Unlicensed driving among young drivers in North Carolina: a quasi-induced exposure analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence of driving among teenagers who have not yet obtained a license. The primary objective of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of unlicensed driving among young drivers using the quasi-induced exposure (QIE) approach and to determine whether unlicensed driving was more common among minority and lower-income teenagers. Additionally, we examined whether unlicensed driving among adolescents increased following the implementation of a graduated driver licensing (GDL) system and whether GDL differentially affected minority and low-income adolescents. METHODS: Using North Carolina crash and driver license data, we identified 90,267 two-vehicle crashes from 1991 through 2016 where only one driver was considered contributory and the non-contributory driver was a White or Black 16 or 17 years old. In the QIE approach, these non-contributory young drivers are assumed to be representative of all adolescents driving in the state during this time period. The prevalence of unlicensed driving among adolescents by age and year was estimated by identifying the proportion of non-contributory drivers who had never been licensed by the time of their involvement in these two-vehicle crashes. We further conducted logistic regression analyses to examine the likelihood of a non-contributory young driver being unlicensed as a function of race, neighborhood income level, and licensing era (prior to or after GDL was implemented). RESULTS: During the 26 years for which data were available, the mean annual prevalence of unlicensed driving was 1.2% for 16-year-olds and 1.7% among 17-year-olds. Young Black drivers and individuals living in lower-income neighborhoods were somewhat more likely to drive before obtaining a license, but the rates of unlicensed driving among these groups were also quite low. Unlicensed driving increased slightly for 17-year-olds following the implementation of GDL, but returned to previous levels after a few years. CONCLUSION: Unlicensed driving among adolescents in North Carolina is substantially less common than suggested by previous self-report studies and analyses of fatal crash data.

The role of inexperience in motorcycle crashes among novice and returning motorcycle riders.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the crash trends of younger novice and older novice/returning motorcycle riders. METHODS: We used a linked database of North Carolina crash and licensing data from 1991 through 2018 that included 103,142 younger novice and 98,540 older novice/returning motorcycle riders. We examined the percent of riders who crashed each month after obtaining a motorcycle license. RESULTS: Crash rates peak for both younger novice and older novice/returning motorcycle riders immediately after licensure. Crash rates decline rapidly, and the rate of decrease resembles a power function. The improvement rate (IR) for younger novice riders is 0.42; that is, the crash rate for younger novices declines by approximately 42% as experience doubles. CONCLUSION: The crash curve for novice motorcyclists is similar to that of novice car drivers and is consistent with a learning process. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS: The crash trends of novice motorcycle riders indicate that current training, licensing, and educational efforts are not adequately preparing new riders. Additional efforts to develop more effective training, and research to inform a well-calibrated graduated licensing process for new riders are needed.

The effect of extending graduated driver licensing to older novice drivers in Indiana.

INTRODUCTION: Graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems have been shown to reduce rates of crashes, injuries, and deaths of young novice drivers. However, approximately one in three new drivers in the United States obtain their first driver's license at age 18 or older, and thus are exempt from most or all provisions of GDL in most states. METHOD: In July 2015, the state of Indiana updated its GDL program, extending its restrictions on driving at night and on carrying passengers during the first 6 months of independent driving, previously only applicable to new drivers younger than 18, to all newly-licensed drivers younger than 21 years of age. The current study examined monthly rates of crashes per licensed driver under the affected conditions (driving at night and driving with passengers) among Indiana drivers first licensed at ages 18, 19, and 20 under the updated GDL system compared with drivers licensed at the same ages under the previous GDL system. We used Poisson regression to estimate the association between the GDL system and crash rates, while attempting to control for other factors that might have also influenced crash rates. We used linear regression to estimate the association between the GDL system and the proportion of all crashes that occurred under conditions restricted by the GDL program. RESULTS: Results showed, contrary to expectations, that rates of crashes during restricted nighttime hours and with passengers were higher among drivers licensed under the updated GDL system. This mirrored a statewide increase in crash rates among drivers of all ages over the study period and likely reflected increased overall driving exposure. The proportions of all crashes that were at night or with passengers did not change. Practical Applications: More research is needed to understand how older novice drivers respond when GDL systems originally designed for younger novice drivers are applied to them.

A Review of Hazard Anticipation Training Programs for Young Drivers.

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.

