Mobility and safety are conflicting goals for transport policy makers when making decisions about graduated driver licensing

Policy decisions are frequently influenced by more than research results alone. This review examines one road safety countermeasure, graduated driver licensing, in three jurisdictions and identifies how the conflict between mobility and safety goals can influence policy decisions relating to this countermeasure. Evaluations from around the world of graduated driver licensing have demonstrated clear reductions in crashes for young drivers. However, the introduction of this countermeasure may be affected, both positively and negatively, by the conflict some policy makers experience between ensuring individuals remain both mobile and safe as drivers. This review highlights how this conflict in policy decision making can serve to either facilitate or hinder the introduction of graduated driver licensing systems. However, policy makers whose focus on mobility is too strong when compared with safety may be mistaken, with evidence suggesting that after a graduated driver licensing system is introduced young drivers adapt their behaviour to the new system and remain mobile. As a result, policy makers should consciously acknowledge the conflict between mobility and safety and consider an appropriate balance in order to introduce these systems. Improvements to the licensing system can then be made in an incremental manner as the balance between these two priorities change. Policy makers can achieve an appropriate balance by using empirical evidence as a basis for their decisions.

The impact of changes to the graduated driver licensing program in Queensland, Australia on the experiences of learner drivers

Purpose: Graduated driver licensing (GDL) has been introduced in numerous jurisdictions in Australia and internationally in an attempt to ameliorate the significantly greater risk of death and injury for young novice drivers arising from road crashes. The GDL program in Queensland, Australia, was extensively modified in July 2007. This paper reports the driving and licensing experiences of Learner drivers progressing through the current-GDL program, and compares them to the experiences of Learners who progressed through the former-GDL program. ----- ----- Method: Young drivers (n = 1032, 609 females, 423 males) aged 17 to 19 years (M = 17.43, SD = 0.67) were recruited as they progressed from a Learner to a Provisional driver’s licence. They completed a survey exploring their sociodemographic characteristics, driving and licensing experiences as a Learner. Key measures for a subsample (n = 183) of the current-GDL drivers were compared with the former-GDL drivers (n = 149) via t-tests and chi-square analyses. ----- ----- Results: As expected, Learner drivers progressing through the current-GDL program gained significantly more driving practice than those in the former program, which was more likely to be provided by mothers than in the past. Female learners in the current-GDL program reported less difficulty obtaining supervision than those in the former program. The number of attempts needed to pass the practical driving assessment did not change, nor did the amount of professional supervision. The current-GDL Learners held their licence for a significantly longer duration than those in the former program, with the majority reporting that their Logbook entries were accurate on the whole. Compared to those in the former program, a significantly smaller proportion of male current-GDL Learners reported being detected for a driving offence while the females reported significantly lower crash involvement. Most current-GDL drivers reported undertaking their supervised practice at the end of the Learner period. ----- ----- Conclusions: The enhancements to the GDL program in Queensland appear to have achieved many of their intended results. The current-GDL learners participating in the study reported obtaining a significantly greater amount of supervised driving experience compared to former-GDL learners. Encouragingly, the current-GDL Learners did not report any greater difficulty in obtaining supervised driving practice, and there was a decline in the proportion of current-GDL Learners engaging in unsupervised driving. In addition, the majority of Learners do not appear to be attempting to subvert logbook recording requirements, as evidenced by high rates of self-reported logbook accuracy. The results have implications for the development and the evaluation of GDL programs in Australia and around the world.

Private supervisors of learner drivers and Queensland's graduated driver licensing system : how important are they?

Background: A key element of graduated driver licensing systems is the level of support provided by parents. In mid-2007 changes were made to Queensland’s graduated driver licensing system, including amendments to the learner licence with one of the more significant changes requiring learners to record 100 hours of supervised driving practice in a logbook. Prior to mid-2007, there was no minimum supervision requirement. Aims: The aim of this study was to document the experiences of the supervisors of Queensland learner drivers after the changes made to the graduated driver licensing system in mid-2007. Methods: The sample of 552 supervisors of learner drivers was recruited using a combination of convenience and snowball sampling techniques. The internet survey was open for completion between July 2009 and May 2010 and took approximately 15 to 20 minutes for participants to complete. Results: For 59.7 per cent of the participants, this was the first time that they had supervised a learner driver. For 63.2 per cent, they classified themselves as the main supervisor for the learner driver. Participants provided an average of 79.62 hours of supervision (sd = 92.38), while other private supervisors provided 34.89 hours of supervision (sd = 41.74) to the same learner and professional driving instructors 18.55 hours of supervision (sd = 27.54). The vast majority of supervisors recorded all or most of the practice that they provided their learner driver in their log book with most supervisors indicating that they believed that the hours recorded in the learner’s logbook were either accurate or very accurate. While many supervisors stated that they did not receive any advice regarding the supervision of learner drivers, some had received advice from others such as friends or through discussions with a professional driving instructor. Discussion and conclusions: While graduated driver licensing systems implicitly encourage the involvement of parents and other private supervisors, these people tend not to be systematically involved. As demonstrated in this study, private supervisors provide a significant amount of supervised practice and seek to record this practice accurately and honestly in the learner’s logbook. However, even though a significant number of participants reported that this was the first time that they had supervised a learner driver, they accessed little support or guidance for their role. This suggests a need to more overtly encourage and support the role of private supervisors for learner drivers.

