graduated driver licensing: an international review abstract · 2020. 3. 4. · graduated driver...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Graduated driver licensing: An international review
Abstract
Graduated Driver Licensing 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 novices to obtain practical
driving experience in lower risk situations. The learner licence can delay licensure, encourage
learning to drive under supervision, mandate the number of hours of practice required to
progress and encourage the involvement of parents. The second phase, the provisional
licence, reduces new drivers’ exposure to risky driving in situations such as at night, with
passengers, or after drinking alcohol, by putting various driving restrictions in place. Parental
involvement with Graduated Driver Licensing appears essential in helping novices obtain
sufficient practice and enforcing compliance with restrictions once the new driver obtains a
provisional licence.
Keywords: traffic accidents; public health; accident prevention; safety; automobile driving
Acknowledgements: The authors appreciate the feedback provided by the anonymous
reviewers and editors as part of the peer review process.
2
Introduction
Graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems use a public health approach to reduce
crash risk by focusing on reducing risk for new drivers as a group rather than the risk of
individual drivers.1,2 These systems minimise the exposure of novice drivers to risky
situations, while allowing them to obtain experience as drivers.3,4 The purpose of GDL is to
gradually introduce new drivers to more complex driving environments as they gain
experience.4,5
Typically, there are three stages in a GDL system: learner phase, intermediate or
provisional stage, and full licence.6 As new drivers demonstrate their experience in less
demanding stages, restrictions are lifted and new driving privileges introduced.7 The learner
phase allows the new driver to develop driving skills under the supervision of a more
experienced driver,8 while a provisional licence allows solo driving subject to restrictions.9 A
GDL system is not designed to reduce deliberate risk taking by new drivers. Instead, it
reduces crash risk caused by inexperience.10
New Zealand introduced the first GDL system in 1987 and since then its popularity
has grown, with jurisdictions within Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America
(USA), and Canada introducing forms of GDL.4,5 An increasing number of evaluations of
GDL systems indicate that this countermeasure is effective in reducing crash risk.11-14 In the
USA, the introduction of GDL systems has reduced the crash risk of the youngest newly
licensed drivers by 20 to 40 percent.15 Even when a basic GDL system is introduced, research
indicates that it reduces fatal crash involvement for 16 and 17 year old drivers when
compared with slightly older drivers. More comprehensive GDL systems result in larger
crash reductions.11 The available evidence suggests that when GDL systems only apply to
drivers aged up to 17 year old drivers, an increase in crashes for drivers aged 18 or 19 can
occur. Thus, there may be advantages in applying GDL systems to older novice drivers.16
3
Research suggests that GDL programs are beneficial both for the young licensed driver and
other road users.17 Evaluations of the New Zealand GDL system that occurred immediately
after its introduction demonstrated a reduction in casualty crashes of 25 percent.18 However,
the reduction in young driver crashes as a result of a GDL system may differ across racial or
ethnic groups.19
Within the Australian states of Queensland and Victoria, the introduction of more
comprehensive GDL systems is associated with reductions in fatal and serious injury
crashes.20,21 Other studies in various jurisdictions demonstrate a reduction on road crashes
attributable to GDL systems, however not as significantly as when it was first introduced.22,23
Road traffic crashes are an alarming public health issue throughout the world,24
including in Oman,25 despite ongoing improvements in traffic law enforcement practices and
technology. One of the main target groups for road safety in Oman are young drivers aged
17-25 years. According to the licensing system in Oman, as comprised in the Traffic Law, the
minimum age to apply for licence is 18 years, with a provision for an exception in some cases
where the minimum age may be 17. In a recent investigation examining the characteristics of
crashes in Oman involving young drivers over a three year period, Al-Reesi, Buckley 26
found that although young drivers aged 17-25 years comprise around 17% of all licence
holders, they represented more than one third of all drivers involved in road traffic crashes in
Oman. Specifically, these authors reported that of the total number of road traffic crashes in
Oman for the period 2009 to 2011 (N = 33,172), a total of 11,101 involved a young driver.
