof, M.G. (1983). Evaluation of safe performance secondary school driver education curriculum demonstration project. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Summala, H. (1987). Young driver accidents: Risk taking of failure of skills? Alcohol, Drugs, and Driving, 3, 3-4, 79-91.
TAC & CCMTA (1994). Road safety in Canada: Facing the challenge 2001. Proceedings of the National Road Safety Symposium, February 13-16, 1994, Toronto, Ontario. Ottawa, Ontario: Transportation Association of Canada and the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators.
TIRF (1991). New to the road: Prevention measures for young or novice drivers. Key findings and implications from an International Symposium, held in Halifax, Nova Scotia on February 17-20. Ottawa, Ontario: Traffic Injury Research Foundation of Canada.
Trankle, U., Gelau, C., & Metker, T. (1990). Risk perception and age-specific accidents of young drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 22, 2, 119-125.
Waller, P.F. (1975). Education for driving: an exercise in self delusion? Driver Research Colloquim, June 4-5. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute.
Waller, P.F. (1983). Young drivers: Reckless or unprepared? A paper prepared for the International Symposium on Young Driver Accidents: In Search of Solutions. Banff, Alberta. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: North Carolina University.
Weaver, J.K. (1987). Summary of preliminary results: Follow-up evaluation safe performance curriculum driver education project. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Whitworth, R.A. (1983). An advanced driver education program. General Motors Special Publication 4637.
Wilde, G.J.S. (1993). Improve risk perception and reduce risk acceptance: Two proposals for driver education. Proceedings of a working conference on novice driver education, April 22-23. University of Alberta, Edmonton.
Wilde, G.J.S. (1994a). Target risk. Toronto, Ontario: PDE Publications.
Wilde, G.J.S. (1994b). Risk homeostasis theory and its promise for improved safety. In R.M. Trimpop & G.J.S. Wilde (Eds.), Challenges to accident prevention: The issue of risk compensation behavior (pp. 9-24). Groningen, The Netherlands: Styx Publications.
Williams, A.F., & O'Neill, B. (1974). On-the-road driving records of licensed race drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 6, 263-270.
Williams, A.F. (1996). Overview of the young driver problem in the United States. Transportation Research Circular, 458, 6-8.
Wynne-Jones, J.D., & Hurst, P.M. (1984). The AA Driver Training Evaluation. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Transport.
Young, K. (1993). Workshop to identify training requirements designed to reduce young drive risk taking and improve decision making skills. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Further comments to this article have been disabled.
All Comments (4)
Showing 1 - 4 comments
jon,
jake,
this was not helpfull at all thanks for nothin
latora,
an emotional event not related to driving is
shakita,
the emotions that occur more often to more drivers is
