Michigan’s Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) and Beyond Jean T. Shope, MSPH, PhD Michigan Traffic Safety Summit March 15, 2007 Support: NHTSA, NIH, CDC/NCIPC, NSC Colleagues: Waller, Molnar, Zakrajsek, Bingham, Elliott, Simons-Morton
Overview n Michigan’s GDL evaluation n Other jurisdictions’ GDL evaluations n National GDL evaluations n Program to enhance parental involvement
Background n US: MVC injury leading cause of teen deaths n Crash risk highest first few months driving solo n : GDL adopted by nearly all states o Under 18 years old o 3-stage license process o Extended learner phase (practice requirements) o Restrictions in intermediate phase (night, passenger)
Segment 1 DriverEducation Level 1 License 14 yr 9 mo Segment 2 DriverEducation Level 2 License 16 yr Level 3 License 17 yr 24 hr class 6 hr driving Written exam Drive only with parent or adult 6 hr class Drive alone Night restriction Michigan GDL/Driver Education April 1, 1997 No restrictions Healthy Parent sign 6 mo Level 1 Driven 50 hr Road test 90 day clean Parent sign 6 mo Level 2 12 mo clean
Parental Experience with Michigan’s GDL Program (July 1998 Survey) Hours of practice: 9% less than required 23% required 50 hours 68% more (mean = 75.3 hours) Quality of GDL experience: 97% good/very good Waller, Olk, Shope. J Safety Research (2000) 31:9-15
Michigan’s GDL: Early Impact on MVCs Among 16-Year-Olds 1996 vs 1999 crash data, adjusted All crashes: down 25% Fatal plus nonfatal injury crashes: down 24% Night crashes: down 53% Shope, Molnar, Elliott, Waller. JAMA (2001) 286:
All Crashes: Counts, Pop Rates, Licensee Rates Shope, Molnar. Journal of Safety Research 35 (2004)
Casualty Crashes: Counts, Pop Rates, Licensee Rates Shope, Molnar. Journal of Safety Research 3 (2004)
Michigan’s GDL: First Four Years: 16 yo MVCs 1996 vs Significant crash reductions maintained (2001 all crashes down 19%, adjusted) Reductions in #, crashes/population, crashes/driver Reductions in both sexes, but men still higher Evening crash reduction not significant after adjusting (3 X that of 25+ yo) Crashes with passenger reduced (3 X that of 25+ yo) Lower proportion of 16-year-olds licensed Shope, Molnar. J Safety Research (2004) 35:
Updated Michigan GDL Results Age of licensure increased somewhat Time in each GDL level exceeds minimum Number of crashes per driver less each GDL year Time until first crash/offense longer each GDL year Time until first injury crash: Each cohort longer than pre-GDL Each cohort longer than previous cohort
Novice Teen Driving/GDL Invited Symposium n February 5-7, 2007 in Tucson n Shope: Review of GDL evaluations n Williams: Components of GDL n Papers to be published in April n Journal of Safety Research
GDL Evaluation Results (20): Individual Jurisdiction Studies n Can’t compare - different pre/post programs & evals n Consistent positive findings o Substantial crash reductions from 19 of 20 studies (20%-40%) o Convictions down in Iowa o Hospitalization and charges down in NC n California studies: differing methods and results
GDL Evaluation Results (6): Nationwide Studies n Consistent, positive findings n Reductions 6% (15-17 yo traffic fatalities) to 40% (16 yo driver involvement in injury crashes) n Greater reductions found with stronger GDL programs n Greater reductions among teen vs. older drivers n No increase in crash risk for 17 or 18 yo n No male/female differences in reductions
What in GDL works? n Whole program works as a package n GDL programs with recommended components more effective o Learner: 16 yrs, minimum 6 months, 30+ hours practice o Intermediate: Night restriction start 10 pm Passenger restriction - no more than one teen except family n Effectiveness of each component? o Allan Williams’ paper (April J Safety Research)
How do we enhance GDL? n Even with GDL, teen drivers still crash n Based on research, enact the best GDL program n Implement the program well n Enhance parent involvement
Checkpoints Program Developed by: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development (Bruce Simons-Morton & colleagues) Purpose: To facilitate parental management of teen driving and reduce adolescent driving risk
Checkpoints Program Parent-Teen Written Driving Agreement n Initially: o low-risk conditions, can drive alone o high-risk conditions, with adult n Later, increase privileges with experience and responsible behavior
Checkpoints Program n Persuasive Communications (mailed/DMV) o Video o Newsletters o Agreement n 3 studies completed (CT, MD) n 1 study underway (RI) n 2 studies underway (MI)
Checkpoints Study Results (Simons-Morton & Colleagues) n Parents set limits on teen drivers o Nearly all set limits; not strict; rapid decline (Prev Sci 2001, Inj Prev 2004, Am J Pub Hlth 2005) o More limits set in GDL vs non-GDL state (Acc Anal Prev 2005) n Greater parent limits associated with less risky driving, fewer violations and crashes (J Adol Res 2000, Prev Sci 2001, Hlth Ed Behav 2002, Traffic Inj Prev 2006)
Segment 1 DriverEducation Level 1 License 14 yr 9 mo Segment 2 DriverEducation Level 2 License 16 yr Level 3 License 17 yr 24 hr class 6 hr driving Written exam Drive only with parent or adult 6 hr class Drive alone Night restriction Michigan GDL/Driver Education No restrictions Healthy Parent sign 6 mo Level 1 Driven 50 hr Road test 90 day clean Parent sign 6 mo Level 2 12 mo clean CHECKPOINTS
Michigan “Checkpoints One” Driver Education (NICHD-funded) n Randomized controlled trial n Driver education setting n Timing just prior to independent driving n Ensure parent/teen complete agreement o Conditions/privileges (night, passengers, weather, roads) o Rules: check in, risks, traffic laws (alcohol, safety belts)
“Checkpoints One” Intervention n Recruited from Segment 2 classes (Sears) n Parent/teen session (30 minutes) taught by health educator (research staff) at end of Segment 2 o Baseline survey, video, agreement discussed/completed n Mailing 1 week prior to expected Level 2 license date o Newsletter, agreement
“Checkpoints One” Status n Enrollment: 326 parent-teen dyads n Telephone surveys: licensure, 3 & 6 mo after n Teens: most at Level 2 licensure; in follow-up n Results soon from baseline and licensure surveys
Michigan “Checkpoints Two” (CDC/NCIPC-funded) n Randomized controlled design n Baseline survey by mail; ask expected license date n Driver educators trained to teach parent/teen session (30 minutes) in Segment 2 o Video, persuasion, agreement discussed/completed o Booklet / agreement n Telephone surveys: licensure, 3 & 6 months after
“Checkpoints Two” Status n Permission granted for Checkpoints in Segment 2 n Driving schools recruited and randomized (8) n Training video, materials developed n Driver educators trained n First classes scheduled n Recruitment starting soon
Summary n GDL reduces teen driver crashes and consequences n More needed, especially in first six months driving solo n Parental involvement, limit-setting important n Checkpoints approach effective n Checkpoints in Michigan’s driver education Segment 2 being evaluated with researchers and driver educators n If effective, could be implemented widely
Thank you!