Examination of young drivers specifically revealed that 7,727 young drivers (69.6%) were
considered to be ‘at-fault’ at the time of the crash. There is a need to consider programs such
as GDL in order to improve young driver safety in Oman.
While research has confirmed, to varying degrees, the effectiveness of GDL
systems,27,28,3,4,29,30,14,15 there is limited evidence available regarding the mechanisms by
4
which they successfully reduce crashes and which particular components are most effective.15
The available research has suggested that requiring a learners permit for a minimum of 12
months, having a passenger restriction, and a night-time restriction component were the most
effective in reducing fatal crashes.31 This review is intended to provide an update on the
existing literature, with special attention given to the role of parents and enforcement related
issues.
The learner phase
The learner phase is designed to allow new drivers the opportunity to gain practical
driving experience with vehicle handling, the road environment and with the behaviour of
other drivers while under the supervision of a more experienced driver.2 This phase
recognises that individuals need to learn how to drive and to accumulate their initial driving
experience in lower risk situations with an experienced supervisor.1,8 It aims to provide
individuals with the experience and capabilities for when they drive by themselves.21 While
the learner phase is critical in a comprehensive GDL system,32 it is important to note that
supervised driving is inherently different from unaccompanied driving.2 Supervised driving is
designed to effectively teach and allow the learner to develop experience as a driver.33
Benefits from the learner phase may result through delayed licensure, the supervised learning
process, mandated hours of practice and the involvement of parents.
Delayed licensing
Delayed licensing occurs when learner drivers are delayed from being able to drive
without supervision for a time. It limits learners’ exposure to risky driving situations and
allows them time to mature thereby reducing crashes.34 Delayed licensing can include
increasing the amount of time that must be spent as a learner or raising the minimum age to
obtain a learner licence.35-37
5
Raising the licensing age from 16 years to 16½ years in New Jersey has been
associated with a seven percent lower fatal crash rate, while delaying the licensing age to 17
years was associated with a 13 percent lower fatal crash rate.3 An analysis of fatal crash rates
for 15, 16 and 17 year olds in the USA revealed that jurisdictions that allow individuals to
learn to drive and become licensed at an earlier age have higher crash rates.38 Additionally,
recent literature suggests that a GDL system that is inclusive of all ages reduces novice driver
crash risk, however conversely, a GDL system can increase the crash risk if it is only
applicable to those under 18 years.39
Furthermore, the length of time that the learner licence is valid provides another
method of delaying licensing. Learner licences that expire in a relatively short time period
may encourage individuals to become licensed near the expiration date due to the sense of
urgency that the short time frame creates. Allowing learners to drive on a licence that does
not expire for a significant time period does not create this pressure.38
Supervised learning
Higher order skills such as perception, attention and judgement develop over several
years in comparison to basic motor skills.40 The amount of practice required for learning to
drive is not known.34 Although new drivers’ ability improves over time, it does not equal the
ability of more experienced drivers in more complex driving situations. Research suggests
that the more supervised practice that a learner undertakes reduces their risk of crashing once
they commence solo driving.7
The amount of practice undertaken by learner drivers may be affected by a number of
factors. This includes increasing self-confidence as vehicle control skills improve, time
constraints including employment, social events, education, and holding the learner’s
licence.41 Research has identified that learners fail to gain much experience in potentially
6
higher-risk situations, such as driving in the rain or at night, however they quickly became
confident of their driving abilities by the time they reach the next stage of licensing.42,41 This
suggests that more hours of accompanied driving undertaken results in a more positive
perception of this period.43
Mandated hours of practice
Some jurisdictions require learners to obtain and record in a logbook a fixed number
of driving hours, with research suggesting that mandating a number of hours of supervised
practice increases the amount of practice undertaken.44,45 These requirements in the USA
vary from 20 to 65 hours.46 Some states within Australia require learner drivers to complete
significantly more practice. For instance, learner drivers in Victoria and New South Wales
must complete 120 hours while those in Queensland must record 100 hours.47 However, in
Queensland, learner drivers are able to record 3 hours within their log book for every hour
completed with a professional driving instructor up to 10 hours of practice or 30 log book
hours.33 This means that learner drivers in Queensland may be able to record 100 hours
