IIHS research bibliography

Objective: To examine trends in alcohol consumption and alcohol-related crashes among people younger than 21 in the United States and to review evidence on the effects of minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) laws.Methods: Trends in alcohol-related crashes and alcohol consumption among young people were examined, and studies on the effects of lowering and raising the drinking age were reviewed.Results: MLDA laws underwent many changes during the 20th century in the United States. Since July 1988, the MLDA has been 21 in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Surveys tracking alcohol consumption among high school students and young adults found that drinking declined since the late 1970 s, and most of the decline occurred by the early 1990 s. These were the years when states were establishing, or reinstating, a MLDA-21. Among fatally injured drivers ages 16-20, the percentage with positive BACs declined from 61% in 1982 to 31% in 1995, a bigger decline than for older age groups; declines occurred among the ages directly affected by raising MLDAs (ages 18-20) and among young teenagers not directly affected (ages 16-17). Almost all studies designed specifically to gauge the effects of drinking age changes show MLDAs of 21 reduce drinking, problematic drinking, drinking and driving, and alcohol-related crashes among young people. Yet many underage people still drink, many drink and drive, and alcohol remains an important risk factor in serious crashes of young drivers, especially as they progress through the teenage years. Stepped-up enforcement of MLDA and drinking and driving laws can reduce underage drinking. Recent efforts to lower MLDAs to 18 and issue licenses to drink upon completion of alcohol education have gained local and national media attention. There is no evidence that alcohol education can even partially replace the effect of MLDA-21.Conclusions: The cause and effect relationship between MLDAs of 21 and reductions in highway crashes is clear. Initiatives to lower the drinking age to 18 ignore the demonstrated public health benefits of MLDAs of 21.Impact on industry: Lowering the drinking age to 18 will increase highway crash deaths among young people.

Objectives: A program of publicized intensive enforcement of minimum drinking age law and drinking and driving laws was implemented in a college community. The effects on driving at various blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) were evaluated, particularly for drivers ages 16-24 targeted by the program.Methods: Objective measures of driver BACs were collected through nighttime roadside surveys before and during the program in the experimental college community and a comparison college community. Logistic regression models estimated the program’s effects on the likelihood of driving at various BAC thresholds in the program community, after accounting for BAC patterns in the comparison community.Results: relative to the comparison community, consistent reductions in driving at various BAC levels (positive BAC and BAC at least 0.02, 0.05, or 0.08%) were achieved in the experimental community. Reductions were greatest for 16- to 20-year olds (from 66% for positive BAC to 94% for BAC = 0.05%), followed by 21- to 24- year olds (from 32% for positive BAC to 71% for BAC =0.08%) and drivers 25 and older (from 23% for positive BAC to 53% for BAC = 0.08%). All reductions for 16- to 20-year-olds were significant (p < 0.05), and all except the reduction for BAC = 0.08 percent were significantly greater than the corresponding reductions for drivers 25 and older. Reductions for 21- to 24-year-olds were significant for BACs at least 0.02, 0.05, and 0.08 percent, but they were not significantly greater than the corresponding reductions for drivers 25 and older. Although large, reductions for drivers 25 and older were not significant, based on 95 percent confidence intervals.Conclusions: A college community program with a strong enforcement component produced substantial reductions in drinking and driving among teenagers and young adults and smaller reductions among older adults. It is hoped that this will encourage colleges and communities to incorporate enforcement into interventions directed at alcohol use among young people.

Young drivers are less likely than adults to drive after drinking alcohol, but their crash risk is substantially higher when they do. This is especially true at low and moderate blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) and is thought to result from teenagers’ relative inexperience with drinking, driving, and combining the two. Since July 1988, all 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., have had laws that require people to be at least 21 years old to purchase alcohol. Many other countries, however, allow people younger than 21 to drink alcohol. Minimum legal drinking ages are 16 to 18 in most European countries, 18 to 19 in Canada, 18 in Australia, and 20 in New Zealand. Laws that establish a minimum age to drink alcohol are the primary legal mechanism limiting teenagers’ access to alcohol. In the United States, zero tolerance laws that make it illegal for people younger than 21 to drive with any measurable amount of alcohol in their bodies, and minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) laws of 21 are the primary legal countermeasures against underage drinking and driving. This paper summarizes trends in alcohol-impaired driving among people younger than 21, the history of minimum legal alcohol drinking age laws, and the evidence of their effects. Laws vary with regard to whether they prohibit the purchase, consumption, or possession of alcohol by underage people (here referring to those 20 and younger). For simplicity, the terms “drinking age” and “minimum legal drinking age,” collectively abbreviated as MLDA, are used to refer to all of these types of laws. The paper focuses primarily on the United States, where the bulk of research has been conducted.

Objectives: Zero tolerance (ZT) laws have been effective in reducing alcohol-related crashes among underage drivers. However, enforcement in some states has not been rigorous, and ZT offenses may not be viewed as serious offenses. On July 1, 1994, the state of Washington implemented a ZT law that allowed police to request a test for alcohol on suspicion of either a ZT or driving-under-the-influence (DUI) offense. The present study examined effects of the ZT law on arrests and case dispositions among underage offenders as a function of blood alcohol concentration (BAC) and post-law patterns of recidivism.Methods: Times-series analyses examined the effects of the ZT law on trends in arrests of underage drivers between 1991 and 1999. Based on arrest records matched with driver's license records, the effects of the law on dispositions of alcohol-related offenses among underage drivers were examined, and rates of recidivism among underage offenders were examined for the period following the ZT law.Results: There was a substantial increase in arrests of underage drivers beginning immediately after implementation of the ZT law, especially among drivers with low BACs. The types of court or administrative dispositions received by underage offenders changed markedly after the ZT law was implemented. Underage offenders with lower BACs became far more likely to receive alcohol-related convictions and/or license suspensions. However, the percentage of underage offenders with higher BACs receiving DUI convictions declined as some of these offenders received the lesser ZT disposition. After the ZT law, underage offenders with BACs of 0.10 g/dL or higher were more likely to recidivate than those with lower BACs, but appreciable proportions of drivers were re-arrested for another alcohol offense, whatever the BAC and however they were penalized.Conclusions: Implementation of Washington's law indicates that a ZT law can increase the likelihood that an underage person will be sanctioned for drinking and driving. However, recidivism remains an issue as more than one in four underage drivers arrested with low BACs subsequently were re-arrested.

Objectives: To examine the frequency of underage drinking, driving after drinking and alcohol-related crashes, trends in these behaviors, and promising interventions.Methods: We examined drinking and drinking- and-driving behaviors reported in the United States in the 2001 U.S. National Household Survey of Drug Abuse, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2001 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, the 1992 National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Study, and the 1999 National Survey of Drinking and Driving conducted for the National Highway Traffic Administration. We also examined the 1999 European School Survey Project on Alcohol and Other Drugs. Alcohol-related fatal crashes were examined from the U.S. Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Evaluation of interventions to reduce teenage drinking and driving after drinking were reviewed.Results: In the United States, 19% of youth ages 12-20 consumed five or more drinks on an occasion in the past 30 days. Although European nations have lower legal drinking ages (16-18) than in the United States (21), similar proportions engage in underage drinking. In two-thirds of European countries, a greater percentage of 15-16 year-olds drank five or more drinks on an occasion in the past month than in the United States. In both the United States and Europe, the earlier people begin to drink, the greater the likelihood of developing alcohol dependence and other alcohol-related problems, including alcohol-related crash involvement, during adolescence and adult years. During the past 20 years alcohol-related traffic deaths among people younger than 21 have been cut in half in the United States, but progress has halted since 1995 and the problem is still large. Interventions shown by research to reduce alcohol-related crashes among youth include raising the legal drinking age to 21, zero tolerance laws, and some interventions that are family, school, or community based.Conclusions: Despite research showing that a variety of interventions can reduce underage drinking and alcohol-related crash fatalities, the frequency of these behaviors remains high and the average age of drinking initiation is declining in the United States. Efforts are needed to enhance publicized enforcement of underage drinking laws. Comprehensive community interventions that include enforcement of these laws also are needed.

Problem: A prior study indicated that zero tolerance laws differ in their enforceability and likelihood of enforcement, with California's law being easier to enforce than New York's, and New Mexico's being the hardest of all. The question is, do these differences in enforcement affect teenagers' knowledge and perception of these laws?Method: A telephone survey was conducted to investigate awareness of the laws among 17-20 year olds in these three states and perceptions of enforcement.Results: Estimated percentages of teenagers who knew of the laws were much higher in New York and California (71% and 65%, respectively) than in New Mexico (34%). Perceptions that police were enforcing the law, that licenses could be suspended, and that penalties were often applied were also lowest in New Mexico.Impact on industry: The potential of zero tolerance laws will not be realized without better awareness among young people. Full enforcement of the laws accompanied by publicity about the enforcement is recommended. Changes to the laws and their application may encourage enforcement efforts.

By 1998 all states had enacted zero tolerance laws, which prohibit people younger than 21 from driving with any positive blood alcohol concentration (BAC). A review of the law was undertaken to determine whether variations in zero tolerance laws might affect their enforcement. Five states were selected (California, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, and Virginia) that appeared to differ in the ease with which the laws could be enforced. Detailed information on enforcement practices was collected in interviews with police officers and motor vehicle officials. The zero tolerance laws in these states have done little to change the way police identify underage drinking drivers. Consequently, these laws rarely are being enforced independently of the laws against impaired driving aimed at all ages. However, if an officer stops an underage drinking driver, some provisions of the laws can make it easier to issue a zero tolerance citation. For example, in most states an evidentiary test for BAC is required to prove a zero tolerance violation, but in a number of states the implied consent law requires either an arrest for driving while impaired (DWI) or probably cause for an arrest before such a test can be administered. Thus, underage offenders with low BACs cannot be arrested for zero tolerance. By contrast, in California officers can use results from preliminary breath test (PBT) units at the roadside as evidence of zero tolerance if an underage driver is suspected of drinking. Factors that reduce the likelihood of enforcement are discussed.

Using data gathered through a self-administered survey of Florida high school juniors and seniors in 1996 and 1998, this study examined teens' reported attitudes and behaviors before and after the state's Zero Tolerance law took effect on January 1, 1997. Decreases occurred in reported driving when drinking and reported riding with friends who were drinking. Teen support for the law increased substantially. Significant changes occurred more often for males and for teens in urban and suburban, as opposed to rural, counties.

High school juniors and seniors and college students under the age of 21 were surveyed (N = 4,390) in southeastern New York, a state with generally weak laws regarding underage persons who purchase and possess alcohol, and in eastern Pennsylvania, a "liquor control" state with generally strong laws. Results indicated that more students had obtained alcohol from "friends" than from any other possible source. Approximately half of all students surveyed had attempted to purchase alcohol. Approximately one-third had, at some time, used some form of false identification typically a counterfeit, borrowed, altered or illegally obtained drivers license. The primary objective of the present study was to determine the sources of alcohol for underage persons including direct purchase. High school juniors and seniors and college students under the age of 21 were surveyed in eastern Pennsylvania and southeastern New York, two areas with substantially different laws regarding underage alcohol violations.

Graduated licensing applies a series of driving restrictions that are gradually relaxed as the young driver gains experience and becomes more mature. Although there are no results yet by which to judge the effectiveness of such a system, the authors wanted to examine how well the concept is understood, its level of acceptance and the extent of compliance with it. A study is described that examined the 2-stage graduated licensing program implemented in the province of Nova Scotia in 1994. In this program there is a restriction that prohibits drivers in both the learner and newly-licensed driver stages from driving if they have any detectable alchol in their system. The reactions of teenagers and parents to this 'zero tolerance' law are discussed.

This study evaluates an enforcement program targeted at licensed retail sellers of alcohol. The program was a sting or decoy operation in which underage police cadets attempted to purchase packaged beer at randomly selected grocery, convenience, liquor, and drug stores in Denver, Colorado. Stores that sold alcohol to the underage purchasers were subject to fines and beverage license suspensions. During baseline, cadets purchased beer 59% of the time. The purchase rates for successive waves of enforcement conducted over the next 10 months were 32%, 26%, and 26%.

A study was conducted in which young males, under the legal alcohol purchase age of 21, attempted to purchase beer at grocery stores and other retail outlets. Underage purchases were attempted at a sample of stores in Washington, D.C.; Westchester County, N.Y.; and Albany and Schenectady counties, N.Y. Beer was sold to the underage purchasers at 97 percent of the Washington, D.C., stores, 80 percent of the Westchester County stores, and 44 percent of the Albany and Schenectady stores, despite the fact that such sales are illegal. Beer was more likely to be sold to the underage purchasers at smaller neighborhood stores in urban areas. Sales were least likely in Albany, which experienced recent police enforcement of the alcohol purchase age laws. Vigorous enforcement of the minimum purchase age laws is needed to reverse the current national trend toward more alcohol-related highway fatalities among youth.

This study examined existing evaluations of drinking-age laws to determine the extent to which they provide empirical support for federal and state initiatives to change the legal drinking age. It specifically examined the effects that raising the minimum drinking age has had on traffic accidents, beverage alcohol consumption, driving after drinking, and related concerns for youths younger than the minimum age. A review of 49 documents which evaluated laws raising the legal drinking age revealed that raising the legal drinking age had a direct effect on reducing alcohol-related traffic accidents among youths affected by the laws. Evidence suggests that raising the drinking age results in a decline in both alcohol consumption and driving after drinking for the age group affected by the law. The evidence was insufficient to draw conclusions about the effects of raising the drinking age on youths 16 to 17 years old, border crossings, and other related matters. Literature reviews of earlier evaluations of the effects of lowering the drinking age, however, do give evidence that traffic-accident outcomes increased as a result of changes in the law.

Raising the legal minimum age for purchasing alcoholic beverages reduces the involvement of youthful drivers in fatal traffic accidents. The analysis used data on all drivers aged 16 through 24 who were involved in crashes in which someone was killed during the years 1975-1984 in the 48 States in the continental United States. The data came from the Fatal Accident Reporting System of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The analysis excluded motorcycle fatalities, crashes involving more than three motor vehicles, and drivers not living in the State in which the crash occurred. The results were based on a total of 159,262 driver fatal crash involvements, of which 87,153 took place between 8 p.m. and 5 a.m. Raising the purchase age was estimated to produce a 13-percent reduction in nighttime driver fatal crash involvements. Various State, age, and year combinations showed 8 to 18 percent fewer nighttime crash involvements than would otherwise have occurred. A much smaller effect occurred for daytime crashes, which involve alcohol much less often. Eighty-one percent of the drivers involved in fatal crashes were male.

Intro: In 1981, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety studied the effects of raising the legal minimum age for purchasing alcoholic beverages on fatal motor vehicles crashes. Nine states were studied that had raised their minimum purchase ages and for which sufficient data were available for the period after the new law. To rule out the possibility that changes observed in youthful crash involvement in states that raised their purchase ages were merely part of a regional trend, each of the nine states studied was paired with a neighboring comparison state in which the minimum purchase age remained unchanged throughout the study period. To rule out the possibility that changes observed in age groups covered by the laws were part of a trend occurring at other ages as well, age groups covered by the laws were compared to older drivers, to whom the law changes did not apply.

Reviews results of studies investigating the effects of raising the age for purchasing alcoholic beverages on the incidence of fatal motor vehicle crashes. It is concluded that raising the alcohol purchase age can contribute to the prevention of alcohol-related motor vehicle crashes among teenagers, but that additional countermeasures directed at the drinking and driving problem among both teenagers and adults are needed.

A telephone survey assessed adults' views of laws that limit teenagers' driving and access to alcohol. Interviews were conducted with 606 heads of households containing a person between the ages of 13 and 18 and with 400 heads of households not containing a teenager. Data were weighted So that results could be projected to total US households. Results indicated that two of three parents of teenagers were very concerned about the risk of automobile travel for their children. The majority of adults, especially women, favored measures that would reduce the driving exposure of teenagers and their access to alcoholic beverages. They favored higher licensing ages, night-driving curfews, special probationary licenses for teenagers, and a minimum alcohol purchase age of 21. Parents of teenagers were only slightly more likely than other adults to favor these policies. Support for night-driving curfews and 21-year-old alcohol purchase age laws was more frequent among adults living in states that already have these measures. However, in states without night curfews and 21-year-old purchase ages, about two-thirds still favored these measures. Further, those who favored curfew laws tended to prefer them to start earlier than they presently do in states that have them. About half of the respondents favored licensing ages of 17 or older and 4 out of 10 favored a minimum licensing age of 18. It is concluded that limiting the driving and alcohol-purchasing possibilities of teenagers through legislation could lead to large reductions in teenage crash involvement. Results of this survey indicate that measures to raise the licensing age or to institute night curfews have the support not only of parents of teenagers but also of the great majority of adults.

A questionnaire survey of high school students conducted in 1983 provided information on their self-reported drinking and driving practices. By age 15 the majority reported drinking alcoholic beverages. By age 17 half or more of the males and one-third of the females reported driving after drinking at least once in the past month. About one-quarter of the students estimated that six or more cans of beer would be required to make someone an unsafe driver. Reported frequency of driving after drinking was associated with less time spent on homework and poorer academic performance, working part time, greater participation in social activities, less perceived parental influence regarding their travel, owning a car, driving high mileage, speeding, and having crashes and violations.

