By Ian Faulks (Faulks) on Thursday, March 25, 1999 - 12:38 am:
Williams and Mayhew's (1999) report on ‘Graduated licensing: A blueprint for North America' builds on empirical studies and theoretical discussion of new drivers and the role of the driver licensing system. As such it is a valuable contribution to the debate in North America over graduated licensing systems.
Australian licensing jurisdictions have a long experience with graduated licensing. Graduated driver licensing was introduced in New South Wales in 1966, and the basic driver licensing system of learners permit followed by provisional licence and the ‘black' or full unrestricted licence has existed since that time. There have been refinements to this basic driver licensing system over time, but no major revision. Curiously, no significant review of the effectiveness of the New South Wales graduated licensing system has occurred. A brief study by Henderson and Messiter (1970, see also Advisory Committee on Road User Performance and Traffic Codes, 1977; Henderson, 1972) was published. Henderson and Messiter's study of the effectiveness of the New South Wales graduated licensing system was inconclusive. A further study was prepared by Saffron (1981) but this was retained as an internal Departmental document and received only limited distribution. Saffron noted that Henderson and Messiter's (1970) study of the effectiveness of the New South Wales graduated licensing system had been inconclusive, and identified that, in fact, none of the Australian States and Territories which had introduced a provisional licensing phase in driver licensing had been able to assess the effectiveness of such a measure due to lack of relevant and suitable data. Saffron reported that if a provisional licence is a regulatory mechanism to offset the effects of inexperience, then the rule requiring disqualification of the provisional licence after a minor traffic offence results in a delay in the gaining of experience, and the experience of a severe punitive sanction (licence disqualification) may ultimately militate against further compliance with driver licensing regulation. Saffron also noted that the speed restriction to 80 km/h for provisional licence holders cannot be justified on safety grounds, as it leads to marked speed differentials between vehicles on the road and promotes overtaking manoeuvres. Saffron observed that a P-plate sign on the vehicle has the primary purpose of indicating that the driver is provisionally licensed and therefore is required to observe a speed restriction, so if the speed restriction is removed then there is no compelling evidence to support the continuation of the display requirement. Saffron also noted that an alternate driver licensing system might involve placing restrictions only on those new drivers who commit traffic offences, and such restrictions might include night time driving curfews and a zero blood alcohol concentration limit. Saffron's findings and suggestions do not seem to have any significant effect on driver licensing policy, however, an effective zero blood alcohol concentration limit of 0.02gm/100ml was introduced for both learner and provisional drivers in 1991.
Reform of the graduated driver licensing system is one of the keys to further reductions in road trauma now and in the longer term. The regulation of young drivers in the driver licensing system in New South Wales has been little changed over the last 30 years since the introduction of graduated licensing, despite an enormous increase in motorisation and consequently, an enormous increase in the complexity of the traffic system. The newly-licensed driver is over-represented in road crashes, so there is an urgent need for changes to training, testing and licensing requirements.
Over the period 1995-1997, the STAYSAFE Committee, a committee of the NSW Legislature, examined driver licensing matters. A report on new drivers was released in 1997 as the STAYSAFE 37 report. The report proposes major reform of the New south Wales driver licensing system, including:
- Extended licence tenure for learner drivers, to a period of three years, rather than 15 months as is the current provision
- Financial incentives to remain a learner driver, including relatively cheap learner licences, but more expensive provisional licences
- Encouragement of insurance incentives for young drivers, such as reduced premiums if drivers remain in the learner phase for longer periods, or if post-licence driver training is undertaken
- Development of a system of solo learner driving, subject to stringent conditions including a minimum period of at least 1 year's tenure of learner licensing under active supervision, specific restrictions for no passengers and no night driving, display of a unique and distinctive plate indicating solo learner status, and severe sanctions for non-compliance with solo learner driving conditions
- Extended licence tenure for provisionally licensed drivers, to a period of between three and five years, rather than 12 months as is the current provision
- Introduction of an exit test between provisional licensing and the full adult licence, involving assessment of a driver's ability to perceive road hazards and the effective performance of on road manoeuvres
- Encouragement of the development of alternative methods of driver education and testing, including competency-based assessment by accredited driving instructors
- Review the speed restrictions for learner drivers and provisionally licensed drivers (currently restricted to 80 km/h)
- Encouragement of further research and exploration of the means to maintain the access of young people to the New South Wales roads system while reducing the likelihood of risky and dangerous behaviour by young drivers
To date, there has been no formal response from the NSW Government about the proposals of the STAYSAFE 37 (1997) report. However, an indication of the views of licensing authorities in New South Wales to the general thrust of the report can be found in a short paper by Don Carseldine, of the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, on ‘Future directions for graduated licensing in New South Wales', which was presented at a seminar on young drivers organised by the STAYSAFE Committee, the NRMA (the NSW motorist lobby organisation), and the Australian College of Road Safety, and published as STAYSAFE 39 (1997), as amended in December 1998 (see also Faulks, Smith & Smith, 1998). I would suggest that the views of Dr Carseldine are a good example of the general views of licensing authorities in Australia. Dr Carseldine's paper is included below.