within a log book with only 80 hours of practice undertaken. There appears to be little
research basis for the selection of particular time limits.48,2 although there is some research
support for learners obtaining close to 120 hours of practice, suggesting that supervised
learning reduced crash rates once the individual commenced driving on their own.49
Additionally, jurisdictions with 50 or more mandated hours of practice have higher levels of
parental involvement than those with less or no mandated hours.50
However, the mandated number of hours may imply to learners and their parents that
this is all the time it takes to learn the required driving skills and that it is a simple task that is
completed as soon as the learner requirements are fulfilled.2 Requiring new drivers to
7
complete a certain amount of practice may also delay licensing and thus reduce their
exposure to the risk of crashing.34
There are also a number of potential drawbacks involving parents in ensuring that
learner drivers obtain sufficient supervised practice.51 This includes that the supervised
practice may lack variety and parents may undertake many of the higher order driving tasks
on behalf of the learner, thereby preventing the development of skills in identifying hazards
and managing distractions. This concept is supported by the findings of research undertaken
in North Carolina which identified that parents of teenage learner drivers focussed on
teaching vehicle handling skills rather than higher-order perceptual and cognitive skills.52
Other potential drawbacks include little parental knowledge of the mandated number
of hours and parental perceptions of supervised practice.53 Research indicates that parents
find the log book system is not an effective measure of the amount of driving practice despite
reporting that their own child’s log book is accurate.54 However, the use of a log book to
record hours may help structure learners’ driving practice, allowing other supervisors to
know how much the learner had practiced.55
Research suggests that log books are not completed in voluntary systems.44,55 Before
completing a learner log book was a compulsory requirement within the Queensland GDL
system, two-thirds of participants within a study indicated that they were unaware that a
voluntary log book was available for completion.42
The provisional phase
An important component of effective GDL systems is the limiting of driving in high
risk situations for the first few months or years after the new driver receives their licence.38
The provisional phase is designed to reduce new drivers’ exposure to risky situations when
they first commence driving without supervision by limiting their driving in certain riskier
situations such as at night, with passengers, or after drinking alcohol.9
8
Night driving restrictions
Younger drivers are far more likely than older drivers to crash at night.38 Night
driving restrictions have been introduced in several jurisdictions including New Zealand as
well as numerous states in the USA.6 Restricting late night driving for young drivers is shown
to be effective in reducing crashes and young driver fatalities.56,4 A national study within the
United States of America suggested that the night time fatal crashes for 16 and 17 year old
drivers was reduced by approximately 10 per cent when compared with older peers.57 The
effectiveness of the night time driving restriction however, is affected by the time it starts, the
role of parents, and the availability of exemptions.37 Night time restrictions have shown to be
more effective when they restrict driving before midnight, and even with a 50 percent
compliance rate, are still effective in reducing crashes.58,59
Passenger restrictions
Drivers tend to exhibit safe driving behaviours such as wearing a seatbelt when they
are accompanied by passengers. The greater the number of passengers, the greater the
likelihood that safe driving behaviours will be displayed by the driver.60 Conversely, younger
drivers accompanied by younger passengers are more likely to cause a crash than any other
age group.61,60,38 The more young passengers present, the greater the crash risk both at night
and during the day.37 With a passenger restriction, while passengers under a certain age are
prohibited, family members are generally exempted from the restriction and are able to drive
with the provisional licence holder at all times.37
Research from New Zealand suggests there is a reduction in provisional licensed
driver crashes when a passenger restriction is in place.18 Evaluations conducted in the USA
have also found positive effects relating to the implementation of the passenger
9
restriction.4,30,37 Research from the United States of America suggests that GDL laws with no
teen passengers permitted are effective in reducing fatal crashes for 16 and 17 year old
drivers with teen passengers.Research from the United States of America suggests that any
peer passenger restriction, whether it allows no, one or two peer passengers, is effective in
reducing fatal crashes for 16 and 17 year old drivers.57 Provisional drivers are less likely to
comply with the passenger restriction than they are with a night driving restriction.37
However, one study calculated that even with a 50 percent compliance rate fatalities and