Distracted driver behaviors and distracting conditions among adolescent drivers: findings from a naturalistic driving study.

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.

Parent comments and instruction during the first four months of supervised driving: an opportunity missed?

The present study examined the nature of the comments and instruction provided by parents during supervised driving. Unlike previous studies which rely on self-report, the data in this study were obtained through direct observation of parents and teens using in-vehicle cameras with audio recording. The cameras were installed in the vehicles of 50 families for the first four months of the learner license stage. The findings show a great deal of conversation takes place while teens are driving with a supervisor, and that much of this conversation concerns driving. Sixty-one percent (61%) of all recorded clips included driving-related conversation. The most common type of comment by parents was instruction about vehicle handling or operation, observed in 53% of those clips with conversation about driving. This was followed by pointing out something about the driving environment (such as when it was clear to enter traffic; 23%), negative comments about the teen's driving (22%), and helping the driver navigate (18%). Other potentially helpful types of instruction, including explanation or insights regarding higher order skills (e.g., hazard anticipation and detection), were noticeably less frequent. Moreover, higher order instruction remained low during the first four months of the learner stage, even as instruction about vehicle handling/operation decreased. These findings suggest parents are not taking full advantage of the opportunity provided by mandatory periods of supervised driving to help their children develop an understanding of important aspects of driving.

Supervised hours requirements in graduated driver licensing: Effectiveness and parental awareness.

Most states require teens to complete a certain number of hours of supervised driving practice to obtain a license to drive unsupervised. Although widely implemented, the effect of requiring supervised practice is largely unknown. Using auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) interrupted time-series analysis, we found no change in fatal and injury crash involvement of 16-17-year-old drivers in Minnesota following enactment of a 30h supervised driving requirement. To supplement and provide insight into these findings, we conducted telephone interviews with parents of newly licensed teenage drivers in five states with varying amounts of required supervised driving, including Minnesota. Interviews revealed awareness of supervised driving requirements was limited. Only a third of parents (32%) overall could correctly identify the number of hours their state required. In Minnesota only 15% of parents could identify the amount of supervised driving their teen was required to complete. Awareness of the number of hours required was substantially higher (55%) in Maryland. Unlike the other states, Maryland requires submission of a driving log detailing the hours of supervised driving. The findings suggest states need to develop more effective mechanisms to ensure parents are aware of supervised hours requirements.

Effect of North Carolina's restriction on teenage driver cell phone use two years after implementation.

A majority of states now restrict teenagers from using a mobile communication device while driving. The effect of these restrictions is largely unknown. In a previous study, we found North Carolina's teenage driver cell phone restriction had little influence on young driver behavior four months after the law took effect (Foss et al., 2009). The goal of the present study was to examine the longer-term effect of North Carolina's cell phone restriction. It was expected that compliance with the restriction would increase, as awareness of the restriction grew over time. Teenagers were observed at high schools in North Carolina approximately two years after the law was implemented. Observations were also conducted in South Carolina, which did not have a cell phone restriction. In both states, there was a broad decrease in cell phone use. A logistic regression analysis showed the decrease in cell phone use did not significantly differ between the two states. Although hand-held cell phone use decreased, there was an increase in the likelihood that drivers in North Carolina were observed physically manipulating a phone. Finally, a mail survey of teenagers in North Carolina showed awareness for the cell phone restriction now stands at 78% among licensed teens. Overall, the findings suggest North Carolina's cell phone restriction has had no long-term effect on the behavior of teenage drivers. Moreover, it appears many teenage drivers may be shifting from talking on a phone to texting.

Talking and texting among teenage drivers: a glass half empty or half full?

