Search

Purpose: Poor hazard anticipation skills are a risk factor associated with high motor vehicle crash rates of young drivers. A number of programs have been developed to improve these skills. The purpose of this review was to assess the empirical literature on hazard anticipation training for young drivers., Methods: Studies were included if they (1) included an assessment of hazard anticipation training outcomes; (2) were published between January 1, 1980 and December 31, 2013 in an English language peer-reviewed journal or conference proceeding; and (3) included at least one group that uniquely comprised a cohort of participants aged <21 years. Nineteen studies met inclusion criteria., Results: Studies used a variety of training methods including interactive computer programs, videos, simulation, commentary driving, or a combination of approaches. Training effects were predominantly measured through computer-based testing and driving simulation with eye tracking. Four studies included an on-road evaluation. Most studies evaluated short-term outcomes (immediate or few days). In all studies, young drivers showed improvement in selected hazard anticipation outcomes but none investigated crash effects., Conclusions: Although there is promise in existing programs, future research should include long-term follow-up, evaluate crash outcomes, and assess the optimal timing of hazard anticipation training taking into account the age and experience level of young drivers., (Copyright © 2015 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The proliferation of new communication technologies and capabilities has prompted concern about driving safety. This concern is particularly acute for inexperienced adolescent drivers. In addition to being early adopters of technology, many adolescents have not achieved the degree of automaticity in driving that characterizes experienced adults. Consequently, distractions may be more problematic in this group. Yet little is known about the nature or prevalence of distracted driving behaviors or distracting conditions among adolescent drivers., Method: Vehicles of 52 high-school age drivers (N=38 beginners and N=14 more experienced) were equipped for 6 months with unobtrusive event-triggered data recorders that obtain 20-second clips of video, audio, and vehicle kinematic information when triggered. A low recording trigger threshold was set to obtain a sample of essentially random driving segments along with those indicating rough driving behaviors., Results: Electronic device use (6.7%) was the most common single type of distracted behavior, followed by adjusting vehicle controls (6.2%) and grooming (3.8%). Most distracted driver behaviors were less frequent when passengers were present. However, loud conversation and horseplay were quite common in the presence of multiple peer passengers. These conditions were associated with looking away from the road, the occurrence of serious events, and, to a lesser extent, rough driving (high g-force events)., Conclusions: Common assumptions about adolescent driver distraction are only partially borne out by in-vehicle measurement. The association of passengers with distraction appears more complex than previously realized. The relationship between distractions and serious events differed from the association with rough driving., (Copyright © 2014 Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Problem: 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., Method: 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., Results: 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., Discussion: 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.

Addresses how to achieve the maximum benefit from graduated driver-licensing systems by ensuring that drivers comply with restrictions. States that although little is known about the involvement of law enforcement, there is potential for high-visibility law enforcement to encourage compliance. (Contains 1 figure and 22 references.) (AUTHOR/WFA)