In the early 1970s, more than half of the states in the United States lowered their legal minimum ages—in most cases from twenty-one to eighteen—for the purchase of some or all alcoholic beverages. Research indicated that this legislation resulted in increased involvement of young drivers in crashes. In a study of various states and Canadian provinces that reduced the drinking age from twenty-one to eighteen, significant increases were shown in fatal crashes—particularly in nighttime and single vehicle crashes in which alcohol is most often involved—involving driver under twenty-one, compared with adjacent areas that did not reduce their drinking ages. These increases occurred not only among eighteen- to twenty-year-olds, who were directly affected by law changes, but also among fifteen- to seventeen-year-olds. As a result of these findings and other reports of growing problems related to teenage drivers and alcohol, many states that had lowered their legal minimum drinking ages in the early 1970s began in 1976 to raise them. By the end of 1980, fourteen of the thirty states that had lowered their drinking ages for the purchase of some or all alcoholic beverages had raised them, although not necessarily back to the original limits. In this paper, a study of the effect of raising the drinking age on fatal crashes involving teenage drivers is reported.

This Research Note briefly states the extent of the problem of motor vehicle fatalities attributed to teenage drivers, then presents four key facts which summarize existing knowledge concerning teenaged drivers and alcohol use. Since Research Notes have the goal of making information publicly available on a timely basis, for more extensive information on the subject presented the reader is provided with a list of references in support of the conclusions presented.

Few patrons leaving a college pub had blood alcohol concentrations equal to or greater than 0.10% and one-third had BACs of 0.05% or greater. Men had higher BACs than women had and were less likely to judge themselves incapable of driving safely.

Presents a study which examined the effect of reducing the legal minimum drinking age on highway losses based on the analysis of data on fatal crashes involving drinking drivers in the United States.

Introduction: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of skid avoidance training on traffic citation and crash rates of newly licensed teenage drivers.Methods: Approximately half of all 16-17-year-old students who successfully completed a basic driver education course were offered the opportunity to participate in the skid avoidance and vehicle control course. Of 1,481 students who were offered the skid avoidance course, 1,142 students declined the offer, 105 accepted the offer but failed to schedule or show up for an appointment, and 234 students completed the course. Traffic citation and crash rates over the subsequent 2 years were computed, and the effectiveness of the skid avoidance training was estimated using an intent-to-treat (ITT) paradigm, an instrumental variables (IV) methodology, and a methodology that matched those completing the course to demographically similar subjects without skid training.Results: The rate of moving violation citations was 25.6 per 100,000 days for drivers who were offered free skid training and 22.4 for drivers who never received the offer, so the ITT relative rate was 1.14 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.35). The IV relative rate was 2.50 (95% CI 0.77 to 8.15) and the matching-based rate was 0.94 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.39). The rate of police-reported crashes was 8.7 for drivers who were offered free skid training and 8.6 for drivers who never received the offer, so the ITT relative rate was 1.01 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.34). The IV relative rate was 1.06 (95% CI 0.15 to 7.59), and the matching-based rate was 0.73 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.39). None of these estimates was statistically significant.Conclusions: There is no clear evidence from this study that the skid avoidance and vehicle control course improves driver safety. A major problem is that the course does not seem to be appealing to many newly licensed teenage drivers and their parents. When analyses are done that avoid the problems of self- selection into the course, the results are variable, depending on the methodology used. Because of this, there is no unbiased estimate of the effect of completing the course, and it cannot be said that it has no benefit. However, from a public health intervention perspective, it can be said that offering the course does not result in measurable reductions in violations or crash reductions.Practical applications: This skid avoidance and vehicle control course does not seem to reduce the relatively high crash risks of newly licensed teenage drivers, but it may offer insight into the development of an effective program.

Introduction: This study examined U.S. teenagers' crash rates since 1996, when the first graduated driver licensing (GDL) program in the United State was implemented.Methods: Passenger vehicle driver crash involvement rates for 16–19 and 30–59 (middle-aged) year-olds were examined, using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System, Census Bureau, and National Household Travel Surveys.Results: Per capita fatal and police-reported crash rates in 2012 were lower for 16 year-olds than for middle-aged drivers but older teenagers' rates were higher. Mileage-based fatal and police-reported crash rates in 2008 were higher for teenagers than for middle-aged drivers and higher for 16–17 year-olds than for older teenagers. In 1996–2012, teenagers' per capita fatal and police-reported crash rates declined sharply, especially for 16–17 year-olds, and more so than for middle-aged drivers. Substantial declines also occurred in teenagers' mileage-based fatal and police-reported crash rates from 1995–96 to 2008, generally more so than for middle-aged drivers. Regarding factors in fatal crashes in 1996 and 2012, proportions of young teenagers' crashes occurring at night and with multiple teenage passengers declined, more so than among older teenagers and middle-aged drivers. The proportion of fatally injured drivers who had been drinking declined for teenagers but changed little for middle-aged drivers. Improvements were not apparent in rates of driver errors or speeding among teenage drivers in fatal crashes.Conclusions: Teenage drivers' crash risk dropped during the period of implementation of GDL laws, especially fatal crash types targeted by GDL. However, teenagers' crash risk remains high, and important crash factors remain unaddressed by GDL.Practical applications: Although this study was not designed to examine the role of GDL, the results are consistent with the increased presence of such laws. More gains are achievable if states strengthen their laws.

Given teenagers’ elevated crash rates, it is especially important that their vehicles have key safety features and good crash protection. A profile of vehicles driven by teenagers killed in crashes was developed. Data on vehicles of drivers ages 15–17 and ages 35–50 who died in crashes during 2008–2012 were obtained from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Using vehicle identification numbers, the vehicle make, model and model year were identified. 29% of fatally injured teenagers were driving mini or small cars, 82% were driving vehicles at least 6 years old, and 48% were driving vehicles at least 11 years old. Compared with middle-aged drivers, teenagers’ vehicles more often were small or mini cars or older vehicles. Few teenagers’ vehicles had electronic stability control or side airbags as standard features. Parents should consider safety when choosing vehicles for their teenagers.

This presentation summarises the risk factors for teenage crashes, reviews key countermeasures shown to be effective in reducing their crash risk, and discusses how various technologies may be used to keep teenage drivers safer. These technologies, some widely available and some still emerging in the marketplace, have the potential to reinforce some of the countermeasures proven to be effective in reducing teenagers’ crash risks.

Objective: The goal was to provide a description of fatal crashes involving 13-15-year-old drivers and passengers.Methods: Information was obtained from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System for 2005-2009.Results: The 1,994 passenger deaths during the 2005-2009 period far exceeded the number of driver deaths (299) or the number of drivers in fatal crashes (744). Passenger deaths occurring with teenage drivers, particularly 16-17-year-olds, increased with passenger age. Most 13-15-year-old drivers in crashes were driving either with no license or permit (63%), or with a permit but without required adult presence (10 percent). Fatal crashes involving illegal driving were most likely to involve high-risk actions such as speeding and nonuse of belts. Supervised learners were few in number (about 12 per year) and had the lowest rates of high-risk actions.Conclusions: The main issues for 13-15-year-olds' motor vehicle deaths are passenger deaths and driving without a license or adult supervision.Impact on industry: Parents, pediatricians, and others need to recognize the increase in motor vehicle occupant deaths that occurs in the early teen years.

Objective: Although both youth and inexperience contribute to the elevated crash rates of teenage drivers, the relative contribution of these factors has not been firmly established.Methods: A review was undertaken of eleven recent (1990 or newer) studies that tried to separate the crash effects of age and experience, represented by length of licensure.Results: The weight of evidence is that age and experience have important, independent effects on crash risk, even after differences in driving mileage are accounted for. The studies consistently found that teenage drivers had dramatically higher crash rates than older drivers, particularly drivers older than 25, after controlling for length of licensure. Studies that distinguished 16-year-olds found that crash rates for novice 16-year-olds were higher than rates for novice 17-year-olds, but crash rates for novice 17-year-olds were not consistently higher than rates for novice 18- to 19-year-olds. With regard to experience, the weight of evidence suggests a steep learning curve among drivers of all ages, particularly teenagers, and strong benefits from longer licensure. Of the studies that attempted to quantify the relative importance of age and experience factors, most found a more powerful effect from length of licensure.Conclusions: The findings lend support to delaying licensure among teenagers in the United States, where licensure commonly is allowed at age 16, and to graduated licensing systems that phase in unsupervised driving during high-risk situations as teenagers gain independent driving experience.

Objective: The initial months of licensure are especially hazardous for teenagers. Factors leading to crashes of novice 16-year-old drivers were identified.Method: Sixteen year-olds in Connecticut who were involved in nonfatal crashes during the first 8 months of licensure were interviewed, and police crash reports were examined. Crash types and contributing factors were identified.Results: Three-fourths of the crash-involved teenagers were at fault. Their crashes resulted primarily when they ran off the road, rear ended another vehicle, or collided with another vehicle that had the right-of-way. Three factors contributed about equally to their crashes: failing to detect another vehicle or traffic control, speeding, and losing control of the vehicle or sliding. Slippery roads also were an important factor. Most failures to detect another vehicle or traffic control involved not looking thoroughly, distraction, or inattention.Discussion: Based on the findings, potential countermeasures for reducing crashes of novice teenage drivers include adequate practice driving, in-vehicle monitoring devices, and electronic stability control.Impact on industry: More than half of the nonfatal, at-fault crashes of newly licensed 16-year-old drivers involved more than one contributing factor including speed, loss of control, and slippery roads. Efforts to reduce teenage crashes should focus on these factors.

Objective: To develop a better understanding of the frequency and characteristics of teenage driver crashes occurring during school commute times.Method: Data were obtained from police reports of crashes involving drivers ages 16-17 that occurred between September 2001 and August 2004 in Fairfax County, Virginia. Temporal patterns and other characteristics of crash involvement during the school year were examined, and crashes during school commute times were compared with those at other times.Results: Teenage driver crash involvement spiked during weekday school commute times. Compared with other times, crashes during school commute times were significantly more likely to involve multiple vehicles but less likely to result in injuries or involve drivers who were male, made driving errors, or had been drinking alcohol. Crashes during school commute times were more likely to involve more than one teenage driver and occur close to schools.Conclusions: Crashes involving teenage drivers are prevalent during school commute times. Many of these crashes involve multiple teenage drivers and occur near schools. Schools and communities should consider programs and policies that reduce teenage driving to school and enhance the safety of teenagers that do drive.

Objectives: To review the research evidence concerning the effects of passengers on teenage driving and crash involvement, and to explore ways to reduce negative effects.Methods: Review of the international literature on these topics.Results: Passenger presence increases crash risk for teenage drivers, especially when the passengers are other teenagers and especially when they are male. Female passengers do not have the same effects. Teenagers are more susceptible to peer influences than adults. The combination of passenger-induced distraction and driving inexperience can disrupt driving behavior, and there is evidence that teenage driver risk taking increases in vehicles with multiple teenagers. Possible ways to reduce the resulting crash problem include altering the in-vehicle behavior of teenagers or influencing their selection of travel partners. Legal restrictions on passengers with teenage drivers have been found effective in reducing the crash problem. Parental monitoring of teenage driving behavior, and programs aimed at teenagers themselves, could be other options but their efficacy is unproven. It currently is unknown why female passengers have a different effect than males or if that might offer clues about future interventions.Conclusions: Despite passenger restrictions in the majority of states, 42% of 16- and 17-year-old drivers in fatal crashes in 2005 were transporting teenagers with no adults in the vehicle; 61% of teenage passenger deaths (1,222 in 2005) occurred in vehicles driven by other teenagers. Wider application of passenger restrictions is indicated.Impact on industry: Ways to make passenger restrictions more effective are needed, and other techniques for reducing this major problem need development and testing.

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to examine the most recent data on teenagers' fatal and nonfatal crashes in the United States to determine current crash rates as well as changes in crash rates during the past decade.Methods: Data for calendar years 1996 and 2005 were extracted for fatal crashes from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and for police-reported crashes from the National Automotive Sampling System/General Estimates System. To calculate crash rates, population data were obtained from the Census Bureau, and mileage data were obtained from the 2001 National Household Travel Survey.Results: During 2001-02, the latest year for which mileage data are available, 16 year-old drivers had higher fatal and nonfatal crash rates per mile traveled than all but the very oldest drivers. However, fewer 16 year-olds typically are licensed to drive and they drive fewer miles per year than all but the oldest drivers. Thus, their fatal and nonfatal crash rates per population in 2005 were lower than among other teenagers and among drivers 20-29. During the past decade the most progress has been made in reducing crashes among the youngest drivers. Between 1996 and 2005 both fatal and police-reported crashes per population declined about 40% for 16 year-old drivers, compared with about 25% for 17 year-old drivers and 15-19% for 18 year-old drivers. The greatest reductions for 16 year-olds occurred in nighttime crashes, alcohol-related fatal crashes, and fatal crashes involving multiple teenage passengers.Conclusions: Substantial progress has been made in reducing fatal and nonfatal crashes per population among 16 year-old drivers. Although this study was not designed to examine the role of graduated licensing, the results are consistent with the increased presence of such laws, many of which restrict nighttime driving and driving with teenage passengers.Impact on industry: Restrictions on nighttime driving and driving with teenage passengers should be made a part of all states' graduated licensing systems. Historically, 16 year-olds have had the highest crash risk per licensed driver and per mile traveled. Given the dramatic reductions in per population crash rates among 16 year-olds, it is possible that their per mile and per licensed driver rates also have declined and may no longer be as elevated relative to other ages. However, shortcomings in the licensed driver data and a lack of recent mileage data hamper our ability to examine these issues. If we are to continue to provide a yardstick against which we can measure progress among the youngest drivers, immediate steps need to be taken to restore the availability of reliable exposure data.

Objective: Key features of graduated licensing were introduced in 46 states and the District of Columbia between 1993 and 2003. State evaluations consistently have reported positive overall effects and positive effects of nighttime and passenger restrictions. Sixteen year-olds are the main target of graduated licensing, and the present study investigated changes in their fatal crash involvement and crash characteristics that have taken place nationally during 1993–2003. By looking at 16 year-olds nationally, the study does not constitute a direct test of the effect of graduated licensing laws per se.Methods: Data on fatal crashes were obtained from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. Sixteen year-olds were compared with older drivers.Results: During these years, the extent to which 16-year-old drivers were in fatal crashes decreased substantially compared with older age groups. The drop in the per capita crash rate for 16 year-olds was 26%. The major change was a reduction in crashes involving transporting young passengers, especially in jurisdictions with restrictions that target these crashes. There was no change in the proportion of fatal late-night crashes even in states restricting this activity.Conclusions: There has been some progress nationally in reducing the crash problem for 16 year-olds, but this still is a big problem. To achieve further progress, the gaps and weaknesses in present graduated licensing laws will need to be addressed.

Objective: To assess the status of the 16-year-old driver crash problem in the United States in 2002, subsequent to most jurisdictions enacting graduated licensing legislation.Methods: Fatal crashes and crash patterns of 16-year-old drivers in 2002 were examined and compared with 16-year-old driver crashes in 1995, just prior to the graduated licensing movement.Results: The number of 16-year-old drivers in fatal crashes per 100,000 population in 2002 was 14 percent lower than in 1995, relative to older drivers, largely due to a drop in the licensing rate of 16 year-olds. Surprisingly, the 16-year-old fatal crash rate, after decreasing from 35 to 24 per 100,000 during 1995-2001, increased to 27 in 2002. There were somewhat fewer fatalities associated with unsupervised late-night travel and unsupervised transporting of young passengers in 2002 than in 1995, in states in which nighttime or passenger restrictions had been introduced. Still, as many as two-thirds of the deaths in the crashes of 16 year-olds nationwide during 2002 are, or could be, subject to restrictions on these high-risk activities.Conclusions: There has been progress in addressing the 16-year-old driver crash problem, which is the main target of graduated licensing, although the upturn in the fatal crash rate in 2002 is troubling. Strengthening laws and finding ways to improve compliance with the restrictions could produce further gains.

As a group, young drivers have crash rates that far exceed those of older, experienced drivers. But even among teenagers there are age-related differences; crash rates decline consistently and dramatically with each yearly increase in age. A more precise understanding of how crash rates decline within the teenage group might provide insights into when experience is most influential. To address this issue, this study examines month-to-month changes in collisions among new drivers. It was found that crash rates drop most dramatically during the first 6 months of driving. Involvement in certain types of crashes-e.g. run-off-the-road, single-vehicle, night, weekend-declines more rapidly. The findings suggest that novices improve their driving in a relatively short period of time. A graduated driver licensing system is identified as an effective method for ensuring that this development takes place in a more forgiving environment.

Teenagers were surveyed by telephone every 6 months from their freshman to senior high school years (N=911). Self-reported crash involvements and citations were examined for each teenager's first year of licensure and first 3500 miles driven. Based on survival analysis, the risk of a first crash during the first month of licensure (0.053) was substantially higher than during any of the next 11 months (mean risk per month: 0.025). The likelihood of a first citation during the first month of licensure (0.023) also was higher than during any of the subsequent 11 months (mean risk per month: 0.012). Similarly, when viewed as a function of cumulative miles driven, the risk of a first crash or citation was highest during the first 500 miles driven after licensure. Fewer parental restrictions (e.g. no nighttime curfew) and a lower grade point average (GPA) were associated with a higher crash risk. Male gender, a lower GPA and living in a rural area were associated with a higher citation rate.

Problem: To determine patterns of risk among teenage drivers.Method: Review and synthesis of the literature.Results: On most measures, crash rates during the teenage years are higher than at any other age, for both males and females. Risk among teenagers varies greatly by driving situation; it is particularly low in some situations (e.g., the learner period) and particularly high in others (e.g., right after licensure, late at night, with passengers present). In some of these high-risk driving situations, risk is elevated for drivers of all ages (e.g., late night driving), in others risk is elevated more for teens than adults (e.g., driving after consuming alcohol), and in others the risk is unique to teen drivers (e.g., having passengers).Impact: These varying patterns of risk form the basis for graduated licensing systems, which are designed to promote low-risk and discourage high-risk driving.