The experiences of learner drivers, provisional drivers and supervisors with graduated driver licensing in two Australian jurisdictions

Newly licensed drivers on a provisional or intermediate licence have the highest crash risk when compared with any other group of drivers. In comparison, learner drivers have the lowest crash risk. Graduated driver licensing is one countermeasure that has been demonstrated to effectively reduce the crashes of novice drivers. This thesis examined the graduated driver licensing systems in two Australian states in order to better understand the behaviour of learner drivers, provisional drivers and the supervisors of learner drivers. By doing this, the thesis investigated the personal, social and environmental influences on novice driver behaviour as well as providing effective baseline data against which to measure subsequent changes to the licensing systems. In the first study, conducted prior to the changes to the graduated driver licensing system introduced in mid-2007, drivers who had recently obtained their provisional licence in Queensland and New South Wales were interviewed by telephone regarding their experiences while driving on their learner licence. Of the 687 eligible people approached to participate at driver licensing centres, 392 completed the study representing a response rate of 57.1 per cent. At the time the data was collected, New South Wales represented a more extensive graduated driver licensing system when compared with Queensland. The results suggested that requiring learners to complete a mandated number of hours of supervised practice impacts on the amount of hours that learners report completing. While most learners from New South Wales reported meeting the requirement to complete 50 hours of practice, it appears that many stopped practising soon after this goal was achieved. In contrast, learners from Queensland, who were not required to complete a specific number of hours at the time of the survey, tended to fall into three groups. The first group appeared to complete the minimum number of hours required to pass the test (less than 26 hours), the second group completed 26 to 50 hours of supervised practice while the third group completed significantly more practice than the first two groups (over 100 hours of supervised practice). Learner drivers in both states reported generally complying with the road laws and were unlikely to report that they had been caught breaking the road rules. They also indicated that they planned to obey the road laws once they obtained their provisional licence. However, they were less likely to intend to comply with recommended actions to reduce crash risk such as limiting their driving at night. This study also identified that there were relatively low levels of unaccompanied driving (approximately 15 per cent of the sample), very few driving offences committed (five per cent of the sample) and that learner drivers tended to use a mix of private and professional supervisors (although the majority of practice is undertaken with private supervisors). Consistent with the international literature, this study identified that very few learner drivers had experienced a crash (six per cent) while on their learner licence. The second study was also conducted prior to changes to the graduated driver licensing system and involved follow up interviews with the participants of the first study after they had approximately 21 months driving experience on their provisional licence. Of the 392 participants that completed the first study, 233 participants completed the second interview (representing a response rate of 59.4 per cent). As with the first study, at the time the data was collected, New South Wales had a more extensive graduated driver licensing system than Queensland. For instance, novice drivers from New South Wales were required to progress through two provisional licence phases (P1 and P2) while there was only one provisional licence phase in Queensland. Among the participants in this second study, almost all provisional drivers (97.9 per cent) owned or had access to a vehicle for regular driving. They reported that they were unlikely to break road rules, such as driving after a couple of drinks, but were also unlikely to comply with recommended actions, such as limiting their driving at night. When their provisional driving behaviour was compared to the stated intentions from the first study, the results suggested that their intentions were not a strong predictor of their subsequent behaviour. Their perception of risk associated with driving declined from when they first obtained their learner licence to when they had acquired provisional driving experience. Just over 25 per cent of participants in study two reported that they had been caught committing driving offences while on their provisional licence. Nearly one-third of participants had crashed while driving on a provisional licence, although few of these crashes resulted in injuries or hospitalisations. To complement the first two studies, the third study examined the experiences of supervisors of learner drivers, as well as their perceptions of their learner’s experiences. This study was undertaken after the introduction of the new graduated driver licensing systems in Queensland and New South Wales in mid- 2007, providing insights into the impacts of these changes from the perspective of