Navigation
Topics
Last Day
Last Week
Tree View

Documentation
Getting Started
Formatting
Troubleshooting
Program Credits

Utilities
New Messages
Keyword Search
Contact Moderators
Edit Profile

ABSTRACT: The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety outline project in 1995 was to initiate program development which could “reinvent” a more intensive, comprehensive, and effective driver education system, which in turn could lead to a significant reduction in novice drivers' crashes. The project reviewed knowledge in a number of areas – driver education effectiveness, novice drivers' needs, methods of instruction and behavioral influence. It became clear that the traditional education model used for driver education is inadequate. Fundamental changes are needed in content, methods, and organization of driver education. The purpose of this paper is to describe potential new developments and synergies among content, methods, technologies, and organizational change needed to meet the demand for quality and a more effective role for driver education in the 21st Century.

I would hope to have some discussion and input from readers on two broad categories of subjects, both critical to better driver ed in the future. First are the educational issues, the measns of improving the cognitive, perceptual, and motivational aspects of the novice driver. Second, but just as important, are the organizational issues; the political, regulatory, economic, and management changes needed to make a more effective driver education viable and available in the long term.

Hello. My name is Mike Cantor. I would like to comment on your mention of improving cognitive, perceptual and motivational aspects re the novice driver. First, the problem of the novice driver is, specifically, the problem of the young driver (See Rutter and Quine in the '97 AAP). In validating our 4-min. crash predictor test, we have found that 16 to 19 year olds differ from people >25 in two ways: 1) they process information faster than everyone else and 2) their sustained attention is well below that of 25 to 38 year olds. This mismatch, we believe, is the key to understanding why teenagers are 7% of the population yet they have 14% of the fatalities and 20% of the injuries.

Obviously, not all teenagers have the mismatch. So, the key to reducing the carnage is to identify the 15% of teenagers who have the large majority of the collisions. Our data show that our test does just that. Participants are invited to stop by our website, www.waypointresearch.com where we describe the test, present data, etc.

It's one thing to identify the high risk teenagers and it is quite another to do something about it. As you say, it will take a multi-prong approach for the 15% who are high risk (not everyone): focussed training, graduated licensing, restricted carriage of passengers, and parent management.

Hi,
My name is Greg Forbes I am responsible for Driver Licensing Policy I Western Australia. I work within the Department of Transport which is responsible for the regulation of driving is this State.
We are in the process of shifting from a three stage to a four stage graduated licensing system (once we get the legislation in place). The strategy is broadly consistent with the concepts in this paper.

The system will involve a Pre Learner Licence phase, Two onroad supervised learning phases (one focussing on motor skill the other on experience and perceptual skills), and a provisional licence phase. This system is being set up for progressive implementation. We recognise that some parts of the system will take longer than others to put in place and that there may need to be several iterations in some areas.
We have done quite a bit of work in putting a competency standard in place to underpin the whole system have developed a new practical test based around the competency standard.
The system has deliberately been designed to be extended over time and we are interested in incorporating emerging best practice from around the world within the system.
The strategy we have adopted has received broad public support and we are keen to progress to the next stage.
The area of our strategy which needs the most work is, not surprisingly, the third phase which deals with cognitive processes and experience. I am interested in finding out what is happening elsewhere in relation to training materials, log books and testing strategies in regard to these areas.
Please respond to the forum or contact me at gforbes@transport.wa.gov.au. If you would like to know more about the proposed system check out www.transport.wa.gov.au/licensing

Driver education does need to be adaptive and experimental, and to incorporate advances in technology. Participants in the novice driver forum might be interested in the comments made by my colleagues and myself in a recent National Highway Traffic Safety Administration workshop on the feasibility of electronic driver's licenses and it posible applications to improve highway safety (Faulks, Drummond, & Rogers, 1998):