Problem: Young drivers, particularly those who are newly licensed, have a very high crash risk. This paper examines the risk factors underlying their high crash rates and assesses the extent to which existing graduated licensing programs address these risks and whether improvements to these programs should be considered.Method: Review and synthesis of the literature.Results: The elevated risk among young drivers of being in an injury crash is the result of a number of factors found alone or in combination, such as risky driving, alcohol use, seat belt nonuse, driver distraction, fatigue, and vehicle choice. Nighttime and passenger restrictions, adopted widely in the United States, work by keeping drivers out of hazardous situations rather than by addressing risk factors directly. However, the risk factors remain in play in driving situations not specifically restricted by law. Although other graduated licensing components adopted around the world—more stringent exit tests (i.e., you need to pass a test to move to the next stage), hazard perception tests, and restrictions on speed, vehicle power, and roadway access—make sense based on the identified risk factors, they are not yet supported by research. Should research findings warrant it, consideration should be given to providing guidance to parents about how to keep their beginning drivers safe, including information on vehicle choice.Impact: Researchers should continue to monitor and to evaluate innovative approaches to reduce the crash risk of young drivers. The effectiveness of new approaches should be established before adoption on a wider scale takes place.

Most studies of motor vehicle crashes involving young people focus on drivers. However, much of the problem involves young people traveling as passengers. This report summarizes the current state of knowledge concerning teenage passengers and motor vehicle crashes. Topics covered are the contribution of teenage passengers to the overall problem, the heightened risk when teenage passengers are transported by teenage drivers, characteristics of crashes involving teenage drivers and passengers, and the effects of passenger restrictions in graduated licensing systems.

Many studies have shown that young driver crash rates can be influenced by such factors as lifestyle characteristics and licensing systems. However, the influence of parents on their teenage children's crash and violation rates has not received much attention. The present study used data from the North Carolina driver history file to match the crash and violation records of young drivers between the ages of 18 and 21 with those of their parents. Results indicate that children's driving records in the first few years of licensure are related to the driving records of their parents. Children whose parents had three or more crashes on their record were 22% more likely to have had at least one crash compared with children whose parents had no crashes. Likewise, children whose parents had three or more violations were 38% more likely to have had a violation compared with children whose parents had none. Logistic regression models showed that these relationships held when controlling for household type and child gender.

Dr. Males cites data from California to cast doubt on the wisdom of graduated licensing systems for teenaged drivers; however, it is still too early to determine the effects of California’s stricter graduated licensing law, which went into effect on July 1, 1998.

Context: Injuries from motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death among teenagers. Carrying passengers has been identified as a possible risk factor for these crashes.Objective: To determine whether the presence of passengers is associated with an increased risk of crashes fatal to 16- and 17-year-old drivers and whether the risk varies by time of day and age and sex of drivers and passengers.Design and setting incidence: study of data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and General Estimates System (1992-1997), as well as the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (1995).Subjects: Drivers aged 16 and 17 years who drove passenger cars, vans, or pickup trucks.Main outcome measure: Driver deaths per 10 million trips by number of passengers, driver age and sex, and time of day; and driver deaths per 1000 crashes by passenger age and sex.Results: Compared with drivers of the same age without passengers, the relative risk of death per 10 million trips was 1.39 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-1.55) for 16-year-old drivers with 1 passenger, 1.86 (95% CI, 1.56-2.20) for those with 2 passengers, and 2.82 (95% CI, 2.27-3.50) for those with 3 or more passengers. The relative risk of death was 1.48 (95% CI, 1.35-1.62) for 17-year-old drivers with 1 passenger, 2.58 (95% CI, 2.24-2.95) for those with 2 passengers, and 3.07 (95% CI, 2.50-3.77) for those with 3 or more passengers. The risk of death increased significantly for drivers transporting passengers irrespective of the time of day or sex of the driver, although male drivers were at greater risk. Driver deaths per 1000 crashes increased for 16- and 17-year-olds transporting male passengers or passengers younger than 30 years.Conclusion: Our data indicate that the risk of fatal injury for a 16- or 17-year-old driver increases with the number of passengers. This result supports inclusion of restrictions on carrying passengers in graduated licensing systems for young drivers.

Objective: To determine the risk of motor vehicle occupant deaths per unit of travel for Hispanic, non-Hispanic black, and non-Hispanic white children (aged 5-12 years) and teenagers (aged 13-19 years).Design: Comparison of 1989 to 1993 motor vehicle occupant death rates of children and teenagers by race, ethnicity, and sex by using data on mortality from the National Center for Health Statistics, travel data from the 1990 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, and 1990 US census data.Results: Among children 5 to 12 years old, race/ ethnicity differences per 100000 persons were unremarkable, but per billion vehicle-miles of travel, the rates were 14 for non-Hispanic blacks, 8 for Hispanics, and 5 for non-Hispanic whites. Among teenagers aged 13 to 19, the rates per 100000 persons were highest for non-Hispanic whites; however, the rates per billion vehicle-miles were 45 for Hispanics, 34 for non-Hispanic blacks, and 30 for non-Hispanic whites. Black and Hispanic male teenagers had substantially higher death rates per billion vehicle-miles of travel than either white male teenagers or female teenagers in any racial/ethnic group.Conclusions: Black and Hispanic children and teenagers are at higher risk of dying in motor vehicle crashes when they travel. Greater public health attention is needed to address these increased risks.

This paper evaluates how inexperience with the driving task combined with risky driving practices associated with immaturity contribute to the fatal crashes of 16-year-old drivers. Detailed information was obtained about nighttime fatal crashes of 16-year-old drivers in California during 1989-1994 using police reports and newspaper accounts. A brief narrative was prepared for each crash to determine the factors that led to the crash and the crash circumstances. Analysis of US data indicates that the crashes of 16-year-olds are more often single vehicle events, involve speeding and higher passenger occupancy rates (often other teenagers), and are more likely to result from driver error. Narrative descriptions illustrate the contributing events leading up to the crash and how aggressive driving, driver inexperience, and interaction with passengers can heighten the potential for a crash. Graduated licensing, a system that allows for the initial accumulation of driving experience under less hazardous conditions, would prohibit recreational, nighttime driving that is particularly dangerous for young, beginning drivers.

Fatal crash-involved drivers of passenger vehicles were identified in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System for the period 1990 through 1995. Each driver was categorized as being alone in the vehicle at the time of the crash or with one or more passengers. Drivers at fault or responsible for crash occurrence were defined as all drivers involved in a single-vehicle crash, or drivers in multiple-vehicle crashes who were coded in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System as committing one or more driver errors. The results indicated that passenger presence was associated with proportionately more at-fault fatal crashes for drivers aged 24 and younger, were a neutral factor for drivers aged 25-29, and were associated with fewer at-fault involvements for drivers aged 30 and older. Relative risk of fatal crash involvement was particularly high for teenage drivers traveling, day or night, with two or more teenage passengers. Additional research is needed to determine how the added risk associated with teenage passengers riding with teenage drivers can be reduced or eliminated.

It is well known that many young people have driving styles that heighten their risk of being in a motor vehicle crash. Compared with older people, young drivers are more likely to drive fast, follow too closely, overtake in a risky manner, allow too little time to merge, and fail to yield to pedestrians (Bergeron, 1995; Jonah, 1986; Romanowicz & Gebers, 1990; Saibel, Salzberg, & Thurston, 1996). When these factors combine with young people’s lack of driving experience – especially their reduced ability to recognize and respond to hazardous situations – the result is a greatly elevated crash involvement rate, particularly among the youngest drivers (Williams, 1996). The elevated crash rate of young beginners per mile driven is illustrated in Figure 7.1. Teenagers have a higher crash risk than older drivers; within the teenager year, 16-year-olds, (43 crashes per million miles) and 17-year-olds (30) have particularly high crash rates compared with 18- to 19-year-olds (15). Deaths from motor vehicle crashes represent the largest health problem among 16- to 19-year-olds, accounting for about one-third of all their deaths in the United States. Thus, in terms of behaviors that compromise the health of adolescents, motor vehicle use is a major contributor.

All reported crashes—property damage, nonfatal injury, and fatal—estimated for 1993 in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's General Estimates System were examined for 16-year-old drivers. Results were compared to the crash involvements of other teenagers, older drivers, and fatal injury crash involvements as tabulated by the Fatal Accident Reporting System. Sixteen-year-olds were more likely than other teenagers and older drivers to be involved in single-vehicle crashes, and to be in crashes between 6 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. They were also more likely to have been charged with a moving violation and to have been culpable for the crash. Sixteen-year-old drivers in crashes, compared with other teenage drivers, were proportionately more likely to be female and to be accompanied by other teenage passengers. These differences among 16-year-olds, other teenagers, and older drivers are also found when only fatal crashes are considered. Characteristics of the crashes of 16-year-olds can be used as a guide in establishing licensing policies for initial license holders.

Fatal crash involvements of 15-year-old drivers were tabulated for the period 1989 through 1993 for 33 states that issue learner's permits to 15-year-olds, but do not grant regular licenses until age 16. Most 15-year-old drivers involved in fatal crashes either did not hold a learner's permit (57%) or were operating in violation of the terms of their permit at the time of the crash (16%). Compared with 16-year-olds, the fatal crashes of 15-year-olds were more often single-vehicle crashes, late at night, with many passengers in their vehicle, and involved driver factors, such as speeding and failure to drive in the proper lane. Illegal drivers—those without permit or license, and those with permits but unsupervised—were more likely than those driving legally to be culpable and to be in single-vehicle crashes. There were relatively few fatal crash involvements for 15-year-old learner's permit holders engaged in supervised practice driving as permitted by state law. Analysis of these few, and characteristically different, events suggests that learning drivers should limit driving on high speed roads and avoid driving with occupants other than the driver and supervisor.

Young, beginning drivers have greatly elevated crash rates in comparison with older drivers, and motor vehicle crashes involving both drivers and passengers are a major contributor to the deaths in this age group. The crashes of young drivers are patterned differently than those of older drivers, and their crash characteristics can provide guidance in addressing the young driver problem. This paper provides an overview of the extent of the motor vehicle crash problem in this age group and its main features. The features of young driver crashes identified in this paper (speeding, high nighttime risk, low seat belt use, other teenagers in the car, alcohol-impaired driving) can assist in identifying ways to deal with this problem.

Motor vehicle crshes involving young, beginning drivers are a worldwide problem with common characteristics In the United States, 16-19-year-old drivers have a crash risk per mile four times that of older drivers. The crash risk of 16-year-old is particularly high, and 16-year-old females have more crashes per mile than 16-year-old males. Passenger deaths represent about 40 percent of all passenger vehicle occupant deaths of 16-19-year-olds; two-thirds of these deaths occurring in vehicles driven by other teenagers. About 20 percent of the driving of 16-19-year-olds takes place at night (9 p.m.-5:59 a.m.), but almost half of their fatal crashes occur during these hours. Compared with older drivers, 16-19-year-olds are most likely to be in single vehicle crashes, to make driving errors that contribute to the crash, to be going to fast, to have high passenger occupancy rates, and they are less likely to have positive blood alcohol concentrations. The crashes of 16-year-olds are most likely to feature these characteristics.

Most studies of teenage motor-vehicle crashes and injuries have focussed on drivers. However, deaths of 13- to 19-year-olds as passengers are nearly as common as teenage driver deaths (2,131 vs. 2,355 in 1993), and teenage passenger death rates are much higher relative to rates for older people than is the case for driver deaths. The deaths of both teenage drivers and passengers, compared with deaths of older motor-vehicle occupants, are more likely to occur at night, and in smaller and older cars. Two-thirds of teenage passengers killed in 1993 were in vehicles driven by other teenagers. More teenage passenger deaths occurred in vehicles driven by 16-year-olds than any other teen age, and both male and female 16-year-old drivers had greatly elevated rates of teenage passenger deaths in their vehicle per licensed driver and per mile driven compared with older teenage drivers. Countermeasures include night driving curfews and restrictions on teenage passengers in the vehicles of newly licensed drivers, a feature of New Zealand's graduated licensing system that has reduced teenage motor-vehicle injuries in vehicles driven by 15- to 19-year-olds.

Compared with older drivers, and even older teens, greater percentages of 16-year-old drivers in fatal crashes were involved in single-vehicle crashes, were responsible for their crashes, were cited for speeding, had high vehicle occupancy (especially other teenagers), and were female. Sixteen-year-olds were less likely than older drivers to have been drinking. In addition, their crashes occurred at different times than those of older drivers, crashes between 10:00 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays being especially likely. Information about the characteristics of the crashes of 16-year-olds is important because this is the age at which most states currently allow teenagers to get an unrestricted driver's license. It is also the age at which restrictions on beginning licenses are being considered in some states. The results of this study suggest that restrictions on teenage passengers, and night-driving curfews with pre-midnight starting times--two provisions used in New Zealand's graduated licensing system--would be appropriate in attempts to reduce crashes of beginning 16-year-old drivers, who have the highest fatal crash rate of any single teen age.

Youthful age is a major personal characteristic associated with increased crash risk. The crash rates of young drivers are markedly higher than those of other age groups, including the elderly. Immaturity manifested by risky behavior and driving inexperience are thought to be the primary reasons for the heightened crash risk of youthful drivers. In addition, young drivers are particularly susceptible to impairment by alcohol. Measures that delay licensure and that result in initial driving experience being accumulated in lower risk settings can reduce the problem, along with measures that reduce the availability of alcohol or otherwise discourage alcohol use.

Looking at senior drivers as a public health problem in the traditional way- that is, as rate of involvement per capita-the problem of senior drivers is really quite small relative to other age groups. In fact, it is smallest in the highest age groups. The age sixty-five-and-over group is 16 percent of the driving age population. But they are only 9 percent of the fatal-crash-involved drivers. Why is that? Fewer of the elderly population are licensed. Those who are licensed drive few miles. When they do drive, their rates are as high as teenagers. But they have quite limited exposure which, in turn limits their involvement. The elderly are more fragile. Once involved, they are more likely to die. Nevertheless, the main problem is definitely in the younger age categories.

The youngest and oldest drivers have the highest crash risk, but the problem lies predominantly in the youngest age groups because elderly drivers have low exposure. The elderly driver problem will increase gradually as their share of the population increases but will remain relatively small. The bulk of the problem will continue to reside among drivers younger than age 65, particularly the youngest drivers.

This paper examines the effectiveness of educational programs and laws and regulations in reducing adolescents' traffic accidents. Empirical evidence indicates that high school driver education has little or no effect in reducing crashes per licensed driver. Moreover, driver education in high school encourages teenagers to become licensed earlier than they otherwise would, thus increasing crashes per capita among teenagers when high school driver education is offered. School-based educational programs to reduce drunk driving among youth have not been adequately evaluated, but similar educational programs have had minimal success in reducing problem juvenile behaviors. In raising the driving age to 17 years old, New Jersey has achieved an overall effect of reducing traffic fatalities among teenagers. Night driving curfews for certain adolescent drivers have also been effective in reducing traffic accidents among youth. Positive results have been achieved through provisional licensing for 16- and 17-year-olds, which provides continuing monitoring of the driving records of these age groups as a condition for retaining a license. Raising the alcohol purchase age has had the most widespread influence in reducing adolescents' crash fatalities in the United States.

The major health problem for teenagers is deaths and injuries associated with motor vehicle use. Teenagers are disproportionately involved in fatal crashes both as drivers and passengers; as drivers they are responsible for the crash deaths of many other people including non-teenagers. There are public policies available that would substantially reduce the deaths and injuries that result from teenagers driving, although they have not been widely applied.

Data from the 1977 National Personal Transportation Survey and from the Fatal Accident Reporting System were used to compute mileage-based fatal crash involvement rates of drivers, by age, sex, and time of day. Teenagers drive less than older drivers but do more of their driving at night. They have much higher numbers of drivers in fatal crashes based on miles driven than do older drivers; their nighttime rates are particularly high. Sixteen year olds, especially males, have by far the highest fatal crash rates per mile, both nighttime and daytime. More widespread adoption of driving curfew laws would very likely produce substantial reductions in fatalities involving 16 yr old drivers.

Data from national files on fatal crashes are analyzed to reveal that young drivers, especially sixteen and seventeen year olds, are more often responsible for fatal crashes than are older drivers. This is particularly the case for young males. Moreover, those killed in crashes for which teenagers are responsible are disproportionately people other than the teenaged drivers. A possible explanation for these facts lies in the “macho” culture of teenaged males. Potential countermeasures include those directed to limiting the driving exposure of teenagers as well as technological devices to moderate the injury-producing forces in crashes.

In 1978, passenger vehicle drivers 16 and 17 years old were in crashes that resulted in 4198 deaths. Motor vehicles account for nearly half the deaths of 16–19 year olds in the U.S. Teenage drivers contribute substantially to motor vehicle related deaths, both their own and others. Teenage drivers have greatly elevated rates of fatal crash involvement per capita and especially, per licensed driver. More deaths per licensed driver are associated with the passenger vehicle crashes of 18 year olds than for any other age. Deaths per licensed driver are next highest for 16, 17 and 19 year olds. Various possible ways to reduce the deaths that result from teenagers driving are discussed.

