Parent-imposed limits on high-risk adolescent driving: are they stricter with graduated driver licensing?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2005.01.008Get rights and content

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether parent-imposed limits on 16-year-old high-risk driving are stricter in Maryland (MD), a state with graduated driver licensing (GDL) than in Connecticut (CT), a non-GDL state. In both states, parents and adolescents completed telephone surveys about the restrictions that parents placed on their adolescents’ driving at night, with adolescent passengers, and at high speeds. In Maryland, surveys took place 1 month (294 parent–adolescent pairs) and 4 months (292 parent–adolescent pairs) after provisional licensure. In Connecticut, surveys took place the first month (132 pairs) and the third month (108 pairs) after adolescent licensure. The findings indicated that after controlling for demographic characteristics, Maryland parents and adolescents reported stricter parent-imposed limits for adolescent passengers, high-speed roads, weekend night driving, and overall limits. Parents in GDL states appear better able to establish and enforce adolescent driving restrictions when the licensing state stipulates, favors, and supports regulated adolescent driving.

Introduction

In recent years, graduated driver licensing (GDL) has gained rapid acceptance among state policy makers (McKnight and Peck, 2002). GDL programs are intended to reduce adolescent driving risk by easing beginning drivers into the traffic environment in three distinct phases. Although GDL policies differ by state (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2002), most GDL programs include an extended learner's phase of 3–12 months designed to increase supervised practice driving and an intermediate stage of 6–18 months designed to allow independent driving except under certain high-risk conditions, including late at night and with adolescent passengers. Unrestricted driving is allowed only after successful completion of the intermediate phase. Overall, GDL programs help reduce adolescent driving risk because they delay the ages at permit and provisional license, increase the amount of supervised driving, and impose restrictions for high-risk driving such as at night and with adolescent passengers (McKnight and Peck, 2002, Williams and Ferguson, 2002).

There is evidence that the majority of parents, and even of adolescents, favor GDL programs and their accompanying restrictions (Mayhew et al., 1999, Waller et al., 2000, Williams et al., 1998). Indeed, a selling point for GDL programs is that they may empower parents to place greater restrictions on their newly licensed adolescents’ early driving (McCartt et al., 2001). Research indicates that parental monitoring and restriction of adolescent driving is related inversely to adolescent traffic violations, risky driving behaviors, and motor vehicle crashes (Hartos et al., 2000, Hartos et al., 2001). So, it would be expected that parents in GDL states would be better able to establish and enforce adolescent driving restrictions when the licensing state stipulates, favors, and supports regulated adolescent driving, and thus, reduce adolescent driving risk.

Only one study to date has addressed the issue of whether GDL is related to higher parent restrictions on adolescent driving. Beck et al. (2003) compared adolescent-reported driving restrictions before and after Maryland (MD) strengthened its GDL program. Under MD's previous program, adolescents could get a learner's permit at age 15 years 9 months and hold it for a minimum of 2 weeks. Adolescents were eligible for a provisional license at age 16, had to hold it for 12 months during which they could not drive unsupervised between midnight and 5 a.m. and had to be free of moving violations in order to move on to the unrestricted license. Changes to the law, effective July 1999, required that adolescents hold the learner's permit for a minimum of 4 months and receive at least 40 h practice driving during that time. Adolescents are first eligible for a provisional license at 16 years 1 month, and they must hold it for 18 months. Other provisions were unchanged—adolescents cannot drive unsupervised between midnight and 5 a.m. and must be violation free during the provisional licensure period to obtain a full-privilege license. The results indicated that, after the program changed, adolescents reported more supervised practice driving and overall parent restrictions; however, there were no notable increases in any of the specific restrictions, such as night driving restrictions or adolescent passenger limits.

The Beck et al. (2003) study suggested that parents from states with strict adolescent driving laws may place more restrictions on adolescent driving; however, restrictions were compared before and after Maryland strengthened their GDL program. The purpose of this paper was to determine whether parents in a GDL state (Maryland) place greater restrictions on their 16-year-old drivers than do parents in a non-GDL state (Connecticut, CT). Maryland was the first state to adopt GDL in 1978, and they strengthened their policy in 1999 (as described in the previous paragraph). In contrast, at the time this manuscript, Connecticut is one of the few remaining states without a GDL program. Currently in Connecticut, adolescents can obtain a learner's permit at age 16, they must hold it for 6 months (6 months if they take driver's education), and they can obtain a full-privilege license at 16 years 4 months.

Section snippets

Methods

This paper presents data from the control families with adolescents who were licensed at age 16 in two randomized longitudinal trials designed to increase parental management of adolescent driving, one in Maryland and the other in Connecticut.

Results

When comparing family demographics by state, Maryland or Connecticut, several differences emerge. Although all the adolescents were licensed at age 16, adolescent age and grade differed by state, t = 7.90, p < 0.001, and t = 8.97, p < 0.001, respectively. The median age of provisional licensure for adolescents in MD was 16 years 5 months and the majority of MD adolescents were in 10th grade, whereas the median age of adolescent licensure in CT was 16 years 7 months and the majority of CT adolescents

Discussion

The results of this study indicated that parents in Maryland placed more restrictions on their adolescents’ driving than did those in Connecticut, even when using all family demographic variables as covariates. So, despite the findings that parents in MD were older, more educated, and reported higher annual incomes, all of which may lead to increased access, need, or opportunity to allow for adolescent driving, MD parents and adolescents reported stricter restrictions for adolescent passenger

Acknowledgements

Funding for the Maryland study by the Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD); funding in Connecticut by the NICHD through contract number No. 1-HD-8-3285 to Preusser Research Group Inc., Trumbull, CT; cooperation provided by the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration and Connecticut Department of Motor Vehicles.

References (15)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text