supervisors. The third study involved an internet survey of 552 supervisors of learner drivers. Within the sample, approximately 50 per cent of participants supervised their own child. Other supervisors of the learner drivers included other parents or stepparents, professional driving instructors and siblings. For two-thirds of the sample, this was the first learner driver that they had supervised. Participants had provided an average of 54.82 hours (sd = 67.19) of supervision. Seventy-three per cent of participants indicated that their learners’ logbooks were accurate or very accurate in most cases, although parents were more likely than non-parents to report that their learners’ logbook was accurate (F (1,546) = 7.74, p = .006). There was no difference between parents and non-parents regarding whether they believed the log book system was effective (F (1,546) = .01, p = .913). The majority of the sample reported that their learner driver had had some professional driving lessons. Notwithstanding this, a significant proportion (72.5 per cent) believed that parents should be either very involved or involved in teaching their child to drive, with parents being more likely than non-parents to hold this belief. In the post mid-2007 graduated driver licensing system, Queensland learner drivers are able to record three hours of supervised practice in their log book for every hour that is completed with a professional driving instructor, up to a total of ten hours. Despite this, there was no difference identified between Queensland and New South Wales participants regarding the amount of time that they reported their learners spent with professional driving instructors (X2(1) = 2.56, p = .110). Supervisors from New South Wales were more likely to ensure that their learner driver complied with the road laws. Additionally, with the exception of drug driving laws, New South Wales supervisors believed it was more important to teach safety-related behaviours such as remaining within the speed limit, car control and hazard perception than those from Queensland. This may be indicative of more intensive road safety educational efforts in New South Wales or the longer time that graduated driver licensing has operated in that jurisdiction. However, other factors may have contributed to these findings and further research is required to explore the issue. In addition, supervisors reported that their learner driver was involved in very few crashes (3.4 per cent) and offences (2.7 per cent). This relatively low reported crash rate is similar to that identified in the first study. Most of the graduated driver licensing research to date has been applied in nature and lacked a strong theoretical foundation. These studies used Akers’ social learning theory to explore the self-reported behaviour of novice drivers and their supervisors. This theory was selected as it has previously been found to provide a relatively comprehensive framework for explaining a range of driver behaviours including novice driver behaviour. Sensation seeking was also used in the first two studies to complement the non-social rewards component of Akers’ social learning theory. This program of research identified that both Akers’ social learning theory and sensation seeking were useful in predicting the behaviour of learner and provisional drivers over and above socio-demographic factors. Within the first study, Akers’ social learning theory accounted for an additional 22 per cent of the variance in learner driver compliance with the law, over and above a range of socio-demographic factors such as age, gender and income. The two constructs within Akers’ theory which were significant predictors of learner driver compliance were the behavioural dimension of differential association relating to friends, and anticipated rewards. Sensation seeking predicted an additional six per cent of the variance in learner driver compliance with the law. When considering a learner driver’s intention to comply with the law while driving on a provisional licence, Akers’ social learning theory accounted for an additional 10 per cent of the variance above socio-demographic factors with anticipated rewards being a significant predictor. Sensation seeking predicted an additional four per cent of the variance. The results suggest that the more rewards individuals anticipate for complying with the law, the more likely they are to obey the road rules. Further research is needed to identify which specific rewards are most likely to encourage novice drivers’ compliance with the law. In the second study, Akers’ social learning theory predicted an additional 40 per cent of the variance in self-reported compliance with road rules over and above socio-demographic factors while sensation seeking accounted for an additional five per cent of the variance. A number of Aker’s social learning theory constructs significantly predicted provisional driver compliance with the law, including the behavioural dimension of differential association for friends, the normative dimension of differential association, personal attitudes and anticipated punishments. The consistent prediction of additional variance by sensation seeking over and above the variables within Akers’ social learning theory in both studies one and two suggests that sensation seeking is not fully captured within the non social rewards dimension of Akers’ social