Teenagers far exceed all other ages in fatalities per capita both as drivers and as passengers inmotorvehicles. Most studies of vehicle crashes involving teenagers focus on teenage drivers, despite the fact that the numbers of teenage deaths as passengers and as drivers are about equal. In 1978, 63% of all fatally injured teenage passengers sustained their injuries in vehicles driven by teenage drivers: 72% of thepassengers fatally injured in vehicles driven by teenage drivers were teenagers. Half of the teenagepassengerdeaths occurred in nighttime crashes. Possible ways to reduce the crash deaths of teenagersare discussed. These include restricting the driving of teenagers; prohibiting teenage drivers from transporting teenage passengers; greater implementation of crash packaging technologies; cleaning up highway and roadside hazards, and laws requiring seat belt use by teenagers.

Motor vehicle accidents amongst young male drivers and occupants in particular and teenage drivers in general are examined to reveal the causes for the statistical differences. The relation of crash to age or experience is scrutinized for correlations of hormonal change, driver training and legislation on alcohol, melmets and car construction, is discussed. Driver education is singled out as requiring careful consideration before introduction and alternative strategies are suggested.

The failure (sometimes with harmful effects) of many current public policies to reduce fatal motor vehicle crashes of teenaged drivers points up the need to consider a broader range of policy options. This article examines data on 236,205 drivers in fatal crashes, including 19,470 who were less than eighteen years old, for patterns which might suggest or rule out particular options. Adults are seldom in the vehicle when drivers under eighteen crash, but requiring the presence of an adult might increase adult deaths rather than reduce teenage crashes. Identification of risk groups through crash and violation records cannot be very effective because drivers under eighteen in fatal crashes usually have no prior record. Legal precedent regarding minors and the pattern of fatal crash involvement by licensure status and time of day suggest that raising the age of licensure to eighteen or prohibiting driving from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m. by drivers under eighteen would reduce deaths substantially. Since only 52 percent of motorcyclists under eighteen had a valid motorcyclist license, increased enforcement of motorcyclist licensure laws has the potential to reduce motorcyclists' deaths even if present licensing ages are retained.

Introduction: The objective of this study is to describe changes in teenage driver licensing policies in the United States during the past two decades with the introduction of graduated driver licensing (GDL) programs, assess GDL laws currently in place, and discuss the possibilities and likely consequences of further changes.Methods: The history of laws introducing and amending GDL programs was tracked, based on records maintained by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Counts of states included the District of Columbia.Results: A few states had elements of GDL prior to the mid-1990s, and between 1996 and 2006 all other states adopted a learner period of 2 months or more, a minimum supervised practice hours requirement for the learner period, or a night or passenger restriction once initially licensed. All but seven states have upgraded their original laws one or more times. Very few states weakened their laws, usually in minor ways. In 158 instances, minimum learner periods, minimum practice hour requirements, or night or passenger restrictions were added or strengthened. Fifteen states raised the minimum age for a license allowing any unsupervised driving.Conclusion: GDL policies have reduced teenage driver crashes. Most states now have at least minimum requirements for basic GDL features, although there is substantial opportunity for strengthening existing policies. Additional upgrades would result in further crash reductions, but very few have been made in recent years.Practical applications: Guidelines for maximizing the crash reduction potential of GDL programs are available, based on the experience of U.S. states, other countries with GDL programs, and the evaluation literature in regard to GDL components.

Introduction: This study examined U.S. teenagers' crash rates since 1996, when the first graduated driver licensing (GDL) program in the United State was implemented.Methods: Passenger vehicle driver crash involvement rates for 16–19 and 30–59 (middle-aged) year-olds were examined, using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System, Census Bureau, and National Household Travel Surveys.Results: Per capita fatal and police-reported crash rates in 2012 were lower for 16 year-olds than for middle-aged drivers but older teenagers' rates were higher. Mileage-based fatal and police-reported crash rates in 2008 were higher for teenagers than for middle-aged drivers and higher for 16–17 year-olds than for older teenagers. In 1996–2012, teenagers' per capita fatal and police-reported crash rates declined sharply, especially for 16–17 year-olds, and more so than for middle-aged drivers. Substantial declines also occurred in teenagers' mileage-based fatal and police-reported crash rates from 1995–96 to 2008, generally more so than for middle-aged drivers. Regarding factors in fatal crashes in 1996 and 2012, proportions of young teenagers' crashes occurring at night and with multiple teenage passengers declined, more so than among older teenagers and middle-aged drivers. The proportion of fatally injured drivers who had been drinking declined for teenagers but changed little for middle-aged drivers. Improvements were not apparent in rates of driver errors or speeding among teenage drivers in fatal crashes.Conclusions: Teenage drivers' crash risk dropped during the period of implementation of GDL laws, especially fatal crash types targeted by GDL. However, teenagers' crash risk remains high, and important crash factors remain unaddressed by GDL.Practical applications: Although this study was not designed to examine the role of GDL, the results are consistent with the increased presence of such laws. More gains are achievable if states strengthen their laws.

Background: Three New Jersey licensing policies are unique in the United States. They are: (a) minimum licensing age of 17; (b) applying full graduated driver licensing (GDL) rules to beginners younger than 21; and (c) requiring license status decals on vehicle plates of drivers in GDL.Methods: New Jersey 17–19 year-olds were surveyed by telephone and online.Results: Eighty-four percent approved licensing at 17; 77% approved applying GDL to older novices; 23% approved the decal policy. Probationary licensees ages 18–19 were more likely than 17 year-olds to have multiple nighttime restriction violations in the past month. There were no age group differences in passenger restriction violations.Discussion: All three policies have been considered in other states. Views of teenagers directly affected by the policies can be taken into account in considering their implementation.Practical applications: Views of licensing policies by affected teenagers indicate potential support or obstacles to their adoption in other states.

In the United States, teenagers drive less than all but the oldest people, but their youthfulness and driving inexperience result in disproportionately high crash rates. However, teenagers’ crash risk is lower than it used to be, and graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws have been instrumental. GDL phases in driving privileges as beginners mature and gain skills by strengthening the learner phase and adding an intermediate license before full licensure that restricts unsupervised driving in situations known to be risky.

Objectives: On May 1, 2010, New Jersey implemented a law requiring teenagers with learner’s permits or probationary licenses to display reflective decals on the front and rear license plates when they drive. The current study examined attitudes of parents and teenagers toward this requirement, use of decals, and reported violations and police enforcement of the graduated driver license law.Method: Statewide telephone surveys of representative samples of parents and teenagers were conducted in February to April 2010 and March to June 2011. Use of decals among probationary license holders was observed at 4 high schools in fall 2010 and in spring 2011 and hand-out surveys were distributed. Data on citations issued for violations of the graduated driver license law were obtained.Results: When interviewed in spring 2011, a large majority of parents of probationary license holders, parents of learner’s permit holders, and teenagers with probationary licenses disapproved of decals for probationary licenses. About two thirds of both sets of parents and about half of teenagers disapproved of decals for learner’s permits. Support for decals for both license types declined significantly from 2010 to 2011. For parents and teenagers alike, opposition was mainly attributed to concern about identifying and/or targeting teenage drivers by other drivers, predators, or police. In 2011, 77 percent of parents of probationary license holders said that their teenagers had decals for the vehicles driven most often; 46 percent said their teenagers always used decals. Fifty-six percent of parents of learner’s permit holders said that their teenagers had decals for the vehicles driven most often; 37 percent said that their teenagers always used decals. Teenagers’ reported violations of license restrictions either increased or were similar in 2011 compared to 2010. Observed rates of decal use by probationary license holders at high schools in spring 2011 ranged from 24 to 64 percent. The number of statewide citations for teenage licensing law violations doubled in the year after the decal requirement took effect compared to the prior year. Excluding decal violations, citations increased by 52 percent.Conclusions: Early examination of New Jersey’s decal requirement found widespread opposition, primarily due to concerns about identifying/targeting teenage drivers, though first-hand reports of such incidents were very rare. Many teenagers do not use the decals. Increased issuance of citations for violations of the teenage licensing lawsuggests that decals are facilitating police enforcement. However, based on teenagers’ self-reports, the requirement does not appear to have achieved the ultimate goal of increased compliance.

Objective: To highlight the issues and discuss the research evidence regarding safety, mobility, and other consequences of different licensing ages.Methods: Information included is based on presentations and discussions at a 1-day workshop on licensing age issues and a review and synthesis of the international literature.Results: The literature indicates that higher licensing ages are associated with safety bene ts. There is an associated mobility loss, more likely to be an issue in rural states. Legislative attempts to raise the minimum age for independent driving in the United States — for example, from 16 to 17 — have been resisted, although in some states the age has been raised indirectly through graduated driver licensing (GDL) policies.Conclusions: Jurisdictions can achieve reductions in teenage crashes by raising the licensing age. This can be done directly or indirectly by strengthening GDL systems, in particular extending the minimum length of the learner period.

A large body of evidence has found that graduated driver licensing is associated with significantly lower crash rates of young teenaged drivers. Additional crash reductions in many states likely could be achieved through strengthening current graduated driver licensing programs. Whether and how graduated driver licensing has affected older teenagers and whether these programs should be extended to include older teenagers merit further study.

Objective: During the past two decades, many changes in licensing policies have been made in U.S. states, and more are being discussed. The views of parents of teenagers can inform debates about what licensing provisions should be considered and how well they will be received. The objective was to obtain the views of a nationally representative sample of parents of teenagers on a wide range of licensing practices.Methods: Parents were interviewed via the internet in early 2010. Participants were 1226 parents of 15- to 18-year-olds drawn from a nationally representative panel of U.S. households recruited using probability-based sampling. The panel included cell phone-only households, and Internet access was provided to those without it. Weighting procedures were applied to ensure that participants reflect the national population.Results: Parents generally favored licensing policies that are as strong as or stronger than exist in any U.S. jurisdiction, including higher permit and licensing ages, long learner periods with high practice hour requirements, plus strong and long-lasting night and passenger restrictions. The majority of parents approved of tougher driving tests, including a test to graduate to full license status (75%), enhanced penalties for traffic violations (94%) and violations of graduated licensing restrictions (78%), cell phone and texting bans (96-98%), and, to a somewhat lesser extent, license status identifiers (decals) on vehicles (65%) and the application of graduated licensing rules to novice drivers 18 and older (61%). Parents in the Northeast were significantly more supportive of older learner's permit and restricted driving ages than parents in other regions, and parents in the West were more supportive of strong passenger restrictions.Conclusions: Results suggest that many parents will support comprehensive licensing policies. Many of these policies are known to reduce teenage crash involvement. For others, research evidence of their effects is lacking and needs to be established.

Objectives: The objective of the current study was to quantify the effects of the strength of US state graduated driver licensing laws and specific licensing components on the rate of teenage driver fatal crash involvements per 100,000 teenagers during 1996-2007. The strengths of state laws were rated good, fair, marginal, or poor based on a system developed previously by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.Methods: Analysis was based on quarterly counts of drivers involved in fatal crashes. Associations of overall ratings and individual licensing components with teenage crash rates were evaluated using Poisson regression, with the corresponding fatal crash rate for drivers ages 30-59 controlling for state- or time-dependent influences on crash rates unrelated to graduated licensing laws.Results: Compared with licensing laws rated poor, laws rated good were associated with 30 percent lower fatal crash rates among 15- to 17-year-olds. Laws rated fair yielded fatal crash rates 11 percent lower. The longer the permit age was delayed, or the longer the licensing age was delayed, the lower the estimated fatal crash rates among 15- to 17-year-olds. Stronger nighttime restrictions were associated with larger reductions, and reductions were larger for laws limiting teenage passengers to zero or one than laws allowing two or more teenage passengers or laws without passenger restrictions. After the effects of any related delay in licensure were accounted for, an increase in the minimum learner's permit holding period showed no association with fatal crash rates. An increase in required practice driving hours did not appear to have an independent association with fatal crash rates.Conclusions: Graduated licensing laws that include strong nighttime and passenger restrictions and laws that delay the learner's permit age and licensing age are associated with lower teenage fatal crash rates. States that adopt such laws can expect to achieve substantial reductions in crash deaths.

This is an Institute-produced PDF of the research paper following peer review. The definitive version was published in Traffic Injury Prevention, June 2010, vol. 11, no. 3, pp 240-248, and is available online at http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389580903578854Objectives: The objective of the current study was to quantify the effects of the strength of US state graduated driver licensing laws and specific licensing components on the rate of teenage driver fatal crash involvements per 100,000 teenagers during 1996-2007. The strengths of state laws were rated good, fair, marginal, or poor based on a system developed previously by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.Methods: Analysis was based on quarterly counts of drivers involved in fatal crashes. Associations of overall ratings and individual licensing components with teenage crash rates were evaluated using Poisson regression, with the corresponding fatal crash rate for drivers ages 30-59 controlling for state- or time-dependent influences on crash rates unrelated to graduated licensing laws.Results: Compared with licensing laws rated poor, laws rated good were associated with 30 percent lower fatal crash rates among 15- to 17-year-olds. Laws rated fair yielded fatal crash rates 11 percent lower. The longer the permit age was delayed, or the longer the licensing age was delayed, the lower the estimated fatal crash rates among 15- to 17-year-olds. Stronger nighttime restrictions were associated with larger reductions, and reductions were larger for laws limiting teenage passengers to zero or one than laws allowing two or more teenage passengers or laws without passenger restrictions. After the effects of any related delay in licensure were accounted for, an increase in the minimum learner's permit holding period showed no association with fatal crash rates. An increase in required practice driving hours did not appear to have an independent association with fatal crash rates.Conclusions: Graduated licensing laws that include strong nighttime and passenger restrictions and laws that delay the learner's permit age and licensing age are associated with lower teenage fatal crash rates. States that adopt such laws can expect to achieve substantial reductions in crash deaths.

Objectives: This study examined the effect of different graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws on collision claim frequencies of licensed and insured teenage drivers.Method: Automobile insurance collision claim frequencies were computed by year (1996-2008) and state for drivers ages 16-19. Poisson regression models were used to estimate the effect of GDL laws on claim frequencies. The claim frequency for drivers ages 35-55 was used as a covariate to control for non-GDL state and year variation in motor vehicle crashes.Results: Compared with GDL laws rated poor, laws rated good reduced collision claim frequencies of 16 year-olds by an estimated 20 percent. Laws rated fair and marginal reduced claim frequencies by 15 and 10 percent, respectively. Claim frequencies also were reduced for older teenage drivers, although to a smaller extent. Analyses of GDL components showed increasing license age, requiring practice driving, restricting passengers to one or fewer, and a strong nighttime driving restriction significantly reduced claim frequencies of 16-year-old drivers.Conclusions: GDL laws are reducing collision claim frequencies of young drivers, and stronger laws are having larger effects.

On December 1, 2006, North Carolina began prohibiting use of any mobile communication device by drivers younger than 18. The current study examined the effects of the law on teenage drivers' cell phone use. Teenage drivers were observed at high schools in North Carolina 1-2 months before and approximately 5 months after the law took effect. The proportion of teenagers using cell phones did not change significantly (11.0% before the law took effect, 11.8% after). Cell phone use among teenage drivers at high schools in South Carolina, an adjacent state without a teenage driver phone ban, was stable at about 13%. Interviews were conducted with parents and teenagers in North Carolina both before and after the law took effect. In post-law interviews, teenagers were more likely than parents to say they knew about the cell phone restriction (64% vs. 39%), but support for the ban was greater among parents (95% vs. 74%). Only 22% of teenagers and 13% of parents believed the law was being enforced fairly often or a lot. Although the proportion of teenagers who reported using phones while driving declined somewhat following the law, about half admitted they used their phones, if they had driven, on the day prior to the interview. Overall, the findings suggest that North Carolina's cell phone restriction had little to no effect on teenage drivers' use of cell phones shortly after the law took effect.

Objectives: To discuss the variation in licensing ages around the world and summarize what is known about the effects of differing age limits.Methods: Review of the international literature on the rationale for establishing licensing ages, debates about the justification for higher or lower minimum ages, safety effects of higher minimums, mobility consequences, public opinion, and recent attempts to raise licensing ages.Results: Minimum licensing ages vary from 14 to 18 years old. Early licensing countries have reduced the young driver problem through graduated licensing systems, but consideration is now being given to increasing the licensing age. The available evidence indicates that this would further reduce young driver crashes. There are mobility consequences that are difficult to quantify. In New Jersey, which has long been the one U.S. state with a 17-year-old licensing age, the delay in licensing appears to have minimal effects on lifestyles of 16-year-olds. Public opinion in the United States favors licensing ages higher than 16.Conclusions: In debates about higher licensing ages, jurisdictions are deciding how they want to balance safety and mobility. From a safety standpoint, New Jersey, with its combination of higher licensing age and strong graduated licensing provisions, is the model.

Objective: To assess parental decision making regarding the timing of teenagers initiating driving and monitoring teenagers' driving after licensure.Methods: About 300 parents were interviewed during spring 2006 in Minnesota, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, states with varying licensing provisions, while teenagers took their first on-road driving tests.Results: States' differences in ages of obtaining learner's permits and licenses reflected different licensing laws, but most teenagers obtained permits and took road tests within the first few months after they became eligible. Common reasons for delaying obtaining permits were fulfilling driver education requirements and lack of readiness/immaturity. Insufficient practice driving most often delayed licensure. Among the parents interviewed, 33-49% believed the minimum licensure age should be 17 or older. Almost all parents planned to supervise teenagers' driving after licensure, and most wanted to know about speeding or distractions. When asked about in-vehicle devices to monitor teenagers' driving, 37-59% of parents had heard of them. Parents were least interested in using video cameras and about equally interested in computer chips and cell-phone-based GPS systems. Disinterest in monitoring devices most often was attributed to trusting teenagers or respecting their privacy.Conclusions: Licensing laws influence ages of initiating driving. Although many parents support licensing at 17 or older - higher than in all but one state - most teenagers initiate driving soon after reaching the minimum age. Parents plan to supervise teenagers' driving, and many say they are open to using in-vehicle monitoring devices.Impact on industry: Many parents support a minimum licensing age of 17 or older and would consider in-vehicle devices to extend their supervision of teenager's driving.

