Michigans Graduated Driver Licensing GDL and Beyond

1
Michigans 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

2
Overview

• Michigans GDL evaluation
• Other jurisdictions GDL evaluations
• National GDL evaluations
• Program to enhance parental involvement

3
Background

• US MVC injury leading cause of teen deaths
• Crash risk highest first few months driving solo
• 1996-2007 GDL adopted by nearly all states
• Under 18 years old
• 3-stage license process
• Extended learner phase (practice requirements)
• Restrictions in intermediate phase (night ,
  passenger)

4
Michigan GDL/Driver EducationApril 1, 1997
Drive only with parent or adult
Drive alone Night restriction
No restrictions
Level 1 License 14 yr 9 mo
Level 2 License 16 yr
Level 3 License 17 yr
Segment 1 Driver Education
Segment 2 Driver Education
6 mo Level 1 Driven 50 hr Road test 90 day
clean Parent sign
6 mo Level 2 12 mo clean
24 hr class 6 hr driving Written exam
6 hr class
Healthy Parent sign
5
Parental Experience with Michigans 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)
319-15
6
Michigans GDL Early Impact on MVCs Among
16-Year-Olds1996 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)
  2861593-1598

7
All Crashes Counts, Pop Rates, Licensee Rates
Shope, Molnar. Journal of Safety Research 35
(2004) 337-344.
8
Casualty Crashes Counts, Pop Rates, Licensee
Rates
Shope, Molnar. Journal of Safety Research 3
(2004) 337-344.
9
Michigans GDL First Four Years 16 yo MVCs 1996
vs 1998-2001

• 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)
35337-344
10
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

11
Novice Teen Driving/GDLInvited Symposium

• February 5-7, 2007 in Tucson
• Shope Review of GDL evaluations
• Williams Components of GDL
• Papers to be published in April
• Journal of Safety Research

12
GDL Evaluation Results (20) Individual
Jurisdiction Studies

• Cant compare - different pre/post programs
  evals
• Consistent positive findings
• Substantial crash reductions from 19 of 20
  studies (20-40)
• Convictions down in Iowa
• Hospitalization and charges down in NC
• California studies differing methods and
  results

13
GDL Evaluation Results (6) Nationwide Studies

• Consistent, positive findings
• Reductions 6 (15-17 yo traffic fatalities) to
  40 (16 yo driver involvement in injury crashes)
• Greater reductions found with stronger GDL
  programs
• Greater reductions among teen vs. older drivers
• No increase in crash risk for 17 or 18 yo
• No male/female differences in reductions

14
What in GDL works?

• Whole program works as a package
• GDL programs with recommended components more
  effective
• Learner 16 yrs, minimum 6 months, 30 hours
  practice
• Intermediate
• Night restriction start 10 pm
• Passenger restriction - no more than one teen
  except family
• Effectiveness of each component?
• Allan Williams paper (April J Safety Research)

15
How do we enhance GDL?

• Even with GDL, teen drivers still crash
• Based on research, enact the best GDL program
• Implement the program well
• Enhance parent involvement

16
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
17
Checkpoints Program

• Parent-Teen Written Driving Agreement
• Initially
• low-risk conditions, can drive alone
• high-risk conditions, with adult
• Later, increase privileges with experience and
  responsible behavior

18
Checkpoints Program

• Persuasive Communications (mailed/DMV)
• Video
• Newsletters
• Agreement
• 3 studies completed (CT, MD)
• 1 study underway (RI)
• 2 studies underway (MI)

19
Checkpoints Study Results(Simons-Morton
Colleagues)

• Parents set limits on teen drivers
• Nearly all set limits not strict rapid decline
  (Prev Sci 2001, Inj Prev 2004, Am J Pub Hlth
  2005)
• More limits set in GDL vs non-GDL state (Acc Anal
  Prev 2005)
• 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)

20
Michigan GDL/Driver Education
CHECKPOINTS
Drive only with parent or adult
Drive alone Night restriction
No restrictions
Level 1 License 14 yr 9 mo
Segment 2 Driver Education
Level 2 License 16 yr
Level 3 License 17 yr
Segment 1 Driver Education
6 mo Level 1 Driven 50 hr Road test 90 day
clean Parent sign
6 mo Level 2 12 mo clean
24 hr class 6 hr driving Written exam
6 hr class
Healthy Parent sign
21
Michigan Checkpoints OneDriver
Education(NICHD-funded)

• Randomized controlled trial
• Driver education setting
• Timing just prior to independent driving
• Ensure parent/teen complete agreement
• Conditions/privileges (night, passengers,
  weather, roads)
• Rules check in, risks, traffic laws (alcohol,
  safety belts)

22
Checkpoints One Intervention

• Recruited from Segment 2 classes (Sears)
• Parent/teen session (30 minutes) taught by health
  educator (research staff) at end of Segment 2
• Baseline survey, video, agreement
  discussed/completed
• Mailing 1 week prior to expected Level 2 license
  date
• Newsletter, agreement

23
Checkpoints One Status

• Enrollment 326 parent-teen dyads
• Telephone surveys licensure, 3 6 mo after
• Teens most at Level 2 licensure in follow-up
• Results soon from baseline and licensure surveys

24
Michigan Checkpoints Two (CDC/NCIPC-funded)

• Randomized controlled design
• Baseline survey by mail ask expected license
  date
• Driver educators trained to teach parent/teen
  session (30 minutes) in Segment 2
• Video, persuasion, agreement discussed/completed
• Booklet / agreement
• Telephone surveys licensure, 3 6 months after

25
Checkpoints Two Status

• Permission granted for Checkpoints in Segment 2
• Driving schools recruited and randomized (8)
• Training video, materials developed
• Driver educators trained
• First classes scheduled
• Recruitment starting soon

26
Summary

• GDL reduces teen driver crashes and consequences
• More needed, especially in first six months
  driving solo
• Parental involvement, limit-setting important
• Checkpoints approach effective
• Checkpoints in Michigans driver education
  Segment 2 being evaluated with researchers and
  driver educators
• If effective, could be implemented widely

27
Thank you! JShope_at_umich.edu