Elsevier

Accident Analysis & Prevention

Volume 72, November 2014, Pages 302-308
Accident Analysis & Prevention

Comparison of teen and adult driver crash scenarios in a nationally representative sample of serious crashes

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.07.016Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The top five teen crash scenarios accounted for 37% of teen serious crashes.

  • The top five adult crash scenarios accounted for 34% of adult serious crashes.

  • Teens and adults share four scenarios among their top five.

  • Recognition errors were the predominant factor for teens and adults in many scenarios.

  • For two scenarios, teens made a critical decision error more often than adults.

Abstract

Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and acquired disability during the first four decades of life. While teen drivers have the highest crash risk, few studies examine the similarities and differences in teen and adult driver crashes. We aimed to: (1) identify and compare the most frequent crash scenarios—integrated information on a vehicle's movement prior to crash, immediate pre-crash event, and crash configuration—for teen and adult drivers involved in serious crashes, and (2) for the most frequent scenarios, explore whether the distribution of driver critical errors differed for teens and adult drivers. We analyzed data from the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, a nationally representative study of serious crashes conducted by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration from 2005 to 2007. Our sample included 642 16- to 19-year-old and 1167 35- to 54-year-old crash-involved drivers (weighted n = 296,482 and 439,356, respectively) who made a critical error that led to their crash's critical pre-crash event (i.e., event that made the crash inevitable). We estimated prevalence ratios (PR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to compare the relative frequency of crash scenarios and driver critical errors. The top five crash scenarios among teen drivers, accounting for 37.3% of their crashes, included: (1) going straight, other vehicle stopped, rear end; (2) stopped in traffic lane, turning left at intersection, turn into path of other vehicle; (3) negotiating curve, off right edge of road, right roadside departure; (4) going straight, off right edge of road, right roadside departure; and (5) stopped in lane, turning left at intersection, turn across path of other vehicle. The top five crash scenarios among adult drivers, accounting for 33.9% of their crashes, included the same scenarios as the teen drivers with the exception of scenario (3) and the addition of going straight, crossing over an intersection, and continuing on a straight path. For two scenarios ((1) and (3) above), teens were more likely than adults to make a critical decision error (e.g., traveling too fast for conditions). Our findings indicate that among those who make a driver critical error in a serious crash, there are few differences in the scenarios or critical driver errors for teen and adult drivers.

Introduction

Motor vehicle crashes (MVCs) are one of the leading causes of death for all ages in the United States, and accounted for almost 2700 deaths of 16- to 19-year-olds and over 19,000 deaths of 20- to 54-year-olds in 2010 (CDC, 2010). Although teen and adult crash fatality rates have declined in recent years, current crash rates still have a serious human and economic cost (Finkelstein et al., 2006, Sommers et al., 2011). Per mile driven, teens are three times more likely to crash than adults (IIHS, 2013); however among teens and adults who do crash, little is known about the similarities and differences in the types of crashes that occur and factors that contribute to the crashes. Disentangling the complex factors associated with teen and adult MVCs is critical to prevention efforts, policy initiatives, and determining whether teens require interventions and training programs to meet their unique needs.

Several studies have identified proximate crash-contributing factors (i.e., occurring in immediate crash environment) among teen drivers, including: inadequate surveillance (Curry et al., 2011); cell phone use and other technological in-vehicle distractions (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997, Neyens and Boyle, 2008); peer passengers (Chen et al., 2000, Simons-Morton et al., 2005, Curry et al., 2012, Tefft et al., 2012); and risky driving behaviors (Williams, 2003, Ivers et al., 2009). Although adults age out of the developmental challenges related to teen crashes and often have more experience than teens behind the wheel, adults also engage in distracted driving behaviors (NHTSA, 2013) and have additional key risk factors that include alcohol-impaired driving (CDC, 2013) and poor sleep patterns (Thygerson et al., 2011). Recent studies have identified the relative frequency of different types of teen crashes, assessed changes over the first few years of licensure, explored how teen crash types differ from adults, and examined differences in the contributing factors of teens and adults crashes (Braitman et al., 2008, Peek-Asa et al., 2010, Foss et al., 2011, Bingham and Ehsani, 2012, Klauer et al., 2014). Although the literature provides important information on the mechanisms by which crashes occur, few studies have sought to compare teen and adult crashes with integrated information on crash-contributing factors and crash types in a nationally representative sample.

The National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey (NMVCCS), a study of on-site crash investigations conducted by NHTSA, provided data on a nationally representative sample of 5470 serious crashes between 2005 and 2007 (NHTSA, 2008a). The breadth and depth of the NMVCCS data were unique because they included the movement and position of each vehicle immediately prior to and during the crash event and data about the crash-contributing driver, vehicle, and environment (NHTSA, 2008b). Analyses of NMVCCS data allow us to gain a more complete understanding of the immediate environment of MVCs, and how the complex environment of teen crashes may be unique or similar compared with adult crashes.

Our objective was to identify and compare the most frequent crash “scenarios”—or integrated information on a vehicle's movement prior to crash, the critical pre-crash event, and the crash configuration—among teen and adult drivers involved in serious crashes. Further, we aimed to determine whether the relative frequency of crash scenarios differed by gender. Lastly, we conducted exploratory analysis to compare, for the most frequent scenarios, the prevalence of high-level categories of driver critical errors (i.e., an error that led directly to the critical pre-crash event) for teen and adult crash-involved drivers.