Objective: To examine parental decisions about vehicles driven by teenagers and parental knowledge of vehicle safety.Methods: About 300 parents were interviewed during spring 2006 in Minnesota, North Carolina, and Rhode Island while teenagers took their first on-road driving tests.Results: Fewer than half of parents surveyed said teenagers would be the primary drivers of the chosen vehicles. Parents most often cited safety, existing family vehicle, and reliability when explaining the choices for their teenagers' vehicles. About half of the vehicles intended for teenagers were small/mini/sports cars, pickups, or SUVs - vehicles considered less safe for teenagers than midsize/large cars or minivans. A large majority of vehicles were 2001 models or earlier. Vehicles purchased in anticipation of adding a new driver to the family were more likely to be the sizes/types considered less safe than vehicles already owned. Few parents insisted on side airbags or electronic stability control, despite strong evidence of their safety benefits. Even when asked to identify ideal vehicles for their teenagers to drive, about half of parents identified less safe vehicle sizes/types. Most parents knew that midsize/large vehicles are safer than small vehicles, and at least half of parents said SUVs and pickups are not safe for teenage drivers, citing instability.Conclusions: The majority of parents understood some of the important criteria for choosing safe vehicles for their teenagers. However, parents actually selected many vehicles for teenagers that provide inferior crash protection.Impact on industry: Vehicle safety varies substantially by vehicle size, type, and safety features. Many teenagers are driving inferior vehicles in terms of crashworthiness and crash avoidance.

Objective: Evaluations of several state graduated licensing programs have indicated reductions in injury and fatal crashes involving 16-year-old drivers. However, results of evaluations of California’s July 1, 1998 graduated licensing law have been mixed, with one study showing no overall reduction in crashes. The present study attempted to clarify the effects of California’s law.Methods: Auto-Regressive Integrated Moving Average time series analysis was used to account for pre-existing downward trends and seasonality in monthly 16-year-old driver involvements in injury or fatal crashes per 10,000 population, based on 1995-2003 data. Monthly 24-55-year-old driver involvements in injury/fatal crashes per 10,000 population were used as an additional check for statewide trends.Results: Implementation of the graduated licensing law resulted in an estimated 23 percent reduction in 16-year-old driver injury and fatal crash involvements. An estimated 8,052 16-year-old driver involvements in injury and fatal crashes were prevented in the 66 months following the law’s implementation. Sixteen-year-old driver involvements in injury and fatal crashes with injured teenage passengers declined by an estimated 38 percent, or 3,953 fewer crash involvements. Nighttime and daytime 16-year-old driver involvements in injury and fatal crashes were reduced by similar amounts.Conclusions: California’s graduated licensing law has reduced 16-year-old driver involvements in crashes. The results differ from those of Masten and Hagge (2003) who found no overall effects for 16 year-olds. Their modeling process was overly restrictive and did not adequately account for seasonal and other systematic nonlinear periodic trends in injury and fatal crashes.

Although graduated driver licensing (GDL) programs have reduced the high crash rates for 16- and 17-year-old drivers, research suggests that some teenagers fail to comply with restrictions on nighttime driving and carrying passengers. A program to encourage compliance with GDL restrictions and seat belt requirements was implemented in Guilford County, North Carolina. The program combined increased enforcement with a multi-faceted publicity campaign drawing attention to the enforcement activity. A comparison community was studied to assess whether changes over time could be reasonably attributed to the program. Several measures indicate that greater enforcement did occur and that teenagers perceived the increase. However, self-reported data and direct observations of young drivers in the intervention and comparison communities showed the program resulted in only modest changes in compliance with GDL restrictions. The program put in place the mechanisms known to produce changes in driver behavior, but these may have been insufficient to alter the behavior of the minority of teens (and parents) who were not already complying with restrictions. Many teenagers in Guilford County who are violating restrictions may be persistent non-compliers whose behavior is more difficult to change. However, the modest changes in young driver behavior plus the clear changes in both actual and perceived enforcement suggest that high visibility enforcement programs merit further use and evaluation in other communities, particularly those where compliance with GDL provisions is lower.

Every motorized country in the world has a young driver problem. In the United States, licensing practices in place for most of the 20th century exacerbated the problem. Licensing ages around the world vary from 15 to 18, for example, but in the United States they are at the low end of this range. There also has been a quick and easy path to licensure, with minimal requirements and easy tests (Williams et al., 1996). Thus until recent years there was little attempt to address the two main factors creating the problem: inexperience and youthful age. The result was a young driver problem of epidemic proportions (Williams, 1996).

Frustration arises when sound research indicates that a certain measure reduces motor vehicle crashes or injuries but the measure is not widely implemented. This is especially so when one can point to measures not supported by research that are mainstays of society's approach to the highway safety problem, for example, education and publicity campaigns alone or high school driver education. In a more perfect world, only science-based policies would be implemented and maintained. Researchers would conduct high-quality research, advocates would market the findings, and policy makers would enact appropriate legislation. Things do not work quite that way, so this paper discusses the ways in which policies do get implemented and how this process might be influenced. What are the barriers to adopting science-based policies, and what are the elements that lead to their successful adoption? This paper covers a success story--the widespread adoption of graduated licensing--and what might be learned from it that could assist in future efforts to convert research into policy.

Graduated licensing has been implemented in many U.S. states to reduce teenage driver crash involvement. The goal is to introduce teenagers gradually to driving before allowing full, unrestricted licensure. Tennessee, one of the states that introduced graduated licensing, implemented a program to influence both driving by teenagers during the learner stage and restrictions imposed by parents after licensure. In addition to a standard welcome letter, booklets and reminder cards were mailed to parents of teenagers who had just obtained their learner's permits. The booklets and cards were designed to assist parents in becoming more actively involved in their children's driving experiences. The effects of three different approaches (welcome letter only, letter plus booklet, and letter plus booklet plus reminder cards) on parental involvement, teenage crashes, and teenage citations were assessed based on telephone interviews with parents. Although the parents said the booklets and reminder cards were helpful and should continue to be sent to other parents, there were no discernible effects on teenage practice driving and reported parental involvement during the learner stage. Nor was there any measurable influence on restrictions imposed by parents after licensure. It is unknown whether the standard welcome letter affected parental involvement, but overall supervised driving exceeded the state requirements by a substantial margin.

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.

In the 58 North American jurisdictions where versions of graduated licensing have been enacted, significant reductions in collisions and injuries are anticipated. However, even more substantial reductions would be possible if jurisdictions met all the recommendations for a graduated system. In an optimal system, young beginners would not start until age 16, spend at least 6 months in a learner’s stage with parents having to certify at least 30-50 hours of practice, enter an initial license stage with restrictions on unsupervised nighttime driving starting at 9 or 10 p.m., and transporting teenage passengers, both lasting for at least 6 months, and graduation to an unrestricted license should not be permitted until at least age 18.

This paper updates the comprehensive summary of graduated driver licensing (GDL) published in the January 2003 special issue of the Journal of Safety Research. It summarizes recent research not included in the special issue as well as research in progress or planned research. The most active research areas are risk factors for beginning teen drivers and evaluations of GDL programs. Results in each area strengthen the case for GDL. Additional research is producing valuable information about specific GDL implementation issues and the roles of parents and driver education in helping teenagers learn to drive safely.

A major change is taking place in the United States to address the younger driver problem, namely the introduction of a licensing system that mandates an extended period of supervised driving and an intermediate licensing stage with restrictions on high-risk unsupervised driving, prior to full-privilege licensing. This represents a radical shift from the minimal licensing requirements that previously existed in most states and is expected to result in significant reductions in the young driver problem.

A graduated licensing (GL) program was introduced in Nova Scotia, Canada, in October 1994. Previous research has shown that it reduced collisions in the short term. The present study examined the relative contribution of each stage of the program (i.e., learner and intermediate levels) and the program's impact after beginning drivers graduated to full licensure. The research focused on teenage beginning drivers (age 16-17), but the effects on older beginners also was examined. Per-driver crash rates of two groups of novices selected from driver records in Nova Scotia were compared. One group (pre-GL) received their learner's permits during the 2 years before the program was implemented, and the second group (GL) received their learner's permits during the 2 years after implementation. The findings clearly establish that most of the collision reduction in Nova Scotia's program occurred during the first year of the program, particularly during the first 6 months when the majority of novices were driving under supervision. The collision rate for 16 to 17-year-old GL novices was 50% lower than the rate for pre-GL novices during the 6 months after they received their learner's permits, and about 10% lower during their first 2 years of licensure when unsupervised driving from midnight to 5 A.M. was prohibited. Much of this improvement for 16 to 17-year-olds occurred during restricted night hours. Collision rates also were lower during nonrestricted hours in the initial 6 months of licensure. The 3-month "time discount" for driver education provided no safety benefit, and GL novices with driver education had collision rates that were not lower than pre-GL novices. There was no long-term effect found for the program after 16 to 17-year-olds graduated to full licensure. For older beginning drivers, crash rates during the first year after obtaining a learner's permit showed a 31% reduction. This effect diminished rapidly. There was only a 2% reduction during the first year of licensure, and crash rates increased during the following 2 years. Overall the data indicate substantial benefits of graduated licensing for 16 to 17-year-old beginners, but no benefits beyond the learner stage for older beginners.

Problem: Young drivers, particularly those who are newly licensed, have a very high crash risk. This paper examines the risk factors underlying their high crash rates and assesses the extent to which existing graduated licensing programs address these risks and whether improvements to these programs should be considered.Method: Review and synthesis of the literature.Results: The elevated risk among young drivers of being in an injury crash is the result of a number of factors found alone or in combination, such as risky driving, alcohol use, seat belt nonuse, driver distraction, fatigue, and vehicle choice. Nighttime and passenger restrictions, adopted widely in the United States, work by keeping drivers out of hazardous situations rather than by addressing risk factors directly. However, the risk factors remain in play in driving situations not specifically restricted by law. Although other graduated licensing components adopted around the world—more stringent exit tests (i.e., you need to pass a test to move to the next stage), hazard perception tests, and restrictions on speed, vehicle power, and roadway access—make sense based on the identified risk factors, they are not yet supported by research. Should research findings warrant it, consideration should be given to providing guidance to parents about how to keep their beginning drivers safe, including information on vehicle choice.Impact: Researchers should continue to monitor and to evaluate innovative approaches to reduce the crash risk of young drivers. The effectiveness of new approaches should be established before adoption on a wider scale takes place.

What we know about graduated licensing is encouraging. The systems that have been evaluated have been found to be very effective in reducing crashes and injuries, and public acceptance is high. This in and of itself provides the compelling case for graduated licensing. Yet, the symposium clearly revealed that the full potential of graduated licensing is nowhere near being realized. In concept, graduated licensing is simple and appealing. It is a way of managing initial on-road driving experience, prescribing this experience in lower risk settings to protect beginners while they learn. What is needed to make graduated licensing succeed are restrictions on high-risk driving that are of sufficient strength and length and high compliance with the restrictions.

In 1998, California adopted a strong graduated licensing system that lengthened the learner's permit stage from 1 month to a mandatory 6 months and introduced passenger and nighttime restrictions for initial license holders. The passenger restriction (no passengers younger than 20 for the first 6 months) is stronger than such restrictions in any other state; the nighttime ban is relatively weak, not beginning until midnight. Surveys were undertaken to learn what teenagers and their parents thought about the new requirements and how they responded to them. Two groups of beginning California license holders were surveyed three times during the first year of licensure; their parents were interviewed twice. One group (n = 543) was subject to the graduated licensing requirements, the other (n = 814) was not. Parents strongly endorsed the new system. The vast majority approved of the new permit requirements and the nighttime and passenger restrictions. Among parents whose children were subject to the new requirements, 79% were strongly in favor of the new system and only 4% were neutral or opposed. Teenagers were less favorable toward the new requirements. Most approved of the new learner's permit rules, and the majority of teenagers favored the night restriction, but only about one-third endorsed the passenger restriction. Compliance with the new rules was not close to universal, but the new licensing system resulted in young people holding their learner's permits longer, accumulating more practice driving prior to licensure and decreased the amount of reported driving after midnight and transportation of teenagers when initially licensed. Most teenagers subject to the new rules said they were able to do the activities they wanted despite the changes; almost three-quarters said they were not affected much by either the nighttime or passenger restriction. Overall the results indicate that the new licensing system is accepted favorably by teenagers and their parents and has substantially increased the types of behaviors that collectively should lead to crash and injury reductions.

The increased crash risk of young, beginning drivers has long been cause for concern. Graduated licensing systems, which seek to phase in driving experience gradually over time, have recently been adopted by many states in an effort to reduce these risks. In an attempt to define the basic rationale for graduated licensing, relevant research evidence that describes the conditions under which risk is known to be increased for young drivers was reviewed. Potential changes in licensing laws that best address these known risk factors are described. It was found that certain situations contribute to even greater crash risk, most notably nighttime driving and driving with passengers in the peer group. The underlying premise for graduated licensing is that while crash risk of young drivers is heightened under all situations, some situations are more or less risky than others. If experience can be gained initially under lower risk conditions, both in the learning stage and when first licensed, crash risk will be reduced.

While the United States traditionally has allowed quick and easy paths to full-privilege licensure of drivers at an early age, graduated licensing is becoming increasingly popular. The graduated licensing system phases in unrestricted driving by allowing beginners to get their initial behind-the-wheel experiences under conditions that reduce the risk of collision. As of June 2002, 35 states and the District of Columbia had enacted some sort of graduated licensing law. Recent evaluations of graduated licensing systems in four states have found reductions in crashes among 16-year-old drivers ranging from 11 to 33 percent. Yet, not all states have such laws, and many of the graduated licensing systems in use lack important provisions, such as nighttime driving and passenger restrictions. This article reviews the rules, restrictions, and provisions of the graduated licensing model; discusses evaluations of graduated licensing systems; identifies and analyzes variations in graduated licensing approaches across states; assesses the successes and failures of early graduated licensing laws, using New Mexico as an example; and discusses the potential of these systems to prevent injuries.

Parents of 15 year-olds in Florida and Connecticut were first interviewed in 1996 about their views concerning new licensing requirements in their states. Connecticut had introduced a 6-month learner’s permit requirement, effectively increasing the licensing age from 16 years to 16 years, 6 months (16 years, 4 months with driver education). Florida enacted a 6-month learner’s permit period plus a night driving restriction for 16 and 17 year-olds. In 1996, parents were very supportive of the new requirements, particularly the minimum permit period and nighttime restrictions, even though they recognized they would be inconvenienced to some extent. The same parents were interviewed again in 1999, after most of their teenagers had obtained driver’s licenses, and were even more supportive than before of the additional restrictions. Few parents reported that the laws inconvenienced them, and less than 20 percent said the laws had made it harder for their teenagers to get jobs. Furthermore, many were in favor of additional requirements, such as teenage passenger restrictions, not currently part of their states’ laws. These findings should encourage other states to proceed with graduated licensing systems or to augment systems already in place.

New drivers, especially young ones, have extremely high crash rates. Contributing to this problem is the common practice of allowing a quick and easy path to unrestricted, full driving privileges. Many jurisdictions are considering a new form of licensing called "graduated licensing" to address this problem. The primary objective of this evaluation of the program in Nova Scotia, Canada, was to determine if there was a significant decrease in road crashes following the introduction of the graduated program. This study looked at drivers 16 and 17 years of age as well as all beginners regardless of age. The results of the study indicate that the graduated licensing program in Nova Scotia did significantly reduce the number of crashes and casualties. The program benefited not just young drivers but for all new drivers there was a 19% decrease in the collision rate.

The majority of jurisdictions in Canada and the United States has adopted graduated licensing systems since the mid-1990s. Graduated licensing requires that progression to full-privilege licensure occurs in stages. The defining feature of North American-style graduated licensing is that some types of driving are restricted during the initial license stage, as well as in the learner stage. The rationale for graduated licensing is to permit beginners to acquire their initial on-road driving experience under conditions of lower risk. Previous licensing systems generally allowed a quick and easy path to full-privilege licensure at a young age, resulting in extremely high crash rates for young beginners. Although the systems now in place in North America vary widely, typically there is a required supervised learner stage of 6 months or more, followed by an intermediate license stage of at least several months with restrictions on high risk driving. Unsupervised late-night recreational driving is usually restricted, and some jurisdictions restrict carrying passengers; both of these activities elevate the already high crash risk of young drivers. Research in North America, Australia, and Europe has shown that for young novices, the first few months of licensure entail the highest crash risk, with the risk highest immediately after licensure. The high crash rate of novice drivers in the first months after they are licensed suggests that prelicensing policies can only do so much, and that restricting driving in situations . known to be especially high risk during this short postlicensure period is one option for dealing with this vulnerability.

On July 1, 1996, the state of Florida implemented a graduated licensing system for drivers under the age of 18. The system included a 6-month learner's permit and nighttime driving restriction, and made it easier to suspend the license for moving violations. Florida also instituted, on January 1, 1997, a zero tolerance law for drinking and driving for drivers under 21. The aim of this study was to measure changes in teenagers' behaviors and attitudes following adoption of graduated licensing. A self-administered survey was given in the Fall of 1996 and again in the Fall of 1998 to juniors and seniors from 8 high schools selected through a multistage sampling process. Differences between the 1996 and 1998 responses were examined. Results and conclusions are presented indicating that positive changes in teenagers' behaviors and attitudes were associated with the implementation of the graduated licensing system.