References cited
Advisory Committee on Road User Performance and Traffic Codes (1977). Guidelines for driver licensing and driver improvement in Australia. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth Department of Transport.
Faulks, I.J., Smith, K.B. & Smith, K.P. (Eds.)(1998). Young drivers. Canberra, ACT: Australian College of Road Safety.
Henderson, J.M. (1972). The young driver. Research Note RN 3/72. Rosebery, NSW: Traffic Accident Research Unit.
Henderson, J.M. & Messiter, G. (1970). The provisional licence scheme: A statistical evaluation. Research Note RN 4/70. Rosebery, NSW: Traffic Accident Research Unit.
Saffron, D.G. (1981). Effectiveness of provisional licence and points demerit schemes. Special report SR 81/116. Rosebery, NSW: Traffic Accident Research Unit.
STAYSAFE 39 (1997). Young drivers—Proceedings of a seminar at Parliament House, Sydney, 30 April 1997. Twelfth report of the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety of the 51st Parliament. Sydney, NSW: Parliament of New South Wales.
__________________________________________________
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR GRADUATED LICENSING IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Don Carseldine
NSW Roads and Traffic Authority
Graduated licensing—What is it?
Graduated licensing is the ordered progression from initial licensing to full licensing. The learner novice driver graduates from a learner licence with a large number of restrictions and maximum supervision through a provisional stage without supervision and finally to an unrestricted licence as the driver becomes more experienced. The underlying principle is that basic skills should be mastered before more complex skills are attempted.
The objectives
The objective behind graduated licensing is to allow access to the road system but impose conditions which mitigate the effects of young age and lack of experience by attempting to reduce the impact of risky behaviours so that the young driver can build on his/her experience.
Licensing restrictions and social justice
Restrictions on young novice drivers have a lot of intuitive appeal. Those of us who have already passed through that stage generally feel justified in constraining their driving activity on the basis that it will be for their own good as well as for other road users. Furthermore, viewed superficially, it seems obvious that if we put restrictions on their driving, it will reduce crashes and save lives (but this is may not always be the case, as will be discussed later). However, in our society, driving motor vehicles has become an almost essential part of our lives. Flowing from this, there is an equity or social justice impact of restrictions placed on the licences of young novice drivers as part of a graduated scheme. Licence restrictions impose costs on drivers (and the wider community) which may include loss of opportunity for employment, educational and social activities. There may also be financial costs on the individuals, their families and friends, associated with making alternative travel arrangements. Restrictions on licences for road safety purposes therefore need to be balanced against the need by individuals for mobility. Governments need to make choices about the extent to which they will sacrifice the mobility of young novice drivers for road safety gains. We need to bear in mind that the mobility costs of restrictions are quite certain whereas the road safety benefits for some types of novice driver restrictions that have been proposed or adopted elsewhere are uncertain, small or non-existent. As will be discussed later, some proposed restrictions may even be counter-productive from a road safety viewpoint. Because of the high value of mobility, it is inappropriate to impose restrictions on young novice drivers simply because we have a hunch that they might do some road safety good. The old adage that ‘it will be worthwhile if it saves only one life' is just as seriously flawed in the context of graduated licensing as with any other potential road safety countermeasure. This issue of the tradeoff between road safety and mobility is not unique to graduated licensing—it arises when many road safety countermeasures are considered in a rational way. To take the most extreme example, all road crashes can be solved by preventing all vehicle movements on our roads. Clearly, this is not what the community wants. So the community, through the Government, must make a decision about the level of road trauma it is prepared to tolerate to have the level of mobility that the community wants. In doing this, it must decide what measures provide the optimal tradeoff between mobility and road trauma. In the future, with improved technology such as intelligent vehicle highway systems, the community may be able to achieve the mobility it wants with little or no road trauma. But for the time being, it is totally unrealistic for anyone to suggest that mobility provided by driving is not a valid and central consideration in deciding whether a potential road safety countermeasure should be adopted. The bottom line to this discussion is that governments need to be sure that any restrictions they impose on young novice drivers have a beneficial road safety effect and that the effect is big enough to offset the mobility costs they impose on individuals and the community as a whole.