learning theory, at least for novice drivers. It appears that novice drivers are strongly influenced by the desire to engage in new and intense experiences. While socio-demographic factors and the perception of risk associated with driving had an important role in predicting the behaviour of the supervisors of learner drivers, Akers’ social learning theory provided further levels of prediction over and above these factors. The Akers’ social learning theory variables predicted an additional 14 per cent of the variance in the extent to which supervisors ensured that their learners complied with the law and an additional eight per cent of the variance in the supervisors’ provision of a range of practice experiences. The normative dimension of differential association, personal attitudes towards the use of professional driving instructors and anticipated rewards were significant predictors for supervisors ensuring that their learner complied with the road laws, while the normative dimension was important for range of practice. This suggests that supervisors who engage with other supervisors who ensure their learner complies with the road laws and provide a range of practice to their own learners are more likely to also engage in these behaviours. Within this program of research, there were several limitations including the method of recruitment of participants within the first study, the lower participation rate in the second study, an inability to calculate a response rate for study three and the use of self-report data for all three studies. Within the first study, participants were only recruited from larger driver licensing centres to ensure that there was a sufficient throughput of drivers to approach. This may have biased the results due to the possible differences in learners that obtain their licences in locations with smaller licensing centres. Only 59.4 per cent of the sample in the first study completed the second study. This may be a limitation if there was a common reason why those not participating were unable to complete the interview leading to a systematic impact on the results. The third study used a combination of a convenience and snowball sampling which meant that it was not possible to calculate a response rate. All three studies used self-report data which, in many cases, is considered a limitation. However, self-report data may be the only method that can be used to obtain some information. This program of research has a number of implications for countermeasures in both the learner licence phase and the provisional licence phase. During the learner phase, licensing authorities need to carefully consider the number of hours that they mandate learner drivers must complete before they obtain their provisional driving licence. If they mandate an insufficient number of hours, there may be inadvertent negative effects as a result of setting too low a limit. This research suggests that logbooks may be a useful tool for learners and their supervisors in recording and structuring their supervised practice. However, it would appear that the usage rates for logbooks will remain low if they remain voluntary. One strategy for achieving larger amounts of supervised practice is for learner drivers and their supervisors to make supervised practice part of their everyday activities. As well as assisting the learner driver to accumulate the required number of hours of supervised practice, it would ensure that they gain experience in the types of environments that they will probably encounter when driving unaccompanied in the future, such as to and from education or work commitments. There is also a need for policy processes to ensure that parents and professional driving instructors communicate effectively regarding the learner driver’s progress. This is required as most learners spend at least some time with a professional instructor despite receiving significant amounts of practice with a private supervisor. However, many supervisors did not discuss their learner’s progress with the driving instructor. During the provisional phase, there is a need to strengthen countermeasures to address the high crash risk of these drivers. Although many of these crashes are minor, most involve at least one other vehicle. Therefore, there are social and economic benefits to reducing these crashes. If the new, post-2007 graduated driver licensing systems do not significantly reduce crash risk, there may be a need to introduce further provisional licence restrictions such as separate night driving and peer passenger restrictions (as opposed to the hybrid version of these two restrictions operating in both Queensland and New South Wales). Provisional drivers appear to be more likely to obey some provisional licence laws, such as lower blood alcohol content limits, than others such as speed limits. Therefore, there may be a need to introduce countermeasures to encourage provisional drivers to comply with specific restrictions. When combined, these studies provided significant information regarding graduated driver licensing programs. This program of research has investigated graduated driver licensing utilising a cross-sectional and longitudinal design in order to develop our understanding of the experiences of novice drivers that progress through the system in order to help reduce crash risk once novice drivers commence driving by themselves.