serious injuries to novice drivers reduced.58
Blood Alcohol Content restrictions
Young people drink and drive less frequently than adults but when they do drink and
drive, they have an increased risk.61,62 While Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) restrictions for
all drivers are frequently present in licensing systems, restricting BAC at a much lower level
is often part of a GDL system. All Australian states have BAC restrictions for provisional
drivers, although this restriction may sometimes only apply to drivers below a certain age.63
Additionally, New Zealand and jurisdictions within the USA and Canada also have BAC
restrictions.64,63 Research suggests that there is strong evidence that restricted BAC laws for
younger drivers are effective in reducing crash risk for new drivers.56
Mobile phone restrictions
Younger drivers are more likely than older drivers to use their mobile phone while
driving.65,66 One survey study of American college students found that they were more likely
to crash or nearly crash while talking on a mobile phone rather than when dialling or
answering their mobile phone.67 The introduction of mobile phone bans is designed to
counter the problem of distraction for new drivers.37 Research suggests that drivers that use
10
mobile phones (including texting) while driving may have an increased risk of crashing.68,69
The incorporation of a mobile phone ban into GDL systems has also been prompted by
research indicating that the use of hands-free mobile phone devices does not eliminate the
crash risk.70
Restrictions on mobile phone use are present in several USA and Australian
jurisdictions. These restrictions can be either for all drivers or just for newly licensed
drivers.47,37 Foss, Goodwin 71 examined mobile phone use and identified that the law had
little effect on the use of these devices by young drivers. The method of enforcement of this
restriction is likely to impact on its effectiveness.72,71 Public education campaigns that are
implemented in an evidence-based manner may be useful in reducing illegal mobile phone
use.73,74
Vehicle power restrictions
A vehicle power restriction is used to limit the type of car that a newly licensed driver
may drive.75 For instance, they may be restricted to a certain number of cylinders or a power-
to-weight ratio. The rationale for this restriction is that young drivers who have an above
average performance vehicle tend to have a more dangerous attitude to driving than other
young drivers.76 Vehicle power restrictions have existed for some time in Australia,75
however the effectiveness of this restriction in reducing crashes is at best limited. A recent
study suggests that, due to the low numbers of high powered vehicles driven by provisional
drivers, the reduction in injury rates from these restrictions ranges from .4 percent in New
Zealand to 2.5 percent in the Australian states of Queensland and Victoria, provided there
was 100 percent compliance with this restriction.75
P-plates
11
P-plates, also known as decals, are used to indicate to others that the driver of the
vehicle holds a provisional licence and is therefore not yet fully licensed.77 The mandatory
display of P-plates may increase compliance with,78 and enforcement of, other restrictions.4,79
They may also indicate to other drivers that the person holds a provisional licence and
encourage the driver to limit their risk taking behaviours.80 Additionally, the removal of the
requirement to display these plates could be seen as an incentive for provisional drivers.80
One study evaluated the decal law in New Jersey and found it positively affected
provisional drivers’ safety and reduced their crash rate by nine percent.77 The requirement to
display decals is not popular with young people in New Jersey.81 Focus groups with young
drivers in Queensland indicated that they felt that police may target them for enforcement
when they are required to display P-plates.82
Exit tests
The purpose of an exit test is to test a provisional driver before they obtain their full
driving licence. It is designed to ensure that the provisional driver is capable of holding a full
(unrestricted) licence83 and may highlight the fact that a provisional driver is still developing
their driving skills and abilities.6 Exit tests, like other tests within the licensing system, can
use a range of formats including knowledge tests, hazard perception tests or on-road driving
tests.63 One North American study identified that an exit test is beneficial as it reduces
relative fatality risk,30 although another review concluded that the effectiveness of driver
testing, including exit tests, is not known.84
Parental involvement
A key factor within GDL systems is the level of support that parents provide4,8 with
parental involvement impacting positively on the safety of young drivers.85 Parents involved
12
in the learning process tend to be strong supporters of GDL,86,4,87-89 however, while GDL
systems that implicitly encourage parental involvement are now implemented in many
jurisdictions, parents tend not to be systematically involved in the process.34 A criticism of
many studies is that they look at novice drivers in isolation, rather than the relationship
between novice drivers, their peers and their parents in a holistic way.90
Parental involvement in the learner phase