Objectives—The presence of passengers is associated with fatal motor vehicle crashes of teenage drivers. A restriction against newly licensed teenage drivers carrying passengers has been included in some, but not all, graduated licensing systems. The purpose of this study was to predict the net effects on all types of road users, including vehicle occupants and non-occupants, of possible prohibitions against 16–17 year old drivers carrying passengers. Methods—Two national datasets, a census of fatal crashes and a sample of trips in the United States, were used to compute 1995 road user death rates. Potential effects of restrictions on drivers ages 16–17 carrying passengers younger than 20 were estimated, based on road user death rates and potential choices made by passengers who would have traveled with 16–17 year old drivers if there were no restrictions. Results—There were 1181 road user deaths in 1995 involving drivers ages 16–17 whose passengers were all younger than age 20. The predicted number of lives in the United States that would be saved annually ranges from 83 to 493 (corresponding to reductions of 7–42% in road user deaths) for drivers ages 16 and 17 combined. Similar percentages of reductions (8–44%) were predicted solely for 16 year old drivers. Assuming passenger restrictions would apply to all 16 year old drivers and at least one third of 17 year old drivers, an estimated 60–344 fewer deaths per year may occur if restrictions are mandated. Conclusions—Restrictions on carrying passengers younger than 20 should be considered for inclusion in graduated licensing systems. Even if fewer than half the drivers obey the restrictions, a substantial reduction in road user deaths would be expected. Further evaluation based on real world experience is needed to confirm their efficacy.

Problem: On January 1, 1997, Connecticut implemented the first phase of graduated licensing requiring 16- and 17-year-olds to hold a learner's permit for 6 months (4 months with driver's education) prior to licensure. The effect of this change was to raise the minimum licensing age in Connecticut by 6 months (or 4 months) during which time a young person could obtain supervised practice driving.Method: Crash rates for 16- to 18-year-olds in Connecticut, before and after the change, were compared with crash rates in nearby counties in New York State.Results: Fatal/injury crash involvements of Connecticut 16-year-old drivers declined by 22% during the first full year following the law change. Declines did not vary significantly between males and females or as a function of the income level of the city/town in which the crash occurred. Fatal/injury crash involvements for 17- and 18-year-olds in Connecticut and 16-, 17-, and 18-year-olds in New York did not change significantly.Discussion: Companion surveys of parents conducted before and after their teen was licensed showed support for the law change and support for additional provisions generally associated with “graduated licensing.”Summary: Delaying teenage licensure in Connecticut, during which time a teen could engage in more practice driving, was associated with a 22% reduction in fatal/injury crash involvements for 16-year-old drivers.Impact on industry:Crash reduction will be related to a reduction in overall highway loss including medical costs, property damage, and lost work time.

The age at which a teenager may obtain a license to drive is reasonably uniform across North America -- most jurisdictions license at age 16. However, there has been a recent trend toward modifying the age of full licensure with the adoption of a new system called graduated licensing, which involves a phased entry to full licensure. This trend raises the question of why minimum licensing ages were introduced in the first place and, perhaps more importantly, why particular ages were selected. This study examines the origins of, and rationale for, minimum driver licensing age laws. Findings suggest that the introduction of age restrictions at the beginning of the 20th century was motivated largely by efforts to protect the public from young drivers, who increasingly were being recognized as a problem on the highways, as well as to protect adolescents and prepare them for adulthood. However, there was no consensus regarding the optimum age for licensing. Age determination in driver licensing essentially was arbitrary; some states selected 16, while others selected 18. By the mid-to-late 1920s, the need for uniformity in the control and regulation of drivers emerged as a critical issue in the United States, and 16 became the recommended legal age. Since then, a minimum licensing age of 16 has become the norm in the United States.

High school students were surveyed every 6 months from their freshman through senior years concerning licensing, driving, and transportation to and from their various activities. Students in Delaware (learner's permit can be issued at age 15 years, 10 months; driver's license at age 16) were compared with students in Connecticut and New York (permit at age 16; license at age 16) and in New Jersey (license at age 17). During the junior year, most Delaware students, some New York and Connecticut students, and few New Jersey students were licensed. However, even during the junior year, students in the respective states did not differ significantly with respect to time spent at activities such as a paying job, homework, watching television, dating, parties, being with friends, talking on the phone, or participating in sports or school activities. Graduated licensing systems can delay full-privilege teenage licensure and reduce teenage crash rates. These systems also can increase the number of times parents and others must drive. However, the present study's results indicate that licensing delays of as much as 1 year have minimal effects on the nondriving activities of high school students.

On 1 July 1996, Florida instituted a graduated licensing program for drivers younger than age 18. For the first 3 months, holders of learner's licenses are not allowed to drive at all between 19:00 and 06:00 h; thereafter, they may drive until 22:00 h. Learner's licenses must be held for 6 months prior to eligibility for the intermediate license. Sixteen-year-old intermediate license holders are not permitted to drive unsupervised from 23:00 to 06:00 h, 17 year-olds from 01:00 to 06:00 h. All drivers younger than 18 have strict limits on the number of traffic violations they can accumulate and, effective 1 January 1997, all drivers younger than 21 are subject to a zero tolerance law for drinking and driving. Florida crash data for 1995-1997 were obtained and compared with similar data from Alabama, a state that borders Florida but does not have graduated licensing. For 15, 16, and 17 year-olds combined, there was a 9% reduction in the fatal and injury crash involvement rate in Florida during 1997, the first full year of graduated licensing, compared with 1995. On a percentage basis, crashes declined most among 15 year-olds, followed by 16 year-olds and then 17 year-olds. Reductions were not seen among Alabama teenagers nor among 18 year-olds in Florida.

A major change is taking place in the United States to address the younger driver problem, namely the introduction of a licensing system that mandates an extended period of supervised driving and an intermediate licensing stage with restrictions on high-risk unsupervised driving, prior to full-privilege licensing. This represents a radical shift from the minimal licensing requirements that previously existed in most states and is expected to result in significant reductions in the young driver problem.

This paper, on the use of graduated licensing in the USA and Canada, supplements the information presented in another paper by the author (ITRD E108391). It additionally discusses the rationale for the UK and other countries for adopting this approach.

A total of 1,535 surveys in 1995 and 1,084 surveys in 1996-1997 were completed at motor-vehicle offices in Tennessee after the respondents had qualified for their first driver's license. Surveys from drivers aged 16-17 (1,179 in 1995 and 812 in 1996-1997) were analyzed separately from new drivers aged 18 and older (356 in 1995 and 272 in 1996-1997). When the survey was conducted during October and November 1995, neither a learner's permit nor completion of a driver education course was required to obtain a license at age 16 or 17. The survey was repeated during December 1996 and January 1997, approximately one year after a requirement to hold a learner's permit for 90 days or complete a driver education course was implemented. Results indicated that Tennessee's licensing law change was associated with approximately 100 additional miles (161 km) and 8 additional hours of practice driving prior to licensure for the typical 16- or 17-year-old, most often while supervised by a parent or guardian. Results are discussed in relation to the prelicense practice driving requirements of graduated licensing systems.

Objective: To describe the young driver problem and the emergence of graduated licensing as a way to address it.Methods: Literature review and commentary.Results: Twenty-four states in the United States adopted versions of graduated licensing in 1996-98; initial results show positive effects.Conclusions: A major public health movement is under way that can be expected to produce significant reductions in crashes and injuries involving young drivers.

Effective July 1, 1993, Louisiana added a provision to its driver licensing law that requires 15-year-olds to complete 36 hours of driver education before they obtain driver’s licenses. The subsequent crash experience of 15-year-olds in Louisiana was compared with that of 15-year-olds in Mississippi, which at the time of this study licensed at age 15; and experience in north Florida, which licenses at age 16. The effect of the new requirement was a 33% reduction in the number of licenses issued to 15-year-olds during the first full year following the law change. The fatal and injury crash involvements of Louisiana 15-year-old drivers declined by as much as 20% annually in the two years following the law change. Involvement rates of older teenagers in Louisiana as well as Florida and Mississippi remained unchanged or increased during the same time period. Louisiana’s night driving restrictions—applicable to drivers younger than age 17 and shown to be effective in previous research—were even more effective after the law change. Fatal and injury crash involvements during the restricted hours for 15- and 16-year-olds were, respectively, 51% and 27% lower than estimated involvements if the night driving restriction had not been in effect. The results of this study provide additional evidence that elements of graduated licensing systems, such as delaying the age of full licensure and night driving restrictions, are effective in reducing the very high rate of teenage involvements in serious motor-vehicle crashes.

Although there is a substantial variation in licensing policies in the United States, most states offer easy licensing at an early age. These policies have been associated with very high crash rates for young people, particularly 16 and 17-years-olds. A major shift in licensing regulations is now underway, with graduated licensing systems beginning to be introduced. In graduated licensing, on-road-driving is encouraged but in lower-risk sistuations before full priviledges are granted. In 1996, several states enacted graduated licensing provisions, and more are expected to do so in 1997. Provisions of graduated licensing such as night driving curfews for initial license holders are the subject of considerable debate, as states struggle with setting the appropriate balance between mobility for young people and safety. Parents of teenagers are among the strongest supporters of graduated licensing.

Several countries have introduced graduated licensing systems to address the problem of young driver crashes. The study examines how parents in Ontario, Canada have responded to the graduated licensing program implemented in 1994. 520 parents with teenagers are in the program; the survey obtained information on parents' knowledge of the program, extent to which their children comply with the program's restrictions, and attitudes toward the overall program and its restrictions.

High school students in four states were surveyed every six months from their freshmen through senior years. Delaware students could obtain learner’s permits beginning at age 15 years and 10 months and licenses at age 16. Connecticut and New York students could begin learning driving and become licensed at age 16, but New Jersey students could not get their licenses until age 17. Comparisons among states indicated the age at which teenagers first drive on public roads, obtain learner’s permits, and obtain licenses is younger for Delaware students compared with students living in the other states. Comparisons within states indicated students with higher grade point averages and living with both parents, of whom at least one was college educated, were more likely to become licensed at younger ages. The importance of these intrastate personal and family variables was greatest in Connecticut, which allowed a home study option for teaching young people to drive. Implications of these findings for graduated licensing systems, currently being considered by several states, are discussed.

Several jurisdictions in North America and elsewhere have introduced graduated licensing. It targets both the experience- and age-related factors that render young drivers at high risk of collision by imposing a set of restrictions on beginning drivers. The graduated licensing program implemented in Nova Scotia, Canada in October 1994 provided an opportunity to assess how teenagers as well as their parents have reacted to it. The study involved telephone interviews with 450 teenagers ages 16-18 to obtain information on their knowledge about the graduated licensing system, their attitudes toward it, and the level of support for and compliance with its restrictions. Parents and many teenagers endorse the graduated licensing program. In addition, the level of knowledge about the system is relatively high, attitudes toward it are favorable, and reported compliance with it is reasonably widespread. These results have relevance for policymakers and licensing authorities who are considering graduated licensing programs as well as those who already have such programs and are considering improvements.

Several states enacted elements of graduated licensing systems in 1996. Connecticut introduced a six-month required learner’s permit period. Florida enacted a six-month learner’s period plus a night driving curfew for 16- and 17-year-olds. Parents of 15-year-olds in these states were surveyed to determine their views concerning the new requirements. Parents of graduating seniors in Connecticut and three other northeastern states also were surveyed. Results indicate that, in all six populations, support for graduated licensing was strong. Parents of 15-year-olds in Connecticut and Florida endorsed their new licensing systems, even though there was recognition that they and their children would be inconvenienced to some extent, and many wanted even tougher licensing provisions. Eighty-two percent of Connecticut parents of 15-year-olds thought there should be a night driving curfew for initial license holders, a provision that had been considered but was rejected.

Teenage drivers in the United States have greatly elevated crash rates, primarily a result of qualities associated with immaturity and lack of driving experience. State licensing systems vary substantially, but most have allowed quick and easy access to driving with full privileges at a young age, contributing to the crash problem. Formal driver education has not been an effective crash prevention measure. Following the introduction of graduated licensing in New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, this system has been considered in many states and has been implemented in some. Graduated systems phase in full privilege driving, requiring initial experience to be gained under conditions of lower risk. The author describes the first five multistage graduated systems enacted in the United States in 1996 and 1997. Factors that will influence the acceptability and effectiveness of these new licensing systems are discussed.

The research literature on night driving curfews is reviewed. Driving at night involves high risk, particularly for young beginners. Although only about 15 percent of the total miles of 16-17-year-old drivers occur between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., about 40 percent of their fatal crashes take place during these hours. Curfews that limit recreational driving at night without an adult have been found to substantially reduce nighttime crashes. Parents of teenagers strongly endorse curfews and favor earlier starting times than prevail in most jurisdictions with curfews. A night driving curfew is an essential component of graduated licensing, a system that phases in young beginners to full-privilege licensure, limiting initial driving to lower-risk situations.

This paper discusses the use of night driving curfews in New Zealand and parts of the United States. Statistics show that nighttime driving is particularly hazardous for young new drivers. A variety of schemes are described which prevent young drivers driving between certain hours or at certain stages in their driving experience. The results are presented of surveys concerning the opinions of young people and their parents on the concept of curfews.

Adolescents are more likely than older people to engage in risky driving practices, and some young people are particularly prone to risky driving. Young beginners combine risky driving practices with driving inexperience, greatly heightening crash risk. The young driver problem is acute in the United States because licensure is allowed at very young ages, and the path to full driving privileges is quick and easy. Risky driving is tied to developmental and lifestyle factors and is difficult to change. The traditional approaches of driver education and penalty-based licensing systems have not worked adequately. Graduated licensing systems now are being considered by many states and have been adopted by some. These systems do not address risk factors directly but are structured to provide beginners the opportunity to gain initial on-road experience outside of situations that have more driving difiiculty and therefore more risk and/or that encourage risk taking. Graduates are older and on their way to maturing out of risky driving tendencies, and they will have accumulated important driving experience under protected conditions. The intitial graduated systems adopted in the United Sates vary substantially in their features. It will be important to evaluate the effect of these systems in reducing young driver crashes and to determine which set of provisions is optimal in terms of both acceptability and effectiveness.

This paper examines state licensing requirements and how they differ from a typical graduated licensing system. The relevant portions of the licensing sections of the motor vehicle codes for the 50 states and the District of Columbia were reviewed and data were collected on the requirements for learner's permits and driver's licenses. Representatives of the motor vehicle departments in each state were interviewed to confirm information contained in the laws and to discover other relevant information not available from the statutes. Each state's driver manual was also reviewed. Of particular interest were whether a learner's permit is required prior to licensure and if the permit is required, whether it had to be held for a minimum period before applying for a license, and if so for how long. Also of interest were the prerequisites for obtaining a learner's permit, the earliest age at which a permit could be obtained, and the term for which the permit is valid. Prerequisites for licensure and the earliest age at which a license could be obtained were also noted.

Teenage driver licensing practices and the crashes of teenagers were compared in several states with differing laws and policies regarding licensure. High school seniors in Delaware, a state with laws that allow early driving and licensure, reported that they first drove on a public road, obtained a learner's permit and obtained a driver's license at younger ages than high school seniors in other northeastern states (Connecticut, New Jersey and upstate New York). State crash data indicated that Delaware and Connecticut, which allow unrestricted licensing at age 16, showed the highest rates of 16-year-old driver involvements in nonfatal and fatal injury crashes. Pennsylvania and upstate New York, which have night driving curfews for 16 year-olds, showed lower crash rates overall and much lower crash rates during their respective curfew hours. New Jersey and Nassau and Suffolk counties, where unsupervised driving by 16 year-olds is generally not allowed, showed the lowest crash rates for 16 year-olds. Graduated licensing programs that include delayed full-privilege licensure, night driving curfews, and extended periods of supervised practice driving are a possible countermeasure for the high motor vehicle crash rates of young drivers.

Parents of 17-year-olds were interviewed about the licensing experiences of their sons and daughters. A nationally representative sample of 1,000 parents were asked about the path to licensure of their children, and about their participation in the process. Parents were asked about their opinion of the licensing practices in their own states and about their support for additional driving restrictions on novice drivers. The majority (86%) said their children already had licenses, and 81% of parents thought their sons and daughters were ready when first licensed to drive under most conditions. Over half were satisfied with the licensing process in their own state, but a sizable minority (25%) reported that states were not doing such a good job with the existing requirements. Forty-one percent of parents surveyed thought that it should be more difficult to obtain a license. Parents overwhelmingly supported restrictions for beginning drivers such as a minimum period of supervised driving, night driving curfews, restrictions on the number of teenage passengers in the car, and a zero blood alcohol concentration for teenage drivers. Graduated licensing programs that include delayed full-privilege licensure were supported by 58% of those surveyed.

In the United States there are few restrictions on where, when, and with whom young people can drive once licensed, and thus the learning period prior to licensing is important. An assessment was made of the requirements for obtaining a license in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. There is substantial variation in prelicensure requirements, and many jurisdictions allow a quick and easy route through the learning phase. Only 30 jurisdictions require that a learner's permit be obtained; only 11 of these require the permit to be held for a minimum period, ranging from 14 to 90 days. Driver education prior to licensure is required in 26 states. Fourteen states have neither permit nor driver education requirements. Requiring supervised learner's permit periods of several months is one method to encourage sufficient supervised driving experience prior to licensure, and it is an essential component of a graduated licensing system.

