Graduated driver licensing and safer driving
Introduction
Initial attempts at unsupervised driving by teenage novices are characterized by inordinately high risk. The per-mile fatal crash rate of 16-year-old drivers is three times that of 18-year-olds and 10 times that of adults (Williams & Ferguson, 2002). Teens report their crash rate falling by half over the first 250 miles and by two-thirds over the first 500 miles of driving (McCartt, Leaf, Farmer, Ferguson, & Williams, 2000). Similar reductions in crash rate are reported at all ages (Maycock, Lockwood, & Lester, 1991). While estimates as to the magnitude of risk may vary, it is clear that introduction to the demands of the traffic environment are fraught with danger. One means to helping novices to better cope with these demands has been introduction of a “provisional” license between the closely supervised driving required by a learner permit and the unrestricted driving allowed by full licensure.
The provisional license was first introduced during the 1960s by the States of Victoria and New South Wales in Australia. In the mid-1970s, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) studied the threats to novice drivers and formulated a three-step licensing process now generally known as Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL; Croke & Wilson, 1977). Application of the NHTSA model first occurred under a contract to the State of Maryland, which introduced in 1978 a provisional license allowing unsupervised driving but requiring a period of parent-guided instruction, a night-driving restriction, early intervention with traffic violators and full licensure only after a period of violation-free driving. Various versions of GDL were introduced in California in 1983 and New Zealand in 1987. However, it was not until the 1990s that it began to gain wide acceptance, being introduced at an accelerated pace throughout North America and Europe.
While the various forms of GDL call for a provisional license phase, the elements of that phase differ widely across jurisdictions. In addition, although almost all GDL systems have been associated with some reduction in crashes, the simultaneous introduction of the different elements has made the sources of the reduction difficult to identify. Broadly speaking, the sources can be divided into two categories: exposure reduction and safer driving.
Certain restrictions in driving during the provisional phase of GDL are intended to reduce exposure to high-risk situations until novices have achieved a degree of experience and proficiency. Night-time restrictions limit exposure to the dangers of driving under low illumination, alcohol impairment and fatigue. Passenger restrictions are expected to reduce crashes resulting from the influence of teenage passengers as well as the numbers than might be injured in any crash. Both restrictions have been associated with significant crash and injury reduction without serious limitations in mobility. A third source of exposure reduction occurs when the learner phase is extended. While the objective of an extension primarily is to improve ability and lead to safer driving, it also serves to delay licensing, reducing the numbers of novices operating unsupervised, as well as the mileage they compile, essentially raising the licensing age.
Those elements of GDL intended to improve the safety with which novices actually drive include extended learning, early intervention with traffic violators, making advancement to full licensure contingent on violation-free driving, and multistage instruction. Extension of the learner phase, while reducing exposure, is intended primarily to provide opportunities for greater learning and thus improved safety when novices are allowed to drive unsupervised on the provisional license. The effects can be assessed where crash records for the newly licensed are compared before and after the introduction of GDL. Early intervention with traffic violators is expected to have both a general deterrent effect upon those novices facing action with the next offense and a specific deterrent effect upon those who have experienced the intervention. Making advancement from provisional to full licensure contingent upon a violation-free driving record is expected to serve as an incentive to safe driving. Finally, multistage instruction calls for a period of basic skill development following initial instruction before attempting to introduce more advanced skills.
This paper will address those GDL elements that seek primarily to improve the safety of operation among novices, including both the nature of the elements themselves and the available evidence as to their effectiveness. Exposure reduction is addressed in the paper by Lin and Fearn (2003).
Section snippets
Extended learning
GDL systems have generally attempted to extend learning by increasing the duration of the learner phase and the amount of supervised driving required. The most common combination of these is a required 6 months driving on the permit and 50 h of supervision before issuance of a provisional license. A number of jurisdictions specify only the duration of the period and a few only the hours of driving. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety maintains an up-to-date summary chart of GDL
Early intervention
One of the more pervasive GDL elements is the introduction of driver improvement interventions at a lower violation threshold than is the case for adults. Moreover, where the first rung on the driver improvement ladder for adults is typically an informational or instructional intervention, license suspension is often the first step for those in the provisional phase of GDL. The expected effect of suspension is twofold: general deterrence for all drivers operating on provisional licenses at a
Contingent advancement
While the provisional license phase is a fixed period in most GDL systems, some make advancement to full licensure contingent upon a violation-free driving record for some period of time, most often one year. Under such an arrangement, each violation extends the duration of the provisional license phase for the specified period. This contingent advancement element is a part of graduated licensing in Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, and New Zealand, as well as the Model Graduated Licensing
Two stage instruction
In most jurisdictions making formal instruction a prerequisite to licensing, the instruction is a one-shot affair. Novices are expected to progress from total lack of skill to a finished product in 6 h behind the wheel. Much of safe driving demands the ability to share attention between the basic control required in keeping the car on the road and surveying the highway traffic scene to respond appropriately to changing roadway and traffic conditions. Such attention sharing demands that the more
Summary
Those elements of GDL that seek to improve the safety of novice drivers have included (1) extending the length and effectiveness of the learning process, (2) intervening early with novices who violate traffic laws, (3) making advancement from provisional to full licensure contingent upon a violation-free driving record, and (4) providing instruction in stages such that novices achieve a degree of mastery in basic skills before more advanced skills are introduced.