What does New South Wales have now?
The graduated driver licensing system for car drivers in New South Wales comprises two stages before progressing to a ‘full' licence, learner and provisional. Learner drivers must be at least 16 years old. To obtain a learner licence, applicants must first pass a knowledge test and eyesight test. If the learner is under 25 years old, they must hold their learner licence for 6 months before they may attempt a driving test. Special conditions on learner licences: must display L-plates; must be accompanied by suitably licensed drivers; must stay below a blood alcohol concentration limit of 0.02; maximum speed limit of 80 km/h; must not tow any trailer or vehicle. Provisional drivers must be at least 17 years old. To obtain a provisional licence, applicants must pass a driving test. The mandatory provisional period is 12 months and special conditions on provisional licences include: must display P-plates; must not have 4 or more demerit points; lower blood alcohol concentration of 0.02 g/100ml which also applies to certain other categories of people, including those under 25 and have held a licence (other than a learner) for less than 3 years; maximum speed limit of 80 km/h; may tow a trailer only if it weighs less than 250 kg when empty; but must not tow any other vehicles; a condition on a provisional licence restricting the licensee to drive only automatic vehicles if a driving test is passed in an automatic vehicle; must not teach a learner to drive; not eligible for a driving instructor's licence; not eligible to apply for driver testing positions in the Roads and Traffic Authority.
The effectiveness of current graduated licensing provisions
New South Wales has not conducted detailed investigations into the effectiveness of the various elements of its graduated system but Roads and Traffic Authority crash data give us confidence that the measures we have adopted in recent years have been effective. Over the 20 years 1976 to 1995, involvements in serious and fatal injury crashes by drivers and riders aged 17 to 25 have reduced 59%. Involvements by those aged 26 years or more have reduced by the much lesser proportion of 34%. In short, while the over-involvement of young drivers in crashes is still a major road safety problem, there has been an encouraging decrease over the last 10 years or so—the period when many of the graduated elements have been implemented in New South Wales.
Other potential novice driver restrictions
Night-time driving curfews: Night-time driving curfews are imposed in some places as a means of limiting novice driver exposure in high-risk night driving conditions. It needs to be noted that the popularity of this measure in US cities and states is partly because some have implemented night-time driving curfews as a means of addressing juvenile delinquency problems rather than as a road safety measure. Many jurisdictions that have curfews have very low licensing age—as low as 14 years in the United States of America. Curfews are appropriate for very young drivers where close parental supervision is still the norm. Research has yielded equivocal results for curfews. For example, although a study by Preusser, Williams, Zador and Blomberg (1984) indicated useful road safety outcomes, the analysis is challenged by McKnight, Hyle and Albrecht (1983). A reanalysis by the Roads and Traffic Authority also cast doubt on the Preusser data (Webster & Kearns, 1989). One of the likely effects of night-time curfews, particularly where the curfew is harsh, is to reduce licensing among the affected group. This may be counterproductive in that the purpose of graduation is to give young drivers experience in low risk conditions, not to prevent or discourage them from driving at all. Those drivers who are discouraged from obtaining a licence will receive no driving experience at all and hence may be relatively unsafe novice drivers when they eventually decide to obtain a licence. Some research overlooks possible ‘crash migration effects' of night-time curfews whereby crashes are redistributed over time and/or place or to different road users rather than achieving a true crash reduction. It seems likely that where curfews are imposed that young drivers would have more crashes earlier in the day than they would if the curfew had not been imposed. Furthermore, some of the crash involvement might be redistributed to other, older, drivers who transport the young drivers during curfew hours. Apart from the road safety issues to be considered in relation to curfews, there is also the social justice issue. Curfews have been rejected in New South Wales in the past because they severely inhibit affected drivers' ability to work and educational institutions. They pose particularly serious problems for young people in rural and other-urban areas where there is little public transport.