Section snippets

NMVCCS study design and sample

NHTSA conducted data collection for NMVCCS between July 2005 and December 2007. The sampling and data collection methods used in NMVCCS are reported in more detail elsewhere (NHTSA, 2008a, Curry et al., 2011). Briefly, the overall goal of NMVCCS was to identify pre-crash events and contributing vehicular, driver, and environmental factors in order to inform subsequent development of crash avoidance technologies. Data were collected on crashes: in sampling areas that occurred between 6 am and

Sample description

A total of 642 teens and 1167 adults were included in our analytic sample (weighted n = 296,482 and 439,356 teens and adults, respectively). Given that we selected only those drivers who made a driver critical error for their crash and only one critical reason (driver-related or otherwise) was assigned per crash, no teen or adult in our sample was in the same crash. The mean (sd) age was 17.7 years (1.0) for the teen group and 43.9 years (5.6) for the adult group. Males represented 51% of teen

Discussion

We found that among those who make a driver critical error in a serious crash, there are few differences in the scenarios or critical driver errors for teen and adult drivers. Among the top five scenarios in teen and adult drivers, both were involved in the same rear-end, left turn intersection (into path), and (straight) run-off the road crash scenarios. In addition, teen and adult drivers had no difference in relative frequencies of critical driver errors in the scenarios, in particular with

Conclusions

We provide national prevalence estimates for specific teen and adult crash scenarios, and compare critical errors related to serious teen and adult crashes. Overall, we found that teens and adults are involved in the same crash scenarios, suggesting that countermeasures designed for adults might be advantageous for teens who crash and vice versa. Our exploratory analyses also indicate few differences in the critical driver errors that lead to the most common scenarios, with nuanced differences

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Melissa Morrison and Michael Elliot for their contributions to the study, and acknowledge the National Science Foundation (NSF) Center for Child Injury Prevention Studies at The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) for sponsoring this study and its Industry Advisory Board (IAB) members for their support, valuable input and advice. The views presented are those of the authors and not necessarily the views of CHOP, the NSF, or the IAB members. The authors

References (32)

  • B.G. Simons-Morton et al.

    The observed effects of teenage passengers on the risky driving behavior of teenage drivers

    Accid. Anal. Prev.

    (2005)
  • A.F. Williams

    Teenage drivers: patterns of risk

    J. Saf. Res.

    (2003)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System

    (2010)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

    Impaired Driving: Get the Facts

    (2013)
  • L.-H. Chen et al.

    Carrying passengers as a risk factor for crashes fatal to 16–17 year old drivers

    JAMA

    (2000)
  • E.A. Finkelstein et al.

    Incidence and Economic Burden of Injuries in the United States

    (2006)
  • Cited by (53)

    • Teenagers and driving

      2023, Encyclopedia of Child and Adolescent Health, First Edition
    • Is it time to apply a harm reduction approach to young driver education?

      2021, Journal of Transport and Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      Risk-taking is an important feature of healthy neurobiologically-driven development during adolescence (Duell and Steinberg, 2020). While the majority of inflated road risk at this time is due to the onset of driving and inexperience errors, driver risk-taking also plays a role (McDonald et al., 2014a; Mitchell et al., 2015). Nationally-representative survey research in the United States (AAAFTS, 2020), for example, found 16-18 year-olds commonly report speeding (e.g., 47% on residential roads), phone use while driving (44% reading only, 35% manual use), aggressive driving (31%) and more modestly driving when fatigued (25%), without a seatbelt (17%) and following cannabis use (9%).

    • Investigating fatal and injury crash patterns of teen drivers with unsupervised learning algorithms

      2021, IATSS Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Table 1 presents a brief review of the selected peer-reviewed studies that utilized police-reported crash information to recognize critical teen driver crash contributory factors. Most of the literature applied either simple descriptive statistics [18,26] or traditional parametric models [5,15,19,20,28,29,31,32] to examine the interconnections between contributory factors and teen driver crash risk. However, these statistical models have already been criticized for their predefined assumptions (e.g., explanatory variables are mutually exclusive) as these hypotheses might not always be valid [33].

    • Near crash characteristics among risky drivers using the SHRP2 naturalistic driving study

      2020, Journal of Safety Research
      Citation Excerpt :

      Disproportionately represented among motor-vehicle fatalities are risky drivers, specifically young and older drivers (IIHS, 2018a). Previous research has suggested that inexperience and skill deficits among young drivers (McKnight & McKnight, 2003; White and Caird, 2010; Curry et al., 2011; McDonald, 2013, McDonald Curry, Kandadai, Sommers, & Winston, 2014; Montgomery, Kusano, & Gabler, 2014; Loeb, Kandadai, McDonald, & Winston, 2015; McGehee et al., 2016) and degrading health and motor skills among older drivers (Braitman, Kirley, Chaudhary, & Ferguson, 2007; Callaghan, Holland, & Kessler, 2017; Conlon, Power, Hine, & Rahaley, 2017; Owsley, McGwin, & Ball, 1998; Oxley, Charlton, Koppel, Scully, & Fildes, 2005) contribute to their increased crash rate. However, it is important to recognize that crashes alone do not tell the whole story.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text