The involvement of parents in the learner phase is critical to the success of GDL
systems.4. The support of parents is necessary in order for the majority of learner drivers to
accrue sufficient driving experience41 with learners indicating that the cost of accessing
professional driving instructors as an alternative was prohibitively expensive.91 Young
drivers in GDL programs have increased parental driving instruction and supervised driving
during the learner phase92 with parents tending to take more time to supervise their learners
driving than required by law.45 Research suggests that, at least for the first four months of
supervised driving, parents tend to focus on vehicle handling and operation.93
It appears that mothers take responsibility for much of the supervision of learner
drivers. A study in North Carolina identified that mothers assumed most of the responsibility
for supervising the teenage driver when they were driving on a learner licence.52 Research
suggests that mothers appeared to be more safety conscious than fathers, and consider driving
at all stages of licensure riskier.94,88,89 Perhaps this explains why mothers are more likely to
delay driving privileges than fathers.88 Parents will continue to influence the newly licensed
driver’s behaviour once they progress to solo driving.90,95,96,2
Parental involvement in the provisional phase
13
Parental involvement does not cease once the new driver obtains their provisional
licence. Some authors argue that parental involvement is most important when young drivers
are able to drive solo.51 Parents can be involved by playing an active role in placing
restrictions on new drivers by enforcing the GDL requirements.92 However, parents and their
children may not agree on driving rules with parents tending to have stricter
interpretations.97,98 For these reasons, parents may not become actively involved in managing
their children’s driving.98
While nearly all parents place driving restrictions on their children, young drivers
who have been licensed under a GDL system report more restrictions on their driving by
parents.99,92 Research indicates that most parents set limits on newly licensed drivers,
although these limits tend not to be strict or maintained too long.100 The restrictions may also
be focussed on issues, such as obtaining permission to drive the car, that may not directly
affect crash risk.51
Young drivers with parents who have imposed stricter limits reported engaging in less
risky driving behaviour and had fewer traffic violations and crashes.101,51,102 While parental
limit setting does have some safety benefits, it appears that these benefits are modest, have a
limited time span and are not well enforced with clear consequences.51
Programs targeting parents
Programs that aim to develop parents’ skills and abilities to manage their child’s
progress through the GDL system are being developed. Given that siblings, parents, and other
family members reported that parental involvement in supervising learner driving should be
extensive, the need to increase parent education is important.103 Whilst many educational
programs are adopted for parents,104 the most common parent educational program is the
Checkpoints Program used in the USA which is designed to encourage parents to limit
14
driving under high risk conditions when their child is first licensed.4 The Checkpoints
Program uses videos, newsletters and a parent-teen driving agreement in order to encourage
parent monitoring of their child’s driving. Evaluations of this program identified that it was
effective in parental limit setting and on teenage risky driving behaviour and traffic offences
during the first 12 months of driving.51
Connecticut now requires a parent to complete training course at the commencement
of their child learning to drive. Research suggests that parents approve of the requirement to
attend the course and believe the training would help them in their role as supervisor of a
learner driver. Some parents stated that they were more likely to enforce the GDL rules as a
result of this course.105
Compliance and enforcement
Compliance
New drivers do not uniformly comply with all restrictions present in GDL systems
with the levels of compliance higher for some restrictions when compared with others. As an
example, new drivers are more likely to comply with a late night driving restriction than with
the peer passenger restriction.106 It appears that as novice drivers progress through their
provisional driving licence, they become less compliant with road laws.107
In North Carolina, 17 percent of learner drivers drove without a supervisor.108 In
Nova Scotia and California, approximately 40 percent of intermediate licensed drivers had
occasionally violated the night driving restriction. However, only 12 to 15 percent of drivers
on their intermediate licence violated the night driving restriction often.109,110 Despite the fact
that significant numbers of new drivers have, at some stage, not complied with a GDL
restriction, the laws are still successful in reducing crash risk for novice drivers.63
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of GDL systems will probably be enhanced by improving
15
compliance with the restrictions. Accordingly, it is important to examine the factors that
influence compliance rates.