Passenger restrictions: Passenger restrictions for novice drivers have been proposed from time-to-time. For example, the Federal Office of Road Safety proposal for a graduated licensing scheme and the 1990 Federal Government's Road Safety Initiative recommended such restrictions on novice drivers (Division of Road Safety, 1985). In Australia, only Victoria has implemented any form of passenger restriction for novice drivers. If a (Victorian) probationary licence is cancelled or suspended because the licensee has committed an offence during the first 12 months, any subsequently issued probationary licence limits the driver to carrying a maximum of one passenger for the next 12 months. Drummond (1994), in an analysis of exposure reduction measures for young drivers conducted for the Federal Office of Road Safety, concludes that passenger restrictions are not effective and may even be disbeneficial. New South Wales has previously rejected this measure as potentially counterproductive. The main objections are that it would encourage many young drivers to drive separately rather than travelling together, which may increase overall crashes. It is also contrary to the concept of the designated-driver drink-drive countermeasure. Under the designated-driver concept, one person in a group refrains from drinking and is thus able to drive the others home in relative safety. Passenger restrictions also have a social justice impact as it prevents, for example, a young parent travelling with their infant. If exemptions were made for people with special circumstances, the scheme would become administratively unwieldy and difficult to enforce.
Vehicle power limits: Some road safety workers suggest that power limits should be imposed on novice drivers because the combination of youthful exuberance and inexperience with a power vehicle is unsafe. Some research in this area led Victoria to impose a restriction on novice drivers of 125 kilowatts per tonne and a capacity to mass ratio of 3.5 litres per tonne. It should be noted that power limits are only likely to affect a very small proportion of novice car drivers and therefore would be expected to have a very small effect on the overall crash problem. The research showed that preventing novice drivers from driving powerful cars may reduce the overall crashes by 1.3%, but this would only be achieved if the affected drivers were constrained to average crash rates (ie, the average for all other novice drivers), which seems highly unlikely. The drivers who would have driven powerful cars if they had been allowed to are unlikely to exhibit a crash rate as low as the average for other novices (STAYSAFE 18, 1990). The New South Wales Government has accepted the desirability of power restrictions on novice motorcycle riders. But the issues are quite different for motorcycles and cars. The arguments in favour of power restrictions for novice drivers are not strong.
Compliance with the restrictions
Experience in other jurisdictions suggests that some of the harsher restrictions on young novice drivers have poor compliance. Thus any theoretical safety benefit will be diminished. Further, imposing restrictions on young novices where poor compliance can be expected is likely to inculcate a disrespect for traffic law at a very early stage.
Possible enhancements to New South Wales's graduated licensing scheme
Having cast some doubt on the suitability of various types of restrictions that have been discussed or tried elsewhere, the question arises as to whether we are considering any changes to our existing graduated scheme. An enhancement that the Roads and Traffic Authority has under consideration is an extension of the provisional period. It is proposed that the provisional period would be a minimum of three years. e rationale for this proposal is that it would increase, by two years, the time during which young novices would be subject to the existing restrictions. This is expected to reduce risky behaviour beyond the first year of solo driving both through the direct impact of the restrictions and the psychological impact of bringing home to this group that they are still learning. consequence of increasing the provisional period to three years is that the demerit points arrangements for provisional drivers would need to be changed. It would be desirable to do this in a way that gives them no more scope than they have now to offend without losing their licences. At this point, the Roads and Traffic Authority has not made a recommendation to the Government. Another enhancement under consideration is inclusion of additional assessments as drivers move through the graduated stages. This area will be discussed in some detail by my colleague, David Hill, in his presentation to this forum. I will therefore not discuss it further here.
