Young and novice drivers - Dr Shaun Helman

“That youthful drivers…are over- represented in accidents, fatal accidents, and in fatalities, considerably beyond their proportion in the driving population, has been well known for several decades…” Goldstein (1972) Goldstein, L. G. (1972). Youthful drivers as a special safety problem. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 4(3),

What we know What we need to find out What we have done (in GB) What we need to do (in GB) Conclusion

What we know What we need to find out What we have done (in GB) What we need to do (in GB) Conclusion

What we know – AGE

What we know – EXPERIENCE (POST-TEST)

What we know – EXPERIENCE (PRE-TEST) Gregersen, N. P., Berg, H. Y., Engström, I., Nolén, S., Nyberg, A., & Rimmö, P. A. (2000). Sixteen years age limit for learner drivers in Sweden—an evaluation of safety effects. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32(1),

What we know – EXPERIENCE (PRE-TEST) Sexton, B. & Grayson, G. B. (2010). Further analyses of accident data from the Cohort II study: when do drivers have their first accident and does it have an impact on their subsequent driving? TRL published report (PPR426). Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

What we know – CRASH TYPES (WHEN)

What we know – CRASH TYPES (WHERE)

What we know – CRASH TYPES (WHY) Contributory factorAged Aged 25+ Slippery road (due to weather)8.7%3.8% Exceeding speed limit5.5%1.7% Travelling too fast for conditions 7.8%2.7% Loss of control12.9%5.4% Total number of car (car, taxi minibus) drivers in collisions with contributory factors and attended by the police in 2014

What we know What we need to find out What we have done (in GB) What we need to do (in GB) Conclusion

What we know What we need to find out What we have done (in GB) What we need to do (in GB) Conclusion

What we have done – ‘BOTTLING’ EXPERIENCE

What we have done – HAZARD PERCEPTION

Wells, P., Tong, S., Sexton, B., Grayson, G., & Jones, E. (2008). Cohort II: a study of learner and new drivers. Volume 1—Main Report (No. 81). Road Safety Research Report.

What we have done – HAZARD PERCEPTION 8,535 Weekley, J. Carroll, J., Dunford, A., Grayson, G. and Helman, S. (2014). The value of TRL science. Client Project Report (CPR1900). Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

What we have done – HAZARD PERCEPTION Weekley, J. Carroll, J., Dunford, A., Grayson, G. and Helman, S. (2014). The value of TRL science. Client Project Report (CPR1900). Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory. 1,076

What we have done – HAZARD PERCEPTION Weekley, J. Carroll, J., Dunford, A., Grayson, G. and Helman, S. (2014). The value of TRL science. Client Project Report (CPR1900). Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory. £89,558,120

What we have done – INDEPENDENT DRIVING

Transforming the practical driving test – trial

Transforming the practical driving test  We know that more supervised practice before becoming licenced is protective -Gregersen et al. (2000)  We also know that more varied practice in some situations is protective -Sexton and Grayson (2010b)

Transforming the practical driving test  Can the test promote more/more varied practice?  Design learner drivers -Recruited into study when learning to drive (recruited by ADIs) -Randomly assigned to take old or new test -Test performance, and attitudes/behaviour variables, measured at test pass (along with learning to drive experience) -Another survey at six months post-licence also measures accidents, and kinds of driving undertaken

Transforming the practical driving test Registration survey New test Old test Test pass Learning to drive survey Novice driver survey Six months Focus groups

Transforming the practical driving test  New test -Designed to promote more practice on wider variety of roads -Includes satellite navigation system to maximise route choice and make test ‘more like real driving’ -Some new manoeuvres  Because of random group assignment, we will be able to separate the effects of self-selection from effects of the test -Should also be able to examine direct impacts of the test on practice, and on behaviour, performance and injury variables

Findings – group matching  Groups are matched on variables such as age, gender, access to a vehicle, and sensation seeking (personality trait)  Thus we can be confident that any group differences are not due to these variables

Findings – interviews and focus groups  ADIs, learners and supervising drivers described the new test as being better-aligned to post-test driving “It sounds as if they’re trying to make it relevant to how the roads are today. It sounds as if they are trying to update some of the manoeuvres and techniques to make it more relevant and safe for today, which is a good thing.” Supervising driver “I think the other test is a bit outdated, the new one would be a more relevant way for people to learn…it’s just a bit more streetwise really” Revised test passer

Findings – pass rate  Pass rate is the same for both groups  Self-reported ratings of difficulty are also the same

Findings – training  Several differences in training, all suggesting that the revised test is indeed promoting a slightly different training experience than the existing test – encouraging findings  Also some differences in attitudinal variables and self-reported behavioural intentions – again in line with what we would want to see – encouraging findings

What we know What we need to find out What we have done (in GB) What we need to do (in GB) Conclusion

What we know What we need to find out What we have done (in GB) What we need to do (in GB) Conclusion

What we need to find out – RISK LEVELS Wells, P., Tong, S., Sexton, B., Grayson, G., & Jones, E. (2008). Cohort II: a study of learner and new drivers. Volume 1—Main Report (No. 81). Road Safety Research Report = 19 (or approximately 1 in 5)

What we need to find out – INDIVIDUALS The young driver problem? The problem young driver?