OBJECTIVE: Cell phone use and text messaging in particular are associated with an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes. However, the frequency with which teenagers use cell phones while driving is still largely unknown. METHODS: The current study obtained self-reported cell phone use behaviors while driving, including text messaging, along with beliefs about these actions, for a sample of licensed teenage drivers. Questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of 1947 high-school-age teens in 2 large metropolitan areas in North Carolina. Questionnaires were completed and returned by 537 teens, of whom 320 had an intermediate or full driver's license. RESULTS: In total, 45 percent of teens reported using a cell phone in some capacity during their most recent trip. Fifteen percent reported that they only talked on a cell phone, 15 percent sent or read a text message only, and 15 percent both talked and texted. More generally, 12 percent of teens reported that they often talked on a cell phone while driving, 4 percent reported that they often initiated a text conversation while driving, 11 percent said that they often replied to texts, and 23 percent often read text messages. Teens reported using several strategies to reduce the risk associated with using a cell phone while driving. Among teens who had ever talked on a cell phone while driving, 47 percent said that they try to keep their conversations short because they are driving. Among teens who had ever texted while driving, approximately half said that they often wait until it feels safe to read and reply to text messages (58% and 47%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Most teens surveyed reported having talked or read or sent a text message using a cell phone while driving. Somewhat less than half engaged in one of these behaviors the last time they drove. However, many teens reported using strategies to reduce this risk and in certain instances, cell phone nonuse was the normative behavior. Better measurement of the extent and nature of phone use while driving is needed.

Short-term effects of a teenage driver cell phone restriction.

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.

Parental supervision of teenage drivers in a graduated licensing system.

OBJECTIVES: Most states now have lengthy learner periods for young, beginning drivers as part of their graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems. Although parents play a vital role during the learner stage of GDL by supervising driving practice, virtually nothing is known about the nature and quality of parental supervision. The objectives of this study were to investigate parents' supervisory behavior and parent-teen relationships during the learner stage of graduated licensing and to evaluate two approaches for assisting parents in supervising their teenager's early driving experience. METHODS: Families of teenagers applying for a learner permit received either a booklet describing highly structured practice sessions for beginning drivers, a series of "tip sheets" offering more generalized guidance, or no special materials. Questionnaires were sent separately to parents and teenagers three to six months after teenagers obtained their permit. RESULTS: Of 1,190 participating families, 653 parents (55%) and 609 teenagers (51%) responded. Both parents and teenagers perceived parents as supportive and helpful during driving sessions. Parents often demonstrated positive behaviors, such as complimenting their teenager and pointing out possible hazards; they also exhibited less desirable behaviors, such as raising their voice, but these were less frequent. A majority of parents (71%) and teenagers (52%) reported that they enjoyed spending this time together. About four months after obtaining a permit, most parents believed their teenager did not yet have enough experience and was not ready to drive unsupervised. Although the reported behaviors are encouraging, within-family agreement was low on most items. Finally, efforts to assist parents proved unsuccessful. Although parents thought the booklet and tip sheets were helpful, most used these materials only in a general way. CONCLUSIONS: The extended learning experience required by GDL programs is a positive experience for many families. However, finding a method for helping parents achieve maximum benefits during this process will be challenging. The results also suggest that current requirements in the learner phase of most state GDL systems (six months; 30-50 hours) may be inadequate to ensure that teenagers obtain a sufficient amount of experience to begin driving safely on their own.

Encouraging compliance with graduated driver licensing restrictions.

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.

Graduated driver licensing restrictions: awareness, compliance, and enforcement in North Carolina.

PROBLEM: This study examined the extent to which critical restrictions in North Carolina's graduated driver licensing (GDL) system are known, adhered to, and enforced. METHOD: Teenagers and their parents were recruited as they applied for either an intermediate or full license at 1 of 23 licensing offices. Telephone interviews were conducted with 900 teenagers and their parents. RESULTS: Awareness of North Carolina's night and passenger restrictions was very high among both parents and teenagers. Ten percent of teenagers reported violating the night restriction without their parents' knowledge, and 15% had done so with their parents' approval. Only 4% of parents reported allowing their teenagers to drive with more than one teenage passenger, but 19% of teenagers reported that they were allowed to do this. Violations of the passenger restriction without parental knowledge were more common than violations of the night restriction (22% vs. 10%, respectively). Among teenagers who violated restrictions without their parents' knowledge, most reported doing so only once or a few times. Teenagers expressed little concern about detection, although a majority reported driving more carefully to avoid police notice. Neither parents nor teenagers knew much about police enforcement of GDL restrictions. To obtain a sense of the views of law enforcement officers, informal interviews were conducted with 20 officers from five diverse communities and the state highway patrol. These officers were highly supportive of GDL but unfamiliar with many of the specific provisions. Moreover, enforcement of GDL restrictions did not appear to be a high priority. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: There is a need to increase the belief among teens (and parents) that police are enforcing GDL restrictions in their community; law enforcement participation in well-publicized traffic safety enforcement efforts would likely produce this result.