Compared with older drivers, and even older teens, greater percentages of 16-year-old drivers in fatal crashes were involved in single-vehicle crashes, were responsible for their crashes, were cited for speeding, had high vehicle occupancy (especially other teenagers), and were female. Sixteen-year-olds were less likely than older drivers to have been drinking. In addition, their crashes occurred at different times than those of older drivers, crashes between 10:00 p.m. and 11:59 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays being especially likely. Information about the characteristics of the crashes of 16-year-olds is important because this is the age at which most states currently allow teenagers to get an unrestricted driver's license. It is also the age at which restrictions on beginning licenses are being considered in some states. The results of this study suggest that restrictions on teenage passengers, and night-driving curfews with pre-midnight starting times--two provisions used in New Zealand's graduated licensing system--would be appropriate in attempts to reduce crashes of beginning 16-year-old drivers, who have the highest fatal crash rate of any single teen age.

Each year in the United States more than 8,000 persons die in traffic crashes in which the driver is between the ages of 15-20 years. Young drivers are over-represented in traffic crashes and deaths. Thus, they continue to be a major traffic safety concern. Drivers aged 15-20 years comprised only 7.1 percent of licensed drivers, but accounted for 14.9 percent of all driver fatalities. Further, while young drivers do only 20 percent of their driving at night, over half the crash fatalities of adolescent drivers occur during night time hours. First-year drivers (primarily ages 16 and 17) have twice the average number of crashes and, on a miles-driven basis, four times the number of crashes involving more experienced drivers. One of the concepts suggested to address this problem is the establishing of a graduated licensing system in conjunction with night time driving restrictions for young novice drivers. This paper discusses the key elements of a graduated licensing system, the research evidence that supports it and the proposals, strategies and plans to bring about the implementation of these programs in each of the 30 US states.

A survey of high school seniors was conducted in four contiguous northeastern states with substantially different laws regulating the ages at which teenagers can learn to drive and obtain a license. The age at which these students first drove on a public road tended to be younger (often much younger than the legal minimum age for practice driving) when state law allowed practice driving and licensing at younger ages. It was also younger for males, for teenagers with poorer school grades, and for those whose parents had less formal education. The age at which these students obtained a learners permit and became licensed tended to be younger in states that allowed practice driving and licensing at younger ages, for teenagers in suburban or rural, as opposed to urban, communities, for those with better school grades, and for those whose parents had more formal education. Graduated licensing systems, which allow young drivers to be exposed gradually to increasingly complex driving environments, are one method for limiting teenage motor vehicle crash exposure. State laws and regulations that delay the age at which practice driving is permitted, provide learners permits that are valid for long periods of time, and establish a higher minimum licensing age can be used to limit teenage motor vehicle crashes.

Of 149 large cities surveyed, 72 were found to have nighttime curfew ordinances applying to teenagers of various ages. The typical city curfew identified starts at midnight, ends at 5 a.m., and affects all activity of teenagers ages 13–17 in a public place and unaccompanied by a parent. In comparisons of 47 cities with curfews covering 13- to 17-year-olds and 77 cities without curfews, curfews were associated with a 23% reduction in fatal injury for 13- to 17-year-olds for the 9 p.m.–5:59 a.m. time period. This is identical to the 23% reduction estimated for both fatal and nonfatal motor vehicle injuries for 13- to 17-year-olds in an earlier, more limited study of curfews in Detroit, Cleveland, and Columbus, Ohio.

Several U.S. cities have curfew ordinances that limit the late night activities of minor teenagers in public places including highways. Detroit, Cleveland, and Columbus, which have curfew ordinances, were compared to Cincinnati, which does not have such an ordinance. The curfew ordinances were associated with a 23% reduction in motor vehicle related injury for 13- to 17-year-olds as passengers, drivers, pedestrians, or bicyclists during the curfew hours. It was concluded that city curfew ordinances, like the statewide driving curfews studied in other states, can reduce motor vehicle injury to teenagers during the particularly hazardous late night hours.

Summarizes a seven-state survey of transportation needs among 52,304 public high school students (aged 14–18 yrs) with and without driver's licenses. Results show that while most students wanted to become licensed as soon as they could, the rate of licensure between states was extremely variable. Students from states where teenagers could obtain licenses at an earlier age reported more driving, risky driving, and crashes and violations compared with students in states with a later licensing age. Delayed licensure and limited-privilege licenses for 15–27 year-olds are seen as effective approaches for limiting teen driving exposure, risky driving, and crash involvements.

A survey of high school students in seven states found that teenagers were very interested in getting their licenses as soon as possible, primarily to increase their independent mobility. Few teenagers could name important reasons for not getting licensed, although some identified high insurance costs, lack of their own car, and unavailability of driver education as deterrents to licensure. Teenagers in high schools where driver education was more readily available were licensed at earlier ages. Also, male students, those with higher grades, and those whose parents were better educated obtained driver licenses earlier than females, those with lower grades, or those whose parents were less well-educated. Licensure rates were particularly high following birthdays.

A questionnaire survey of high school students in seven states was conducted in 1983 to determine teenagers' access to cars and their amount and type of driving. Considerable illegal driving was reported by unlicensed drivers, both those with learners permits and those without. Licensed drivers have ready access to cars with the majority owning one. In each area surveyed, more than one-third of the license holders reported that they usually drive to school; in Orange County, California, and rural Colorado, nearly two-thirds do so. One-third of male licensed drivers and 14% of the females said they drove more than 70 miles per hour once a week or more. One-quarter of male licensed drivers and 11% of the females said they drove after drinking once a week or more. More than 40% of males and females who had held licenses for at least two years reported having had one or more crashes. Earning lower average high school grades was associated with car ownership, high weekly mileage, speeding, driving after drinking, and having traffic tickets and crashes.

The relationship of driver licensure rate differences to 16 year old lifestyles was assessed by surveying 15 and 16 year olds in New York, Michigan, and New Jersey. Michigan 16 year olds reported the highest rates of licensure (56 per cent), whereas New York (14 per cent licensed) and New Jersey (2 per cent licensed) had much lower rates. Teenagers in Michigan reported greater decreases in use of bicycles and reliance on parents and relatives for transportation but, for the most part, the differences in 16 year old licensure and mobility were not reflected in lifestyle differences.

New York and Louisiana, two states having night driving curfews, were included in a questionnaire survey of high school students conducted in 1983. Most students in these states knew about their curfew law. In both states the majority of licensed drivers said they had violated the curfew, but the majority claimed to have violated the curfew no more than twice. Students do not believe that the police enforce curfew restrictions vigorously, but many parents require their children to obey the law. New York students were more knowledgeable than Louisiana students about the restrictions, and there was more evidence in New York than Louisiana of reduced driving resulting from the curfew. These findings are consistent with results of an earlier study that found curfews in both of these states reduced crashes but estimated crash reductions during curfew hours were greater in New York than in Louisiana.

Previous studies have shown that delaying licensure reduces motor vehicle injuries. This study examined the relationship between licensing laws and the timing of obtaining drivers licenses. The states studied have various laws, including minimum licensing ages of 15, 16 and 17: minimum learners permit ages of 15 and 16; and teenage night driving curfews. A questionnaire survey of 52,304 students was conducted in 75 high schools during the spring of 1983. The schools were selected from Orange County, California; rural Colorado; and most or all of Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi. New- Jersey and New York. The results indicated that the minimum age of licensure has obvious strong effects in delaying licensure. Setting the learners permit age later also apparently delays licensure. The night driving curfew in New York State (9 p.m.–5 a.m.) is seen by students as a factor in their decisions to delay obtaining licenses; Louisiana's 11 p.m.–5 a.m. curfew has a much smaller effect, if any.

Substantial reductions in motor vehicle injuries can be achieved by raising the minimum licensing age or instituting night driving curfews for beginning drivers. A questionnaire survey of public high school students' views on restricting teenage driving was conducted in the following states: California, Colorado, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, and New York. The results indicated the following: (a) Slightly less than half felt there should be some restrictions on teenage driving. (b) The majority thought that restrictions on teenage drivers that did not apply to all drivers were bad, and slightly more favored a seat belt use law for all drivers rather than one applying to teenagers only. (c) In general, high school students preferred the age that they could obtain licenses in their own states as the minimum age for obtaining licenses, whether that age was 15, 16, or 17. (d) Teenagers in states with night driving curfews were more likely to favor curfew laws, but more than half of those in states without curfews expressed some support for such laws.

Twelve states in the U.S. have curfew laws, which prohibit young drivers from operating motor vehicles during late evening or early morning hours. The effect of such laws on motor vehicle crashes was studied in four of these states. In each state the laws were found substantially to reduce the crashes of sixteen year olds. Sixteen year old driver crash involvements during curfew hours were reduced by an estimated 69 percent in Pennsylvania, 62 percent in New York, 40 percent in Maryland, and 25 percent in Louisiana. Except in Maryland, the percentage of the sixteen year old population licensed was lower in curfew than comparison states. It is possible that curfew laws reduce early licensure, in which case reductions in crash involvements resulting from curfews are greater than shown above.

Three law changes are known to be very effective in reducing motor vehicle injuries to teenagers and others involved in their crashes: raising the minimum age for purchasing alcoholic beverages, raising the minimum licensing age, and night driving curfews. Studies conducted in the United States have shown that raising the alcohol purchase age resulted in an average reduction of 28 percent in the involvement of teenage drivers in nighttime fatal crashes; that 65 to 85 percent reductions in 16 year old driver fatal crash involvement can be expected if the licensing age is increased from 16 to 17; and that laws prohibiting driving during late evening/early morning hours can reduce 16 year old driver crash involvements during those hours by more than 50 percent. Adoption of these laws in all states and provinces would substantially reduce motor vehicle injuries. Other laws and regulations that could reduce crash injuries are reviewed. These include seat belt and motorcycle helmet use laws for teenagers, provisional licensing systems, learner permit regulations, enforcement of motorcycle licensing laws, and setting the permissible blood alcohol concentration at lower levels for teenage drivers. The rationale for laws pertaining exclusively to teenagers, and arguments for and against such laws, are also discussed. 

The effect of differences in the legal minimum licensing age on fatal motor vehicle crashes was studied in New Jersey (age 17), Massachusetts (age 16 1/2), and Connecticut (age 16). New Jersey's 17-year-old licensing law was associated with greatly reduced fatal crash involvement. It is estimated that 65 to 85 per cent reductions in 16 year-old-driver fatal crash involvement can be expected if the licensing age is increased from 16 to 17 without increasing fatal crash rates at older ages.

In the case of pre-license driver education, there is a major discrepancy between public beliefs and scientific knowledge. There is wide public support for programs that, in fact, do not produce safer drivers and can have unintended negative consequences. Of considerable concern is that scarce resources continue to be spent in the name of safety on programs that have no benefit or may even make things worse. In such a case, the wisest course would be to blunt the harmful effects of driver education and redirect it in ways that take advantage of what it can do (that is, teach basic driving skills). Many new approaches are being tried or are under development, but they should not be widely applied unless rigorous assessments indicate they are effective in reducing crash risk.

This paper addresses the following question: How should driver education be structured to cope with adolescent lifestyle influences on driving, in particular, risk-taking tendencies, personality factors that relate to unsafe driving, and peer group influences that increase driving risk? Or, to rephrase the question, can driver education be structured to overcome these influences? Dealing with lifestyle influences is a real challenge for driver education, especially where licensing is allowed at a very young age, as in the United States. There is good evidence that driver education courses with sufficient on-road practice can be a superior way to learn driving skills. However, teaching and motivating young people to apply safe driving practices hasn't worked very well. The challenge for driver education in coping with lifestyle factors is probably best addressed by taking advantage of the trend toward graduated licensing, a system designed to phase in driving privileges. This provides more of a chance to address safe driving practices, once people already have learned basic driving skills and are also a little older. Research will be needed to confirm that this approach can work. Other ways that have been suggested to affect lifestyle factors/motivation to drive safely are to structure graduated licensing systems so that they encourage young people to apply safe driving practices in order to graduate, e.g., through having to have a clean record to graduate, or to provide demanding exit tests.

Formal driver education/training programs exist in almost all jurisdictions around the world. They are generally accepted as an efficient and effective means for learning to drive, and, more importantly, for learning to drive safely, although empirical evidence for safety benefits is lacking. Recently, there has been a heightened interest in driver education/training, largely as a result of the adoption of graduated licensing in a few jurisdictions in North America and elsewhere. These jurisdictions have effectively elevated the status of driver education/training by integrating it into the licensing system. Implicitly, this suggests that driver education provides safety benefits. This article provides a contemporary review of the value of driver education/training, particularly in relation to new licensing systems such as graduated ones. The article examines the safety benefits of driver education/training and considers the merits of integrating driver education/training programs with new approaches to the licensing of young drivers.

As the popularity of graduated licensing increases, more and more jurisdictions will be examining the role that driver education/training can play in it. Accordingly, it seems timely to provide a contemporary review of the value of driver education/training, particularly in relation to new licensing systems such as graduated ones. This report attempts to do so. It examines the benefits of driver education/training and considers the merits of integrating driver education/training programs with new approaches to the licensing of young drivers.

The DeKalb County, Georgia, study is the largest experimental evaluation of high school driver education to date. Detailed reanalyses of data from that study reveal that students assigned to an enhanced driver education program (Safe Performance Curriculum) were more likely to obtain drivers licenses, to be in car crashes and to have traffic violations than control students not assigned to driver education. Students assigned to a minimal program of high school driver education (Pre-Driver Licensing Curriculum) were also more likely than control students to obtain licenses, but the difference was smaller than for the enhanced program and they were not significantly more likely to be in crashes or to have violations. Students in the more limited course were less likely than those in the enhanced course to complete the course in a timely manner, which suggests that exposure differences may explain differences between the two groups. The results confirm that greater availability of driver education causes students to become licensed sooner, although the DeKalb study probably underestimates the effect. Because of this greater exposure, crashes and violations are incurred at an earlier age.

In 1976, Connecticut eliminated state funding for high school driver education and nine school systems dropped the courses from their high school curricula. This research examined the effect of this action on overall licensure of 16-17 year old drivers in communities that dropped the course to those in similar sized communities that retained the driver education course using local funds. Substantial reductions in the numbers of 16-17 year olds who became licensed occurred in the communities that dropped the course. As a result, the numbers of crashes involving 16-17 year olds resident in such communities were also substantially reduced. The conclusion of previously reported research that high school driver education is a major contributor to earlier licensure and accompanying crash involvement of the 16-17 year old population is supported by this additional evidence.

Fatal crash involvement of teenagers per licensed driver and per population in 27 states was related to the proportions of teenagers who received high school driver education. Among 16--17 year olds, driver education was associated with a great increase in the number of licensed drivers, without a decrease in the fatal crash involvement per 10,000 licensed drivers- About 80 per cent of the 16--17 year olds who took high school driver education obtained licenses that they would not otherwise have obtained until age 18 or thereafter. The net effect is much higher death involvement rates per 10,000 population, on average, in states with greater proportions of 16-17 year olds receiving high school driver education. The data suggest that most teenagers would obtain licenses when they are 18--19 years old, irrespective of high school driver education, and indicate that differences among the states in fatal crash involvement rates per 10,000 licensed 18--19 year old drivers were not significantly related to either high school driver education or delayed licensure.

Pity the driving teacher! His lot is a paradoxical one these days -- and though he's routinely the butt of folk-humor jokes and satirical TV commercials, it's no laughing matter for him or society. Once, not so many years ago, the thoughtful high school driver education teacher could comfortably share with parents, pupils, and highway safety propagandists the simple conviction that high school driver courses produced -- had to produce, because educated people are presumably better people -- graduates who were "better" drivers and so got into fewer and less severe highway crashes than other people. Those days are gone; the notion that driver education's effectiveness as a safety device is self-evident has crumbled beneath the hard gaze of dispassionate research, as every honest driving teacher will acknowledge privately if not in public.

Introduction: Young drivers are overrepresented in motor vehicle crashes in part because of their inexperience with driving. There is a question whether teenagers may experience safety benefits or change behavior from driving vehicles equipped with crash warning systems and whether any changes would be sustained after the systems are disabled.Methods: Forty 16-17-year-old teenagers with intermediate driver’s licenses drove a vehicle instrumented with video cameras and multiple sensors and equipped with an integrated system that included warnings for potential rear-end crashes, lane departures, and lane change/merge crashes. Participants were randomly assigned to an experimental or control group, and their driving was continuously monitored for a 14-week period during late July 2011 to October 2012. The experimental group experienced a treatment period when audible/sensate crash alerts were received by drivers and a baseline period and a post-treatment period when warnings were recorded by the system but not received by drivers. Crash warnings always were recorded but not received by the control group. Data were analyzed using mixed-effects regression models to determine whether the system warnings were associated with reductions in the rate of warnings or other changes in driving behaviors.Results: Study participants drove 15,039 trips that were available for analyses, representing 93,976 miles and 3,259 hours, and the vehicles logged 9,914 warnings. Lane drifts into an unoccupied lane accounted for 73 percent of all warnings; many were because drivers did not use a turn signal during an intentional lane change. Forward crash warning rates doubled for all drivers during the treatment period compared with the baseline period and continued to increase during the post-treatment period. This was likely due to an increase for all drivers in time following at close distances behind a lead vehicle. Receiving crash alerts was associated with modest effects on lane changing behavior, including fewer lateral drifts (43 percent) and fewer unsignaled lane changes (82 percent). Teenagers in the experimental group were no more likely to engage in secondary tasks when they received alerts during the treatment period than during baseline and post-treatment periods.Conclusions: The first study to evaluate the effect of crash avoidance technologies on novice drivers’ behavior provides evidence that the systems may result in improved lane keeping and turn signal behaviors, but there is no indication that vehicle following behaviors improve.Practical applications: There is some evidence that lane departure warning systems may improve turn signal use and lane keeping behavior for young drivers. While there is no evidence of safety benefits from the other warning systems, there also is no evidence of an increase in unsafe behaviors due to the presence of the warning systems.