What we need to find out – INDIVIDUALS Tapp, A., Pressley, A., Baugh, M., & White, P. (2013). Wheels, skills and thrills: A social marketing trial to reduce aggressive driving from young men in deprived areas. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 58,

What we need to find out – LEARNING

Helman, S., Kinnear, N. A., McKenna, F. P., Allsop, R. E., & Horswill, M. S. (2013). Changes in self- reported driving intentions and attitudes while learning to drive in Great Britain. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 59, MeasureScore learning Score post- test Impact Speed Less safe Close following Safer Overtaking Safer Thrill- seeking (DSI) Less safe

What we need to find out – TRAINING “The only direct benefits imparted by broad driver education and training would appear to be the basic vehicle control skills and knowledge of road rules necessary for entering the driving population. According to the evidence it has no measurable direct effect on collision risk, and its continued use should therefore be set against much lower expectations in terms of what it can contribute directly to the safety of new drivers.” Helman, Grayson and Parkes (2010, p8) Helman, S., Grayson, G. B., & Parkes, A. M. (2010). How can we produce safer new drivers. TRL Report. INS05: Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

What we know What we need to find out What we have done (in GB) What we need to do (in GB) Conclusion

What we need to do – EVALUATION “Provision of pre-driver education and training interventions is widespread in GB…In those interventions that have been evaluated, some short-term positive effects have been shown on attitudes towards road safety, but these tend not to last beyond a few months, are not consistent, and do not guarantee safety benefits. There are plausible and demonstrable mechanisms by which such interventions can cause harm...” Kinnear et al. (2013, p iv-v) Kinnear, N., Lloyd, L., Helman, S., Husband, P., Scoons, J., Jones, S., Stradling, S., McKenna, F. and Broughton, J. (2013). Novice drivers: evidence review and evaluation – pre- driver education and training, graduated driver licensing, and the New Drivers Act. Published Project Report (PPR673). Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

What we need to do – EVALUATION Glad, A. (1988). Phase 2 driver education, effect on accident risk. Oslo, Norway: Transport Institute.

What we need to do – EVALUATION Glendon, A. I., McNally, B., Jarvis, A., Chalmers, S. L., & Salisbury, R. L. (2014). Evaluating a novice driver and pre- driver road safety intervention.Accident Analysis & Prevention, 64, Fig. 2. Significant Time × Group interaction in overall attitudes toward unsafe driving

Review of young and novice driver interventions

Review – young and novice driver interventions 1.To conduct an evidence base review, which builds on the existing evidence, helping to understand the effectiveness of pre- and post-test interventions, in terms of their ability to influence the attitudes and behaviours of young and novice drivers 2.To prioritise and shortlist those interventions that may have the greatest potential to reduce collision rates among this group

Review – young and novice driver interventions Review evidence Review behavioural literature Prepare ‘long list’ Prepare ‘medium list’ Prepare ‘short list’ Score interventions found in first literature review – relevance and design quality Three to five interventions To establish which non-collision measures (‘risk factors’) have clear links with injuries and collision outcomes For discussion at the expert workshop Effectiveness of pre- and post-test interventions for young and novice drivers against appropriate outcome measures

What we need to do – GDL Kinnear, N., Lloyd, L., Helman, S., Husband, P., Scoons, J., Jones, S., Stradling, S., McKenna, F. and Broughton, J. (2013). Novice drivers: evidence review and evaluation – pre-driver education and training, graduated driver licensing, and the New Drivers Act. Published Project Report (PPR673). Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory.

What we need to do – GDL Kinnear, N., Lloyd, L., Helman, S., Husband, P., Scoons, J., Jones, S., Stradling, S., McKenna, F. and Broughton, J. (2013). Novice drivers: evidence review and evaluation – pre-driver education and training, graduated driver licensing, and the New Drivers Act. Published Project Report (PPR673). Crowthorne: Transport Research Laboratory. £89,558,120 £224,000,000

What we need to do – WIDER CONTEXT/MEDIA Hinchcliff, R., Poulos, R., Ivers, R. Q., & Senserrick, T. (2011). Understanding novice driver policy agenda setting. Public health, 125(4), “If the public perceive there’s a problem because they’re hearing more about it then the [policy] drivers kick in… there were a number of crashes in close succession… The public’s awareness had been raised... It gets picked up, someone starts moving it more…then it builds momentum…” (Hinchcliff et al., 2011, p221)

What we need to do – WIDER CONTEXT/MEDIA Hinchcliff, R., Poulos, R., Ivers, R. Q., & Senserrick, T. (2011). Understanding novice driver policy agenda setting. Public health, 125(4), “We have to thank all those young drivers that have been injured and killed because without those events, we may have still been complacent. Things had to get worse before they got better. The carnage had to continue until a point where the community wouldn’t accept it.” (Hinchcliff et al., 2011, p221)

What we know What we need to find out What we have done (in GB) What we need to do (in GB) Conclusion

What we know What we need to find out What we have done (in GB) What we need to do (in GB) Conclusion

“It is not news that youth is a time of turbulence. It is not new that learners of a task make more errors, have less dependable skill and judgment and foresight than older, experienced hands…They need help.” Goldstein (1972) Goldstein, L. G. (1972). Youthful drivers as a special safety problem. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 4(3),

Thank you Young Driver Focus 2016 Young and Novice Drivers Presented by Shaun Helman Head of Transport Psychology – 20/04/2016 Tel: