Encouraging compliance with graduated driver licensing restrictions.
ABSTRACT 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 in the intervention community 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 teenagers (and parents) who were not already complying with restrictions. 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 than in Guilford County.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite considerable improvement in the rates of crashes, injuries, and fatalities among adolescent drivers, attributable in part to effective interventions such as graduated driver licensing, these rates and their associated health risks remain unacceptably high. To understand the sources of risky driving among teens, as well as to identify potential avenues for further advances in prevention, this article presents a review of the relevant features of contemporary research on adolescent development. Current research offers significant advances in the understanding of the sources of safe driving, proficient driving, and risky driving among adolescents. This multifaceted perspective--as opposed to simple categorization of good versus bad driving--provides new opportunities for using insights on adolescent development to enhance prevention. Drawing on recent work on adolescent physical, neural, and cognitive development, we argue for approaches to prevention that recognize both the strengths and the limitations of adolescent drivers, with particular attention to the acquisition of expertise, regulatory competence, and self-regulation in the context of perceived risk. This understanding of adolescent development spotlights the provision of appropriate and effective scaffolding, utilizing the contexts of importance to adolescents--parents, peers, and the broader culture of driving--to support safe driving and to manage the inherent risks in learning to do so.American Journal of Preventive Medicine 09/2008; 35(3 Suppl):S272-7. · 4.04 Impact Factor
Article: Graduated licensing and beyond.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Although graduated driver licensing has successfully reduced the young driver problem in Canada and the U.S., this is still a major problem and more needs to be done. This article discusses what new measures are needed to further reduce the problem. To make graduated licensing work better, laws need strengthening; compliance needs to be enhanced through evidence-based programs involving parents, police, and adolescents; and consideration needs to be given to strengthening testing requirements. A major challenge is to integrate driver education with graduated licensing, and suggestions for doing so are provided here. There are many opportunities for building on the initial gains derived from present-day graduated systems. Taking advantage of these opportunities is likely to result in substantial crash reductions.American Journal of Preventive Medicine 09/2008; 35(3 Suppl):S324-33. · 4.04 Impact Factor