Compliance with the GDL system is, to some extent, self-motivated. Individuals are
expected to conform to the laws as they represent the standard of behaviour. However, this
will not work if the GDL laws require new drivers to comply with standards that are not
considered ‘reasonable’ by the majority of new drivers. Compliance with the GDL system
can therefore be enhanced by ensuring that most new drivers consider the provisions
contained within the GDL system are reasonable.111
It appears as if parents also impact on the likelihood that their children will comply
with the road laws. Those novice drivers whose parents provide a strong supervision role
display a more negative attitude towards violating road rules. They also have less intention of
violating these laws.112
Enforcement of road laws
Generally speaking, the enforcement of traffic laws is the most common initiative
used to modify driver behaviour and thus reduce the incidences of crashes.113 However, the
provisions of a GDL system are difficult for police officers to enforce, particularly if they are
unable to recognise which driving restrictions apply to which licence.90,106 If police officers
do not have a full understanding of the GDL laws they may be placed in a difficult situation
when they attempt to enforce laws on new drivers who have a greater knowledge of the
laws.114
One study examined if publicity and increased enforcement increased compliance
with GDL restrictions. The program used mechanisms known to change driver behaviour in
other contexts. It resulted in a modest increase in infringement notices issued to novice
drivers, although virtually no tickets had been issued previously.114
16
GDL relies on parents to enforce the various provisions.105,1,88,111 Given the
difficulties involved with police enforcement, parents are implicitly expected to implement
driving restrictions and monitor compliance with these restrictions.115 Research has shown
that parents play a significant influence on the driving compliance of provisionally licensed
drivers, more than police.90 GDL programs provide parents with support in setting limits for
their children. GDL systems clearly identify the factors that are high-risk and establish clear
limits for parents on what is appropriate driving behaviour.99 Effective enforcement of GDL
provisions by parents requires them to be aware of the requirements of the GDL system in
their jurisdiction.105
Summary
GDL aims to gradually increase the exposure of new drivers to more complex driving
situations in as safe a manner as possible. GDL systems typically consist of learner,
provisional and open licence phases. The first phase of a GDL system, the learner licence, is
designed to allow new drivers to obtain practical driving experience in a lower risk situation.
Benefits from this phase may result from delayed licensure, the supervised learning process,
mandated hours of practice and the involvement of parents. The second phase of the GDL
system, the provisional licence, reduces new drivers’ exposure to risky driving in situations
such as at night, with passengers or after drinking alcohol. It manages this risk by putting
various driving restrictions in place. The involvement of parents with GDL appears essential.
They tend to have a heavy involvement in helping their learner obtain sufficient practice and
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.
17
Oman has an opportunity to apply the international research reviewed above and introduce
various aspects of GDL that have demonstrated crash reductions in other jurisdictions.
18
References
1. Shults RA. Foreword to 'Graduated driver licensing research, 2007-present: A review
and commentary'. Journal of Safety Research 2010.41:75.
2. Foss R. Improving graduated driver licensing systems: A conceptual approach and its
implications. Journal of Safety Research 2007.38(2):185-92.
3. McCartt A, Teoh ER, Fields M, Braitman KA, Hellinga LA. Graduated Licensing
Laws and Fatal Crashes of Teenage Drivers: A National Study. Traffic Injury
Prevention 2010.11(3):240 - 8.
4. Williams A, Shults RA. Graduated Driver Licensing Research, 2007–Present: A
Review and Commentary. Journal of Safety Research 2010.41:77-84.