"The potential uses of ‘smart card' electronic driver licensing within a driver management system would appear to centre around three broad aspects of driver behaviour: new driver training and assessment; business driver issues associated with fleet operations and driving ‘as work'; and the management of problem drivers identified as ‘at risk'. It would thus seem that electronic driver licensing could:
1. form part of a prescribed training regime for new drivers, for example, under competency-based training and assessment models;
2. have an application in the business-related fleet management of employees and their vehicles, and the general issues associated with legal obligations for workplace safety (that is, drivers as ‘workers', and vehicles as ‘workplaces'); and
3. assist in managing people who have been identified as problem or ‘at risk' drivers, not only for such persons with a suspended or cancelled drivers licence or people with identified addictive behaviours (alcohol, and other drugs), but also for otherwise law-abiding people with disabilities or degenerative disease that restrict driving capabilities....

New drivers
Electronic licences can serve as a mechanism to improve the safety of new drivers. Electronic licences—and the devices associated with this technology—can provide for the recording of driving performance during the learning process, can monitor driving behaviours by new drivers to detect instances of inappropriate or illegal behaviour, and can be associated with the modification of vehicle and driving characteristics to eliminate potentially risky situations.

A general feature of an electronic licence is the holding of a personal driver record, including typical identification information (e.g., name, address) as well as a record of traffic offences (violations), demerit points held against the licence, cautions issued by police, details of relevant medical and health information (eyesight, and other conditions), and the class of vehicles authorised for driving (including prevention of other vehicle type start-up). But there are many more possibilities that can be suggested for the learner and the new driver. The recording of data during the learning process can take the form of a ‘log book' record on the electronic licence, which might include parameters such as:
- the learner's experience (e.g., time spent driving, a record of the speed of the vehicle, engine revolutions, braking and cornering performance)
- the location of the vehicle during the learner's driving (such as through the use of a global positioning system to determine experience in urban and rural roads, lightly trafficked roads and major arterial roads and freeways)
- a comparison of the learner's driving performance against proven standard ‘characteristics'
- the recording of pre-crash or self-triggered collision data (e.g., through ‘g' sensors)
- as well, mandated restrictions for learners and new drivers may be effected, including governing the times during which the vehicle will permit start-up, the prevention of the vehicle start-up when carrying a non-authorised passenger or when no ‘authorised' accompanying driver is present, and the modification of the vehicle's power and speed outputs.
It may be that the electronic licence itself is simply an authorising ‘plug in' to a separate electronic log book, rather than acting as the log book recorder itself. Taken together, these features should act as a ‘modifier' of driver behaviour for newly licensed drivers, through encouraging learners to take driving more seriously from their earliest experience behind the wheel (and thus helping to generate an individual sense of participation in a ‘road safety culture'), as well as influencing driver behaviour in the knowledge that the electronic licence or log book is collecting data which can be instrumental in identifying inappropriate or offending driving, and in the reconstruction of crashes.

Why is it important to monitor the new driver? It is well known that newly licensed drivers are more likely to be involved in road crashes than older drivers. Yet what is often unrecognised is that during the initial learning phase these drivers were comparatively safe compared to their performance after licensing. We know that at the time of licensing only the most basic skills have been acquired and vehicle control skills are still being developed, the process of translating ‘head' knowledge of road rules into practical on road application is still developing, and the acquisition of perceptual and cognitive skills that help the new driver to see, understand and make correct decisions about the driving environment is only just beginning. Learners are generally driving under lower risk conditions than average because of the presence of a supervising driver. As the transition from a supervised learner to a new driver is so rapid, the dangers of overconfidence are not recognised (see Job, 1990). After licensing, new drivers are exposed to risks of all kinds of traffic conditions with little restriction, as well as not having an experienced supervising driver present to warn of, or to overcome, the consequences of mistakes and to deter and reduce the occurrence of deliberate risk-taking. As well, new drivers are usually young drivers at a stage of life when risk taking is an integral part of growing up (particularly for young males). For new young drivers, the perceived ability to handle and react to driving situations often exceeds the actual capability.