The experiences of parents and other supervisors in a graduated driver licensing program in Queensland, Australia

Study Aims Describe how parents and other private supervisors have responded to the changes made to the Queensland graduated driver licensing system in mid-2007 Examine differences in the experiences and perceptions of the parents and non-parents Method Combination of convenience and snowball sampling Survey administered by the internet Survey conducted between July 2009 and May 2010 Approximately 15-20 minutes to complete $20 reimbursement for participation

The impact of an enhanced graduated driver licensing program in Queensland

The Queensland graduated driver licensing (GDL) context (post-July 2007) - The experiences of young Learner drivers - Comparison of pre- (‘Original-GDL’) and post-July 2007 (‘Enhanced-GDL’) experiences - Post-July 2007 experiences - GDL-related issues - Other factors in young novice driver safety - Person-related factors - Social factors

The experiences of novices in an enhanced graduated driver licensing program in Queensland, Australia

- Young novice drivers - The Queensland graduated driver licensing (GDL) context - Pre-July 2007 (‘Original-GDL’) - Post-July 2007 (‘Enhanced-GDL’) - Experiences of Learners in Queensland’s enhanced-GDL program - Pre-/post-July 2007 comparison - Post-July 2007 only - Implications - Strengths and limitations

Graduated driver licensing : an international review

Graduated driver licensing (GDL) aims to gradually increase the exposure of new drivers to more complex driving situations and typically consists of learner, provisional and open licence phases. The first phase, the learner licence, is designed to allow novice drivers to obtain practical driving experience in lower risk situations. The learner licence can delay licensure, encourage novice drivers to learn under supervision, mandate the number of hours of practice required to progress to the next phase and encourage parental involvement. The second phase, the provisional licence, establishes various driving restrictions and thereby reduces exposure to situations of higher risk, such as driving at night, with passengers or after drinking alcohol. Parental involvement with a GDL system appears essential in helping novices obtain sufficient practice and in enforcing compliance with restrictions once the new driver obtains a provisional licence. Given the significant number of young drivers involved in crashes within Oman, GDL is one countermeasure that may be beneficial in reducing crash risk and involvement for this group.

Enhancing road safety for young drivers : how Graduate Driver Licensing initiatives can complement "anti-hooning" legislation

Street racing and associated (hooning) behaviours have attracted increasing concern in recent years. While New Zealand and all Australian jurisdictions have introduced “antihooning” legislation and allocated significant police resources to managing the problem, there is limited evidence of the road safety implications of hooning. However, international and Australian data suggests that drivers charged with a hooning offence tend to be young males who are accompanied by one or more peers, and hooning-related crashes tend to occur at night. In this regard, there is considerable evidence that drivers under the age of 25 are over-represented in crash statistics, and are particularly vulnerable soon after obtaining a Provisional licence, when driving at night, and when carrying peer-aged passengers. The similarity between the nature of hooning offenders, offences and crashes, and road safety risks for young drivers in general, suggests that hooning is an issue that may be viewed as part of the broader young driver problem. Many jurisdictions have recently implemented a range of evidence-based strategies to address young driver road safety, and this paper will present Queensland crash and offence data to highlight the potential benefit of Graduated Driver Licensing initiatives, such as night driving restrictions and peer-aged passenger restrictions, to related road safety issues, including hooning. An understanding of potential flow-on effects is important for evaluations of anti-hooning legislation and Graduated Driver Licensing programs, and may have implications for future law enforcement resource allocation and policy development.

Driver licensing experience of Korean Australians

Graduated licensing has been identified as the most promising approach to reducing the crash risk of novice drivers. However, research suggests that the effectiveness of graduated licensing appears to differ between urban and rural novice drivers and according to race or ethnicity. Extensive supervised driving practice as a learner driver is an important component of graduated licensing systems in Australia and many other countries. Earlier CARRS-Q research identified that falsification of logbooks was more common among particular demographic groups. The factors underlying this are not well understood. It is unclear whether this reflects a lack of understanding of the importance of supervised practice (given that it is not a licensing requirement in many countries of origin), or it reflects lack of access to vehicles and supervising drivers, or whether there is less respect for driver licensing requirements among some groups. It is possible that the importance of these factors may differ across ethnic groups, depending on socioeconomic factors and cultural attitudes to road safety. In an attempt to better understand these issues, this study presents some preliminary results of focus groups examining the experience of the Queensland Graduated Driver Licensing System by Korean-Australian novice drivers and their parents.

Driver licensing experience of Korean Australian novice drivers

Graduated driver licensing has been shown to improve the safety of young drivers but relatively little is known about how well it works for drivers born in countries where the licensing system is less sophisticated. This research used Bronfenbrenner's ecological model to examine the driver licensing experience of Korean Australian young drivers using driver and parent focus groups and an online survey of drivers. Accumulating the required supervised driving was more difficult for international students than those living with parents and differences in road rules (particularly relating to seat belt use) between the countries exerted an important influence on behaviour.

Driving and licensing experiences of learner drivers in two Australian states prior to major changes in the licensing laws

The learner licence is an important component of the graduated driver licensing system. This research describes the driving and licensing experiences of learner drivers in Queensland and New South Wales licensed prior to the changes made to the system in mid-2007. The sample consisted of 392 participants who completed a telephone interview just after they obtained their provisional licence. The results suggest that learner drivers in the two states had many similar experiences when they were obtaining a learner licence. However, once a learner licence was obtained, there were differences in the amount of practice, the supervisor learners practised with, the type of vehicle they used and the amount of unlicensed driving. This paper provides important baseline descriptive data that can be used to measure the impact of the changes that were introduced to the learner licence phase in mid-2007 in both of these states.