5. Simpson HM. The evolution and effectiveness of graduated licensing. Journal of
Safety Research 2003.34:25-34.
6. Williams A, Mayhew D. Graduated Licensing: A Blueprint for North America.
Arlington: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; 2003 January.
7. Gulliver P, Begg D, Brookland R, Ameratunga S, Langley J. Learner driver
experiences and crash risk as an unsupervised driver. Journal of Safety Research
2013.46:41-6.
8. Mayhew D. The learner's permit. Journal of Safety Research 2003.34:35-43.
9. Preusser D, Leaf WA. Provisional license. Journal of Safety Research 2003.34:45-9.
10. Waller PF. The genesis of GDL. Journal of Safety Research 2003.34:17-23.
11. Fell J, Jones K, Romano E, Voas RB. An evaluation of graduated driver licensing
effects on fatal crash involvements of young drivers in the United States. Traffic
Injury Prevention 2011.12(5):423-31.
12. Masten SV, Foss R, Marshall S. Graduated driver licensing and fatal crashes
involving 16- to 19-year-old drivers. JAMA 2011.306(10):1098-103.
19
13. Williams A, Chaudhary N, Tefft B, Tison J. Evaluation of New Jersey’s graduated
driver licensing program. Traffic Injury Prevention 2010.11(1):1-7.
14. Neyens DM, Donmez B, Boyle LN. The Iowa graduated driver licensing program:
Effectiveness in reducing crashes of teenage drivers. Journal of Safety Research
2008.39(4):383-90.
15. Shope JT. Graduated driver licensing: Review of evaluation results since 2002.
Journal of Safety Research 2007.38(2):165-75.
16. Fell J, Romano E, Voas RB. A national evaluation of graduated driver licensing laws
in the United States. Papers presented at: 20th International Council on Alcohol,
Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference, 25-28 August; Brisbane, Australia; 2013.
17. Kirley BB, Feller A, Braver E, Langenberg P. Does the Maryland graduated driver
licensing law affect both 16-year-old drivers and those who share the road with them?
Journal of Safety Research 2008.39(3):295-301.
18. Begg DJ, Stephenson S. Graduated driver licensing: the New Zealand experience.
Journal of Safety Research 2003.34:99-105.
19. Romano E, Fell J, Voas RB. The role of race and ethnicity on the effect of graduated
driver licensing laws in the United States.
Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine 2011.55:51-61.
20. Newstead S, Scully M. Crash effects of the new Queensland Graduated Licensing
System: A preliminary evaluation. In: 2013 Australasian Road Safety Research,
Policing & Education Conference, 28 - 30 August; Brisbane, Australia; 2013.
21. Healy D, Catchpole J, Harrison W. Victoria's Graduated Licensing System Evaluation
Interim Report. Melbourne; 2012.
22. Rouse HL, Aitken ME, Lein SD, Leath KJ, Halverson P, Thompson JW. Statewide
policies for safer teen driving: An evaluation of the impact of graduated driver
20
licensing in Arkansas. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2013.75(4):S281-
S4.
23. Lewis-Evans B. Crash involvement during the different phases of the New Zealand
Graduated Driver Licensing System (GDLS). Journal of Safety Research
2010.41:359-65.
24. McIlvenny S. Road traffic accidents - A challenging epidemic. Sultan Qaboos
University Medical Journal 2006.6(1):1-5.
25. Al-Lamki L. Life loss and disability from traffic accidents: It is imperative we all act
now. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal 2010.10(1):1-5.
26. Al-Reesi H, Buckley L, Davey J, Al-Adawi S, Al Maniri A, Armstrong K, et al.
Analysis of young driver crashes in Oman. Oman: Research Council of Oman; 2013.
27. Lyon J, Pan R, Li J. National evaluation of the effect of graduated driver licensing
laws on teenager fatality and injury crashes. Journal of Safety Research 2012.43:29-
37.
28. Masten SV, Foss R. Long-term effect of the North Carolina graduated driver licensing
system on licensed driver crash incidence: A 5-year survival analysis. Accident
Analysis & Prevention 2010.42:1647-52.