One of the key challenges when dealing with the newly licensed driver is to prevent the headlong rush to the normative behavioural standards of the majority of experienced drivers on the road that differ in many slight but important ways from the formal traffic law. Other drivers are able to cope with these standards because they have the benefit of extended experience that allows the recognition of ‘informal traffic laws' (Keegan, 1997), such as tolerated speeding above the posted maximum speed limit, acceleration through changing traffic signals, the determination of when is it appropriate to engage in merging and lane-changing in heavy traffic or in overtaking manoeuvres on undivided roads, etc.. In the first few months, newly licensed drivers may get into trouble by doing the same thing as more experienced drivers. A challenge is to reduce or halt the significant behavioural decay as new drivers attempt to drive like everybody else, with consequent problems. An electronic probationary licence, as a cornerstone of a novice driver management system, could be a way to ensure that the initial solo driving behaviour of a new driver remains rules-governed rather than contingency-governed (i.e., as in seeking the same ‘rewards' as other drivers through faster driving, more lane changing, lower compliance with control devices, etc.). By extending the learning process beyond the point of first licensing, and by replacing active supervision by an accompanying driver with the monitoring and invigilation of an electronic licence and electronic log book, there would seem to be the potential to deliver significant safeguards against the likelihood of poor behaviour, reduce the occurrence of traffic offences, and reduce the incidence of crash involvement by new drivers.

With the highest crash frequencies in the first months of licensed driving, and a current level of pre-licence preparation which is recognised as insufficient to deliver the full set of learning experiences required for developing the range of basic driver competencies, the equitable control of newly licensed driving through electronic licensing is a legitimate road safety target."

References cited
Faulks, I.J., Drummond, A.E. & Rogers, D. (1998). Electronic licences: conceptual and strategic issues. Paper presented at the "Workshop on the Feasibility of Electronic Driver's Licenses and Improved Highway Safety", Beckman Center, Irvine CA, United States of America, 21-22 September 1998, hosted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Job, R.F.S. (1990). The application of learning theory to driving confidence: The effects of age and the impact of random breath testing. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 22, 97-107.
Keegan, D. (1997). Informal vs. formal traffic laws. http://www.drivers.com/ARTICLES/free/ informal-96166-27187.html. Accessed 24 March 1998.

Dear Ian,
Some aspects of this electronic driver card have me worried. No doubt road safety is important, but my privacy must also be respected.
Tracking learner-vehicles with Global positioning systems etc. is frightening stuff to a driving instructor (big brother watching).
Another factor that has seldom come through in any paper: You just can't teach all people to the same standard. I have taught many elderly people. If I did not allow for their 'age handicap' but apply the same standard as to a 16 year-old, many would simply not make the grade. How does an electronic card allow for that?
Regards Dieter Fischer Adelaide,
South Australia www.driving-school.com.au

The concept of "Smart Card" controls on new drivers will probably never be accepted by the politicians even though it could very well save billions of wasted dollars. I congratulate you Ian for bravely suggesting an electronic log book that could guarantee the gaining of experience under supervision as required in some Graduated Licensing models and possibly reduce risk taking.

At Young Drivers we accept accountabilty for the driving behaviour of our graduates and would support your position. I'm surprised by Dieter's "belief" that you cannot teach all people the same standard. Does that mean we should allow sub-standard training that allows a certain age group to die because they cannot avoid a head-on collision, a rear crash or stop in an emergency. We have taught 16 to 75 year olds with considerable compassion and sometimes extra time to master these skills because they all have the right to survive and most have the ability to learn.

If the State Governments keep supporting 6 hours of in-car training why in the world would we expect their support for "Smart Licences"? Could we first deal with problems of 6 hours in-car, ineffective curriculum and protectionism for 40 year old standards. Hopefully the Graduated Licensing results in the US will be measured against the more successful models from the rest of the world.

