Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Objectives To analyse factors influencing the American public’s preferences for changes to teenage driver licensing requirements.
Methods We employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with 808 participants from National Opinion Research Center’s AmeriSpeak panel to assess preferences for two existing elements (on-road testing and intermediate licensure period) and a new feature (driver monitoring with telematics during the intermediate licensure period) of licensing system. Multinomial and mixed logit models were used to estimate preference weights, marginal rates of substitution and the relative importance of each attribute.
Results Among 730 respondents who completed all DCE choice tasks, we found robust support for changes to teenage driver licensing requirements, with preferences varying by individual characteristics. Respondents expressed a high baseline support for changes to teen driving licensure policies. They favoured testing, prioritising easy tests and opposed prolonged driver monitoring and extended intermediate licensure periods. Baseline preference weights exhibited substantial heterogeneity, emphasising the diversity of public preferences. The marginal rates of substitution revealed a preference for extended driver monitoring over an extended intermediate licensure period. An easy test was valued at 2.85 times more than a hard one. The most influential attributes were the length of intermediate licence period and testing requirements, with the former twice as important.
Conclusions Our study found robust support for reforms to teenage driver licensing requirements, favouring easier on-road driving tests over an extended period of intermediate licensure and driver monitoring. Public preferences for licensing systems need to be balanced with the broader policy objectives including optimising mobility and maximising safety.
- Behavior
- Attitudes
- Economic Analysis
- Public Health
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request. Data are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
Data are available on reasonable request. Data are available on reasonable request from the corresponding author.
Footnotes
Contributors EFD, JM and JE conceived and designed the study and the DCE survey. All authors contributed to the design and acquisition of data. EFD analysed and interpreted the data and wrote the first draft. All authors critically revised and approved the final version of the manuscript. EFD acts as the guarantor.
Funding EFD and JM were supported by The Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy Pilot Award through Grant R49CE003090 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC; PI: Frattaroli); JE was supported by CDC Grant R49CE003090.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.