Graduated driver licensing restrictions: awareness, compliance, and enforcement in North Carolina

Abstract

Problem This study examined the extent to which critical restrictions in North Carolina's graduated driver licensing (GDL) system are known, adhered to, and enforced. Method Teenagers and their parents were recruited as they applied for either an intermediate or full license at 1 of 23 licensing offices. Telephone interviews were conducted with 900 teenagers and their parents. Results Awareness of North Carolina's night and passenger restrictions was very high among both parents and teenagers. Ten percent of teenagers reported violating the night restriction without their parents' knowledge, and 15% had done so with their parents' approval. Only 4% of parents reported allowing their teenagers to drive with more than one teenage passenger, but 19% of teenagers reported that they were allowed to do this. Violations of the passenger restriction without parental knowledge were more common than violations of the night restriction (22% vs. 10%, respectively). Among teenagers who violated restrictions without their parents' knowledge, most reported doing so only once or a few times. Teenagers expressed little concern about detection, although a majority reported driving more carefully to avoid police notice. Neither parents nor teenagers knew much about police enforcement of GDL restrictions. To obtain a sense of the views of law enforcement officers, informal interviews were conducted with 20 officers from five diverse communities and the state highway patrol. These officers were highly supportive of GDL but unfamiliar with many of the specific provisions. Moreover, enforcement of GDL restrictions did not appear to be a high priority. Impact on Industry There is a need to increase the belief among teens (and parents) that police are enforcing GDL restrictions in their community; law enforcement participation in well-publicized traffic safety enforcement efforts would likely produce this result.

Introduction

Since 1996 a substantial majority of U.S. states have implemented graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems. As of May 2004, 36 states and the District of Columbia had adopted three-stage licensing systems that place progressively fewer restrictions on young beginning drivers as they gain practical driving experience (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 2004). At each of the first two stages, restrictions on when and with whom a novice is allowed to drive are designed to reduce risk while drivers gain needed experience. A central part of GDL is the intermediate license, which allows a novice to drive without an adult in the vehicle but continues to restrict driving to less risky conditions. About half of U.S. states now limit teenage passengers during the intermediate stage, and nearly three-quarters prohibit driving after a specified hour at night, although many of the night restrictions begin so late that they provide little benefit (Foss & Goodwin, 2003).

GDL can produce sizable decreases in crashes. Most research has focused on the overall effects without disaggregating the effects of various GDL elements. Still, it is apparent from studies conducted in Michigan (Shope, Molnar, Elliott, & Waller, 2001) and North Carolina (Foss, Feaganes, & Rodgman, 2001) that the nature and extent of crash reductions are related to the longer learner period and restrictions placed on newly licensed drivers. In North Carolina crashes declined substantially after 9 p.m., when the driving restriction begins. In Michigan there was no decline in crashes until midnight, when this state's driving restriction begins. Restrictions at each stage of GDL should be designed to achieve the greatest feasible reduction in exposure to high-risk driving situations (Foss & Goodwin, 2003).

Besides ensuring that GDL systems include risk-reducing restrictions, it is important to encourage drivers to adhere to the restrictions. At present, little is known about young drivers' compliance with the two main protective restrictions of intermediate or second-stage licenses: limits on when novices may drive and on the number of passengers allowed to ride with them. In a survey of 18 year-olds in New Zealand, 76% of those with restricted licenses were found to have violated at least one GDL condition (Begg, Langley, Reeder, & Chalmers, 1995). Fifty percent reported violating the night restriction; 70% reported violating the passenger restriction, which prohibits any passengers for 18 months. In Nova Scotia violations of GDL were somewhat less frequent; 40% of newly licensed teenagers admitted to violating the night restriction, although only 12% said they did so often, while 39% admitted to driving with more than one passenger in the front seat (Mayhew, Simpson, Ferguson, & Williams, 1998).

Williams, Nelson, and Leaf (2002) interviewed 543 teenagers in California who obtained their licenses after GDL was enacted. A total of 42% acknowledged violating the night restriction during the intermediate phase; 15% did so 10 or more times. Eighty percent acknowledged violating the passenger restriction at least once, and 60% said they violated this restriction at least 10 times. In many instances, the violations occurred with parental awareness and approval.

The degree to which teenagers violate GDL provisions appears related to the restrictiveness of those provisions. In New Zealand, where the night driving restriction begins at 10 p.m., reported violations are somewhat higher than in Nova Scotia and California, where the night restrictions begin at midnight. Similarly, violations of passenger restrictions are common in New Zealand and California, which allow no teenage passengers. On the other hand, Nova Scotia allows one passenger in the front seat and only limits rear-seat passengers to the number of available seat belts. Ideally, the protective restrictions of GDL are extensive enough to be effective but not so restrictive as to encourage noncompliance (Foss & Goodwin, 2003).

Both parents and police play important roles in ensuring compliance. Although a number of studies have shown that parents strongly approve of graduated licensing (Ferguson et al., 2001, Foss et al., 2002, Mayhew et al., 1999, Waller et al., 2000, Williams et al., 1998), there is some indication that they are not faithfully enforcing restrictions on intermediate license holders. For example, 72% of newly licensed drivers in Nova Scotia reported parental permission to violate the night restriction; 33% said they always had their parents' permission when they violate this restriction (Mayhew et al., 1998). Williams et al. (2002) found that almost 50% of parents in California permitted unsupervised travel with teenagers, which is not allowed under the GDL system.

Virtually nothing is known about the enforcement of GDL restrictions by law enforcement officers. Among teenagers with restricted licenses in New Zealand who violated one or more conditions of GDL, 19% said they were apprehended by police, and 57% of these individuals said they were penalized (Begg et al., 1995). According to a survey of 700 Kentucky law enforcement officers, most did not believe they had probable cause to stop a vehicle simply because they suspected the driver might be violating the night driving restriction (Steenbergen et al., 2001). Given these perceived difficulties in enforcing GDL restrictions, there is some concern about the effectiveness of the restrictions. However, the extent of actual enforcement may be less important than the perceived extent of enforcement (Mercer, 1985). As long as teenagers believe police are watching for violations, they probably will be more likely to adhere to the restrictions.

This study was undertaken to determine how well the critical restrictions in North Carolina's GDL system are known, adhered to, and enforced. Specifically, both novice teenage drivers and their parents were asked about: (a) their awareness of the restrictions associated with the intermediate license; (b) their perception of police enforcement of the restrictions; (c) enforcement by parents; and (d) teenagers' self-reported compliance with restrictions. Informal interviews also were conducted with 20 law enforcement officers to obtain a general sense of their knowledge of the law and attention to enforcement of the restrictions.