The Newfoundland,Canada model could lead to acceptance of "Smart Licences." The Newfoundland model dropped the licensing age from 17 to 16 and instituted Graduated Licensing to allow 16 year olds (and all ages) to gain supervised experience. The 16 year olds and their parents would probably have willingly accepted "Smart Licences."

The other difference in the Newfoundland model is that they exempt those 17 and older from Graduated Licensing for the first year of Graduated Licensing ( only 1999 ) if they take an approved driver training program. This means that Government examiners have tests to conduct over the first year instead of the decline experienced in other jurisdictions and those involved in Driver Training still have students to teach.

We support NHTSA in their search for solutions and can only wish that they had jurisdiction over drivers or more clout in "helping" the States develop more appropriate driving standards.

The fact is that people die every day on our roads and the total cost of collisions has been estimated at $1,000 per driver every year whether they crash or not. This is around 20 Billion in Canada and over 200 Billion in the USA. It's great to see innovative solutions being proposed from around the world.

I would also like to congratulate Dan Keegan and Drivers.com as well as the organizers for creating this forum. Why not keep it going since interest seems to be picking up? Peter

Re PeterChristianson’s & Mike Regan's comments Apr 18

I’d like to echo Mike's & Peter’s thanks to Dan, Leo & co. for organizing the NoviceForum and congratulations on the successful and smooth operations.

Peter, Mike, and others have suggested that some ongoing follow-up take place. Is this possible? Ongoing forums (fora?) in a few subject categories would be very useful. Since almost nobody is interested in everything all at once, maybe a half dozen or so fora could be focused on specific threads to start, with branches and additions established as new issues gain currency and importance. Certainly there are a lot of important questions and issues that have not even been touched on yet. Equally certainly, the driver ed and licensing fields need a big upgrade in their common knowledge base, Good data lies around unused and contradictory, "off-the-wall" ideas abound. With better communication among educators, administrators, and researchers real progress can be made.

Drivers.com has already been trying to play this role to some extent, but it seems now that the profile and momentum has increased to the point where a quantum step ahead may be possible. Of course, the NoviceForum must be costing somebody something, which we participants have been mercifully sheltered from. Can drivers.com fund something like this from its subscriptions and ad revenue? Is anybody out there interested in providing sponsorship support for an ongoing NoviceForum?

Larry

I certainly agree with the comments of Mike Regan, Peter Christianson and Larry Lonero that the conference has been absolutely fascinating and it would be a very good thing to continue. I've just spoken to Leo Tasca about this and he is agreeable to a continuation also. In other words we will leave the discussion software active and allow the driver training/education and research community to continue to use it, now that the conference proper is over.

I do have the impression, and several individuals have told me, that there could have been more participation were it not for time constraints and/or unfamiliarity with the technology of the Internet and the downloading of papers.

The major effort in running the conference was in setting it up. Now that it's there, Drivers.com would be happy to continue hosting it. The authors of papers may not be in a position to constantly monitor the discussions and respond to comments on the papers, but the discussions can continue and the software allows new sub-topics to be introduced by users. If message threads get too long we can set up an archiving mechanism (either automated or manual) and make sure that the content is available for review and comment.

In addition to discussion about the papers, the general discussion area is available and allows visitors to initiate new discussion topics as well as continue existing discussions.

Concerning Michael Regan's suggestion about a listserver, Drivers.com did have an email conference a few years ago which was allowed to fall into disuse. We could reinstitute this if people want it. It was a very good way to send out a question, supply information or make contacts.

We'll have a wrap-up newsletter on the conference shortly and if there is anything that anyone would like included please let me know.

DK

Is there anyone to moderate a list? I find that a really great stimulus to my ideas. I read one huge list everyday, and just delete the topics that don't interest me. We seem to have had several threads in Novice Drivers. Often a person would make a point but the next person took up a side issue - Maybe with an email list we could more easily address and follow up particular points and interests. I have really appreciated being involved - and made some good contacts back channel.