References (19)
- et al.
Sixteen years age limit for learners in Sweden: an evaluation of safety effects
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(2000) The effectiveness of provisional licensing in Oregon: an analysis of traffic safety benefits
Journal of Safety Research
(1994)- et al.
The provisional license: nighttime and passenger restrictions
Journal of Safety Research
(2003) - et al.
Responses of teenagers to California's graduated licensing system
Accident Analysis and Prevention
(2002) - et al.
- et al.
- et al.
The Quebec graduated licensing system for novice drivers: a two-year evaluation of the 1997 reform
- Croke, J. E., & Wilson, W. B. (1977). Development of a model system for provisional (graduated) licensing of novice...
- et al.
Group interviews for probationary drivers with low violation levels: an evaluation of the traffic safety impact
(1987)
Cited by (21)
The perceptions of young rural drivers in NSW, Australia of speeding and associated risk: A mixed methods study
2013, Accident Analysis and PreventionCitation Excerpt :Those who have had considerable pre-licensing off-road vehicle handling experiences may assess risks differently. It has been noted that there are parallels between graduated driver licensing (GDL) (McKnight and Peck, 2003) and the experiences that early off-road driving allows. This work was in the US; the schemes in USA and Australia have similarities.
Stereotype threat and hazard perception among provisional license drivers
2013, Accident Analysis and PreventionCitation Excerpt :He also found that accident rates among young males fell by 16% post-implementation, while there was no difference in accident rates among females. In a recent meta-analysis, Zhu et al. (2012) found that GDL programs were associated with a 22% decrease in crash rates among 16 year old drivers, a 6% decrease among 17 year old drivers, and no decrease among 18 year old drivers (see also Cooper et al., 2005; Hedland and Compton, 2005; Masten and Hagge, 2004; McCartt et al., 2010; McKnight and Peck, 2003; Simpson, 2003; Williams and Shults, 2010; Williams et al., 2012). Despite some evidence that GDL programs have a positive impact on accident and fatality rates among young drivers, it remains unclear which of the GDL and PLD provisions are responsible for the positive outcomes (Hedland et al., 2006; Simpson, 2003).
Driver Education and Training
2011, Handbook of Traffic PsychologyLong-term effect of the North Carolina graduated driver licensing system on licensed driver crash incidence: A 5-year survival analysis
2010, Accident Analysis and PreventionCitation Excerpt :Although GDL was expected to produce more savvy young drivers, by virtue of the extensive experience they obtained before beginning to drive on their own, no study to date has employed a study design that can adequately measure such an effect, although Gregersen et al. (2000) did use a cohort-based approach to determine the effects of lowering the learner age in Sweden from 17.5 to 16 years old. Consequently, GDL is generally described – sometimes pejoratively – as producing benefits only by reducing exposure through decreasing and delaying full licensure (Karaca-Mandic and Ridgeway, 2010; McCartt, 2001; McKnight and Peck, 2003; Preusser and Tison, 2007). The present study directly addresses whether GDL produces drivers who are better able to avoid crashing, by comparing individual crash experiences for young drivers who began driving under the GDL and pre-GDL licensing systems in North Carolina.
Contribution of the components of graduated licensing to crash reductions
2007, Journal of Safety ResearchGraduated driver licensing in Utah: Is it effective?
2005, Annals of Emergency MedicineCitation Excerpt :The low citation rate may indicate that law enforcement in our state is not adequately enforcing graduated driver licensing restrictions. Evidence from other studies suggests that enforcement of graduated driver licensing restrictions is not a high priority for law enforcement agencies.27-29 There are several reasons why officers may not be citing graduated driver licensing restrictions.