In the United States, teenagers drive less than all but the oldest people, but their youthfulness and driving inexperience result in disproportionately high crash rates. However, teenagers’ crash risk is lower than it used to be, and graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws have been instrumental. GDL phases in driving privileges as beginners mature and gain skills by strengthening the learner phase and adding an intermediate license before full licensure that restricts unsupervised driving in situations known to be risky.

This presentation summarises the risk factors for teenage crashes, reviews key countermeasures shown to be effective in reducing their crash risk, and discusses how various technologies may be used to keep teenage drivers safer. These technologies, some widely available and some still emerging in the marketplace, have the potential to reinforce some of the countermeasures proven to be effective in reducing teenagers’ crash risks.

Objectives: To assess the perceptions and experiences of participants in a study of a device that monitored teenagers' driving.Methods: A device that continuously monitors and reports risky driving maneuvers was installed in vehicles of 84 newly licensed teenagers. Study groups varied by whether parents had access to a Web site that summarized their teenagers' driving and by whether in-vehicle alerts provided feedback to drivers. Recruitment of subjects and problems with the device were documented. Teenagers and parents were interviewed after removal of the device.Results: Although the study was conducted in a large urban area, recruitment progressed slowly. Parents who declined to participate usually said their teenagers opposed it, or they were concerned about intruding on the privacy of their children or jeopardizing trust with them. Both parents and teenagers thought in-vehicle alerts helped teenagers drive more safely, although two thirds of teenagers tried to drown out the alerts with loud music. Parents found the Web site useful but reported fewer Web site visits over time. Most parents would prefer receiving information through summary report cards rather than through a Web site. Both parents and teenagers thought the overall system was effective in improving teenagers' driving. Most parents said the Web site and/or device helped them talk to their teenagers about their driving. Parents thought the most effective system would be an in-vehicle alert with immediate parental notification; teenagers preferred a system allowing them to correct behavior before parental notification.Conclusions: The difficulties in recruiting families for a study of in-vehicle monitoring and feedback technology suggest that gaining broad acceptance may be challenging. Although many teenagers were annoyed by the technology, most said they drove more safely because of it. Sending report cards to parents and allowing teenagers to correct behavior before parents are notified may increase the usefulness and acceptability of monitoring systems.

Objectives: The objective was to determine if teenage driving behavior improves when a monitoring and feedback device is installed in the teen's vehicle.Methods: Vehicles of 85 teenage drivers were fit with a device that detected all instances of sudden braking/acceleration, speeding, and nonuse of seat belts. Drivers were assigned randomly to one of four research groups, differing in whether or not an alert sounded in the vehicle and whether or not parents were given access to websites containing notification records. Time trends in event rates per mile traveled were compared using Poisson regression.Results: Seat belt use improved when violations were reported to the parent websites, and improved even more when in-vehicle alerts were activated. Consistent reductions in speeding were achieved only when teenagers received alerts about their speeding behavior, believed their speeding behavior would not be reported to parents if corrected, and when parents were being notified of such behavior by report cards.Conclusions: Electronic monitoring of teenage drivers can reduce the incidence of risky behavior, especially seat belt nonuse. More complicated behavior is more difficult to change, however.Impact on industry: Parent participation is key to successful behavioral modification, but it is yet to be determined how best to encourage such participation.

Introduction: Previous research has shown that many newly licensed teenagers in the United States are driving vehicles with inferior crash protection. The objective of this study was to update and extend previous research on U.S. parents' choices of vehicles for their teenagers.Method: Telephone surveys were conducted with parents in May 2014 using a random sample of U.S. households likely to include teenagers. Participation was restricted to parents or guardians of teenagers who lived in the household and held either an intermediate or full driver's license. Parents were interviewed about the vehicle their teenager drives, the reason they chose the vehicle for their teenager, and the cost of purchased vehicles.Results: Teenagers most often were driving 2000-06 model year vehicles (41%), with 30% driving a more recent model year and 19% driving an older model year. Teenagers most often were driving midsize or large cars (27%), followed by SUVs (22%), mini or small cars (20%), and pickups (14%). Far fewer were driving minivans (6%) or sports cars (1%). Forty-three percent of the vehicles driven by teenagers were purchased when the teenager started driving or later. A large majority (83%) were used vehicles. The median cost of the vehicles purchased was $5300, and the mean purchase price was $9751.Conclusions: Although parents report that the majority of teenagers are driving midsize or larger vehicles, many of these vehicles likely do not have key safety features, such as electronic stability control, which would be especially beneficial for teenage drivers. Many teenagers were driving older model year vehicles or vehicle types or sizes that are not ideal for novice drivers.Practical applications: Parents, and their teenage drivers, may benefit from consumer information about optimal vehicle choices for teenagers.

Novice teen drivers have long been known to have an increased risk of crashing, as well as increased tendencies toward unsafe and risky driving behaviors. Teens are unique as drivers for several reasons, many of which have implications specifically in the area of distracted driving. This paper reviews several of these features, including the widespread prevalence of mobile device use by teens, their lack of driving experience, the influence of peer passengers as a source of distraction, the role of parents in influencing teens’ attitudes and behaviors relevant to distracted driving and the impact of laws designed to prevent mobile device use by teen drivers. Recommendations for future research include understanding how engagement in a variety of secondary tasks by teen drivers affects their driving performance or crash risk; understanding the respective roles of parents, peers and technology in influencing teen driver behavior; and evaluating the impact of public policy on mitigating teen crash risk related to driver distraction.

In the United States, teenagers drive less than all but the oldest people, but their youthfulness and driving inexperience result in disproportionately high crash rates. However, teenagers’ crash risk is lower than it used to be, and graduated driver licensing (GDL) laws have been instrumental. GDL phases in driving privileges as beginners mature and gain skills by strengthening the learner phase and adding an intermediate license before full licensure that restricts unsupervised driving in situations known to be risky.

Teenage drivers and their parents were surveyed in Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, and New York as part of a 4-year longitudinal study of the licensing process and driving activities of high school students. Compared with all vehicles registered in the four study states, teenagers were more likely to drive older and smaller vehicles. Safety factors were rarely mentioned by parents as a reason for selecting the vehicles driven by their teenagers. Teenagers considered to be the owners of the vehicles they drive were more likely than nonowners to drive older and smaller cars. Owners drove more than nonowners and had a higher crash rate. Owners also were more deviant in terms of psychosocial characteristics, indicating a proclivity for risky behavior. Limiting vehicle ownership for newly licensed drivers would decrease crash involvement.

This paper examines the effectiveness of educational programs and laws and regulations in reducing adolescents' traffic accidents. Empirical evidence indicates that high school driver education has little or no effect in reducing crashes per licensed driver. Moreover, driver education in high school encourages teenagers to become licensed earlier than they otherwise would, thus increasing crashes per capita among teenagers when high school driver education is offered. School-based educational programs to reduce drunk driving among youth have not been adequately evaluated, but similar educational programs have had minimal success in reducing problem juvenile behaviors. In raising the driving age to 17 years old, New Jersey has achieved an overall effect of reducing traffic fatalities among teenagers. Night driving curfews for certain adolescent drivers have also been effective in reducing traffic accidents among youth. Positive results have been achieved through provisional licensing for 16- and 17-year-olds, which provides continuing monitoring of the driving records of these age groups as a condition for retaining a license. Raising the alcohol purchase age has had the most widespread influence in reducing adolescents' crash fatalities in the United States.

In an effort to analyse the teenage crash problem, a survey was made of 50,000 students in 75 high schools in 7 areas of the country. The survey elecited descriptive summaries of teenagers' transportation needs, driving behavior, attitudes, and lifestyles. The results of the study indicate that the majority of licensed high school students have cars that they consider their own, and ownership is associated with more driving, more crashes, and poorer academic performance among males. Also, the cars they drive tend to be smaller and older than cars driven by the general population. Thus there is a perverse mismatch in which teenagers who are at the highest risk of crash-related injury, have even less protection against injury than other segments of the population. It is noted that economic and sociocultural factors other than considerations about injuries influence car purchase decisions. The most effective measures for dealing with the consequences of teenage driving currently available are those that limit the amount and type of their driving exposure (curfews; older licensing age, older alcohol laws). Mandatory seat belt use laws also, can provide additional protection. In addition, air bags and automatic seat belts can increase the protection of teenagers in crashes.

Students in 75 high schools in seven states participated in a questionnaire survey. The results showed that high school students want to become licensed as soon as possible and that parents are important in teaching them to drive. Once licensed, the majority of students have their own cars, though they do not typically pay the majority of the costs. Seventy-one percent of licensed students who do not have their own cars reported that they can usually or always use a family car. Most students, particularly younger ones and females, reported that their parents expect them to conform to certain rules or restrictions when driving and when riding as passengers. The most common restrictions were that their parents asked them not to drive after drinking, to tell parents where they were going and with whom, and to be home at a certain time. Students were far less likely to report that their parents required that they wear seat belts.

Objective: Teenagers have very high motor vehicle crash rates, and their use of seat belts is generally lower than that of adults. A potential school-based strategy to increase teenagers' belt use is a policy making parking privileges contingent on belt use by student drivers and their passengers. This study evaluated the effects of implementing a school belt policy.Methods: The effects of a belt policy were evaluated during the 2003-2004 school year at high schools in two states: Connecticut, a state with a primary enforcement belt law and high belt use rates, and Mississippi, a state with a secondary enforcement law and generally low use rates. Both schools enforced the policy, and violations resulted in a graduated set of penalties leading to the potential loss of parking privileges. Baseline and post-policy belt use rates were obtained from observation surveys of student drivers and their teenage passengers coming to and from school. Changes in belt use were examined relative to belt use trends at comparison schools without a belt policy. Implementation of the policies also was monitored.Results: In Mississippi, among students arriving at school in the morning, driver belt use increased from 42% before the policy to 67% about 6 months after; passenger belt use increased from 16% to 61%, although sample sizes were small. These increases were significantly larger than expected, based on belt use trends at the comparison school in Mississippi. In Connecticut, where 86% of drivers and 79% of their passengers already were belted prior to the policy, there was no significant change. Both schools publicized and monitored the belt policy, and most enforcement occurred in the morning as students arrived at school.Conclusions: Based on a small-scale application of a belt policy at two schools in different states, a school belt policy may have stronger effects in states where belt use is low. Strong penalties and enforcement are essential elements of an effective policy. Adequate resources and commitment are needed for schools to implement and monitor the type of strong policy needed to sustain high belt use rates. Replication of this study in additional schools appears warranted.

Problem: In the United States, teenage drivers have a higher crash risk and lower observed seat belt use than other age groups.Method: Seat belt use was examined for teenage (16-19 years) drivers who were fatally injured in traffic crashes occurring in the United States during the years 1995-2000. Vehicle, driver, and crash factors potentially related to belt use were examined. State differences in belt use rates among fatally injured teenage drivers were related to states' observed belt use rates for all ages and other state-level variables.Results: During 1995-2000, mean belt use was 36% among fatally injured teenage drivers and 23% among fatally injured teenage passengers. One of the strongest predictors of higher belt use for both drivers and passengers was whether the crash occurred in a state with a primary seat belt law. Belt use rates for 1995-2000 for fatally injured teenage drivers ranged from 20% or less in six states to more than 60% in two states. States with the highest use rates were those with strong primary belt use laws and those with high rates of observed belt use for all ages. Lower belt use among fatally injured teenage drivers was associated with increasing age; male drivers; drivers of SUVs, vans, or pickup trucks rather than cars; older vehicles; crashes occurring late at night; crashes occurring on rural roadways; single vehicle crashes; and drivers with BACs of 0.10 or higher. Teenage driver belt use declined as the number of teenage passengers increased, but increased in the presence of at least one passenger 30 years or older.Impact on traffic safety: It is suggested that to increase teenage belt use, states should enact strong primary belt use laws and mount highly publicized efforts to enforce these laws. Graduated driver licensing systems should incorporate strong provisions that require seat belt use by teenage drivers and passengers.

Objective: To determine seatbelt use of teenage drivers arriving at high schools in the morning and at evening football games compared with belt use of adults driving teenage passengers to these events, and teenage passenger belt use depending on whether they were being driven by another teenager or an adult.Methods: Unobtrusive observations of belt use were made at 12 high schools in Connecticut and Massachusetts.Results: Among males, teenage drivers had lower belt use than adults; differences between female teenage and female adult drivers were slight. Teenage passengers had lower belt use in vehicles driven by other teenagers than in cars driven by adults, but more than 40% of teenage passengers in vehicles driven by adults, presumed in most cases to be the teenager’s parent, were not belted. Teenage passenger belt use was lower than teenage driver use regardless of gender. These differences were found both at morning arrivals and at football games, but teenage belt use was not much different in these two settings. Teenage passengers were belted more often if drivers were belted, whether the driver was another teenager or an adult, but a third of male passengers and 25%–30% of female passengers were unbelted even when drivers were belted.Conclusion: Teenagers have high crash risk but low belt use, which adds to their injury problem. Avenues to address this include strong belt use laws and their enforcement, building belt use requirements into graduated licensing systems, keeping young beginners out of high risk driving situations, and finding ways to influence parents and other adults to ensure that their teenage passengers use seatbelts.

Drivers with high crash risk such as teenagers have relatively low seat belt use, which contributes to their injuries. This article addresses whether belt use is lower in driving situations with higher crash risk (such as when teenagers transport passengers), further contributing to the problem. Belt use was investigated in a variety of situations among fatally injured drivers and their passengers, using 1995-99 data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System. For drivers of all ages, belt use was lower at night and with alcohol present. For teenagers, but not adults, driver belt use decreased with increasing number of passengers. Driver belt use was lowest when teenage drivers were transporting passengers in their twenties, and many of these crashes involved driver alcohol use. Driver belt use was highest when teenage drivers were transporting passengers age 30 and older, many of whom could be parents. Passenger belt use also decreased among teenagers as the number of passengers in the vehicle increased. Transporting passengers up to age 29 should be restricted in graduated licensing systems, and restrictions should not be waived unless a licensed passenger older than that is present. Most existing passenger restrictions do not conform to this.

Objective: This study examined current belt use rates among high school students in Maryland, as well as longer term trends.Methods: Belt use by students at six Maryland high schools was compared with belt use in the surrounding community. Data from five of these schools in 1982 and 1988 allowed evaluation of the longer term trends.Results: There was substantial variation in use rates of the high school students (366-91 percent for drivers. 24-74 percent for passengers) largely reflecting differences in socioeconomic status of the communities in which the schools are located. In 1988, high school driver belt use was lower than among comparison drivers at each school. In this study, this was the case at three of the six schools for drivers and four of the six schools for right front passengers. Belt use for all drivers was generally much higher than in 1988.Conclussions: It is important to find ways to increase seat belt use among teenagers. The low rate of belt use by teenage passengers is of particular concern, since passengers comprise about 40 percent of all 16-19 year-old motor-vehicle occupant deaths.

Seat belt use by students driving to six high schools in Maryland was observed in 1982, when belt use was voluntary, and six years later in 1988, when belt use was required by law. Belt use by other drivers at locations near the high schools was also observed. At all high schools and community locations seat belt use was substantially higher in 1988, but even with compulsory belt use, at each school belt use by students was lower (from 6 to 38 percentage points) than among comparison drivers from the surrounding community. Teenagers are a high-crash-risk population; effective ways to increase belt use among this group continue to be difficult to identify.

This study assessed the effects of New York State's recently adopted mandatory seat belt use law on teenage drivers. Teenage drivers were observed as they entered high school parking lots before the law was adopted, after it was adopted but before it was effective, one month after the effective date, and again five months after the effective date. The results showed that 14% of the teenage drivers were wearing either shoulder or lap belts or both prior to adoption of the law. This increased to 22% after adoption of the law, 60% one month after the effective date of the law, and 63% five months after the effective date. Teenagers using seat belts were more often female, were younger, had completed driver education and had a longer trip from home to school. Both before and after the law, teenage belt use was similar to, but typically lower than, belt use in the community in which the school was located.

In 1983 the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles in New York State established an administrative requirement that learners permit holders use seat belts. Subsequent to the regulation, observations were made of the belt use of permit holders and of other drivers traveling at the same sites and times at three different locations in New York. Permit holder use rates exceeded those of other drivers at two locations (39 vs. 7 percent; 32 vs. 12 percent), but not at the third (6 vs. 6 percent). The extent to which the regulation has affected use rates cannot be determined definitively without appropriate comparison samples of learners permit holders not required to use belts. However, if the regulation has increased use rates, these rates are still quite low.

Seat belt use of high school drivers was observed at six high schools in Maryland and for comparison, at locations near each school. Use rates for high school drivers ranged from one percent to 21%, varying with socioeconomic status of the areas in which the schools were located. For non-high school drivers the range was 8–31%. For the six schools, the ranking of use rates from lowest to highest was the same for high school and non-high school drivers. However, at each school, belt use rates for high school drivers were lower than for non-high school drivers. At five of the schools, use rates for non-high school drivers were more than double the rates for high school drivers: they were more than five times as high at three schools. Prior research indicates that increasing the use of belts that must be manually fastened is difficult to achieve. The most reliable way substantial increases can be made in the extent to which teenagers and others are restrained in crashes is by providing restraints that work automatically, such as air bags.