Conclusion
Graduated licensing is here to stay in New South Wales. Additional restrictions on novice drivers, beyond those already included in the New South Wales graduated licensing scheme, have been disclosed above. Although some of these additional restrictions may be intuitively attractive from a road safety perspective, on close analysis they have serious drawbacks which will be carefully weighed up against the likely benefits by the New South Wales Government.
References
Division of Road Safety (1985). Introduction of graduated drivers licences. Report Series 1/85, Department of Transport.
Drummond, A. (1994). Young Drivers Research Program: A technical and strategic overview of exposing reduction measures as a means of reducing young driver crashes. Report CR 130. Canberra, ACT: Federal Office of Road Safety.
McKnight, A.J., Hyle, P. & Albrecht, L. (1983). Youth licence control demonstration project. Maryland Motor vehicle Administration.
Preusser, D., Williams, A.F., Zador, P.L., & Blomberg, R.D. (1984). The effect of curfew laws on motor vehicle crashes. Law and Policy, 6 (1).
STAYSAFE 18 (1990). Steering novice drivers towards safety. Seventh report of the Joint Standing Committee on Road Safety of the 49th Parliament. Sydney, NSW: Parliament of New South Wales.
Webster, K. & Kearns, I.B. (1989). Night-time driving curfews for young drivers in New South Wales: A review and discussion paper. Roads and Traffic Authority internal paper, 1989.
By Frederik R. Mottola (Fredmottola) on Thursday, March 25, 1999 - 11:50 pm:
Hi Dan:
I haven't had time to write sooner for two reasons. I spent all of my extra time authoring the Teacher's Edition of Drive Right's 10th edition and supporting materials for it. I also founded The National Institute For Driver Behavior, a non-profit corporation whose mission is to "energerize the power of education for lifelong risk-prevention behavior." Having had my background during the past 38 years in trying to improve all types of drivers novice, corporate, police, school bus, motorcycle, truck drivers, etc. I have identified seven critical components for driver risk prevention: 1. Social Wellness; healthy interaction with others and contributions of positive values to society. 2. Visual Skills for Awareness; effective use of vision to receive accurate and complete information affecting one's level of risk. 3. Information-Processing and Decision-Making; knowing what to look for and how to make non-destructive decisions. 4. Risk Prevention Management; internalization of behavioral patterns that provide automatic reduced-risk performance. 5. Vehicle Control; being able to have command over the manipulation of a vehicle. 6. Vehicle Correction Skills; being able to regain, or maintain, control of the vehicle when there is a loss of risk prevention management. 7. Desire for Excellence; standards for excellence that are well defined and drivers who are motivated to achieve them. The National Institute For Driver Behavior has as a mission to become a positive catalyst for providing learning experiences from early childhood through adualt life. Whether it be a novice driver, or the driver of an emergency vehicle, there are correct and incorrect actions that should or should not be taken. It is the goal of N.I.F.D.B. to define and communicate standards of drivingfor all drivers, not only novicethat can help establish the criteria for effective risk management. Therein lies the flaw that I see in the structure of Graduated Licensing. We are missing the most productive opportunity for helping drivers to gain appropriate habits by not having a standard of driver performance that clearly articulates what a driver should be practicing and what one will be tested on before licensing is granted. The graduated licensing process should provide motivation for novice drivers to be able to empower themselves with the acquisition of driving habits that can serve them well for their lifetime of driving. The flaw in Graduated Licensing is that it attempts to make the youthful driver as safe as "experienced drivers". In the United States there are approximately 6000 youthful drivers killed per year. There are also some 34-36,000 "experienced' drivers killed. Why not set a higher standard of driver expectation than that which is now there. We need specific standards of what should be expected as behavior from all drivers. The National Institute has established a taxonomy of specific standards of driving behavior for risk-prevention habit formation. The odds of a driver learning risk-prevention behavior without formal education is as great as winning a state lottery. Graduated licensing can define behavior that novice drivers are expected to practice and then be tested on. Such testing can be designed to measure their unconscious performance (I have tested many licensed drivers in such a manner). Let's raise the bar in our standards and use the novice drivers to set the pace for a new and better breed of drivers. Graduated licensing, restructured, can help to do that. If any one would like a copy of "Minimum Standards: Driving Behaviors For Risk Prevention" they can request one by e-mailing: NIFDB@AOL.com
By Sarah Redshaw (Sredshaw) on Tuesday, April 13, 1999 - 11:28 pm:
Fred Mottola's comments are very relevant. He opens up the issue more broadly with his seven points, particularly those related to thinking and awareness. How are we going to change the young driver's approach without a more responsible attitude in communities overall? Many drivers regard it as a kind of right to speed because they are 'good drivers' etc. I think there is a general lack of community awareness about why speed limits are as they are, about the areas drivers are traversing through, other drivers and so on and young people are seeing this from when they are babies in capsules. How about more community awareness and demanding more of the driving public?
Sarah Redshaw University of Western Sydney
By Bea Pullar (Bea) on Wednesday, April 14, 1999 - 01:11 pm:
Sarah has asked the question that triggered the development of my whole training program for road users in general. Fred's paper also reinforces the rationale behind my series. The persistence of the unruly driving culture is particularly evident in the responses of drivers to lower speed limits. What happened in the Toronto region a few years ago is happening here in South East Queensland and Northern NSW right now. The urban limit has been lowered to 50 kph, other roads still have limits of 60, 70 and 100. As in the Canadian situation the majority of drivers have not reduced their speed at all. (In Toronto the 85th percentile dropped from about 72 to 69kph). As Sarah asked, how can we expect young drivers to drive responsibly if other drivers disregard the rules so often?
It is really important to encourage drivers to retrain throughout life - afterall we accept that retraining is required to maintain standards in work and sports. We teach by our actions.
By Larry Lonero (Llonero) on Wednesday, April 14, 1999 - 07:42 pm:
Bea raises an issue that needs badly to be addressed. There is always a difference between formal rules and informal rules, in all human endeavor. These differences in traffic rules will always be with us, but speed limits are simple enough that this problem could be partially resolved. We could just put the real speed limit, or something close to it on the signs. As it is now, a low number is put up, because the traffic engineers (at least in North America) know that the police will leave a big tolerance above it, which is the real de facto speed limit. This is hard for educators to explain to students, without sounding like they are advocating "breaking the law". But to advocate driving below the posted limit, when the average speed is 20km above, is probably to increase the slow driver's actual risk.
Historically the current situation was necessary, maybe, but now with automated enforcement technology, we could put the speed limit close to the design speed of the road and leave very little tolerance above it. Most drivers would obey a reasonable speed limit, especially if stringently enforced, but it is not reasonable to strictly enforce an arbitrary number. Ontario lost its photo radar system over political backlash against this.
Anyway, we cannot solve this problem within the ediation community, but it could be a focus for some more systematic organizing. It is doubly difficult to train students to perform well and safely in a poorly managed system, when they see everybody else disregarding the formal rules with impunity.
LPL
By Dan Keegan (Dkeegan) on Thursday, April 15, 1999 - 12:36 am:
I agree with Larry Lonero that the problem of behavior with regard to traffic laws cannot be resolved by education alone. However, Sarah and Bea make a very good point..drivers need more awareness of the social issues involved in driving.
However, I would like to see the distinction between social awareness and driving technique broken down. I don't think these are separate areas. We just need to extend our concept of "technique". In other words, part of the technique of lane changing is managing the social element of the maneuver through communication. And with regards to speed limits, advocates of higher speed limits seem to invariably feel that the better technology of todays automobiles and roads justifies faster speeds. This does not take into account the effects of speed on other road users...the fact that some may have to avoid the higher speed traffic altogether in order to maintain their safety ( see Traffic calming.
With regards to higher speed limits and stricter enforcement as suggested by Larry, I worry about the idea of "design speed of roads". I feel we need to think more about the design speed of drivers and the mix of traffic we want to accomodate. There's also the fact that faster traffic speeds promotes longer distance commuting by car...but is this something we want to promote?