29. Pressley J, Benedicto C, Trieu L, Kendig T, Barlow B. Motor vehicle injury, mortality
and hospital charges by strength of graduated driver licensing laws in 36 states.
Journal of Trauma, Infection and Critical Care 2009.67(1):s43-s53.
30. Vanlaar W, Mayhew D, Marcoux K, Wets G, Brijs T, Shope JT. An evaluation of
graduated driver licensing programs in North America using a meta-analytic
approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2009.41:1104-11.
21
31. Masten SV, Foss R, Marshall S. Graduated driver licensing program component
calibrations and their association with fatal crash involvement. Accident Analysis &
Prevention 2013.57:105-13.
32. Bates L, Watson B, King M. Driving and licensing experiences of learner drivers in
two Australian states prior to changes in the licensing laws. Journal of the
Australasian College of Road Safety 2009.20(3):51-5.
33. Scott-Parker B, Bates L, Watson B, King M, Hyde M. The impact of changes to the
graduated driver licensing program in Queensland, Australia on the experiences of
learner drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2011.43:1301-8.
34. Simons-Morton B. Parent involvement in novice teen driving: Rationale, evidence of
effects, and potential for enhancing graduated driver licensing effectiveness. Journal
of Safety Research 2007.38(2):193-202.
35. McCartt A, Farmer C, Jenness J. Perceptions and experiences of participants in a
study of in-vehicle monitoring of teenage drivers. Traffic Injury Prevention
2010.11(4):361-70.
36. Williams A. Licensing age and teenage driver crashes: A review of the evidence.
Traffic Injury Prevention 2009.10(1):9-15.
37. Williams A. Contribution of the components of graduated licensing to crash
reductions. Journal of Safety Research 2007.38(2):177-84.
38. Preusser D, Tison J. GDL then and now. Journal of Safety Research 2007.38(2):159-
63.
39. Ehsani JP, Bingham CR, Shope JT. Graduated Driver Licensing for new drivers:
Effects of three states' policies on crash rates among teenagers. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine 2013.45(1):9-18.
22
40. Sagberg F, Bjørnskau T. Hazard perception and driving experience among novice
drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2006.38(2):407-14.
41. Harrison WA. Investigation of the driving experience of a sample of Victorian learner
drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2004.36:885-91.
42. Bates L, Watson B, King M. Factors influencing learner driver experiences. Canberra:
Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local
Government; 2009.
43. Taubman-Ben-Ari O, Lotan T. The contribution of a novel intervention to enhance
safe driving among young drivers in Israel. Accident Analysis & Prevention
2011.43:352-9.
44. Bates L, Watson B, King M. Required hours of practice for learner drivers: A
comparison between two Australian jurisdictions. Journal of Safety Research
2010.41:93-7.
45. Waller PF, Olk ML, Shope JT. Parental views of and experience with Michigan's
graduated licensing program. Journal of Safety Research 2000.31(1):9-15.
46. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Young driver licensing systems in the U.S. .
2012 [cited 2012 18 September]; Available from:
http://www.iihs.org/laws/graduatedlicenseintro.aspx
47. Senserrick T. Australian Graduated Driver Licensing Systems. Journal of the
Australasian College of Road Safety 2009.20(1):20-6.
48. Bates L. The Experiences of Learner Drivers, Provisional Drivers and Supervisors
with Graduated Driver Licensing in Two Australian Jurisdictions. Brisbane:
University of Technology; 2012.
23
49. Gregersen NP, Berg H-Y, Engstrom I, Nolen S, Nyberg A, Rimmo P-A. Sixteen years
age limit for learner drivers in Sweden - An evaluation of safety effects. Accident
Analysis and Prevention 2000.32:25-35.
50. Jacobsohn L, Garcia-Espana J, Durbin DR, Erkoboni D, Winston FK. Adult-
supervised practice driving for adolescent learners: The current state and directions
for interventions. Journal of Safety Research 2012.43(1):21-8.
51. Simons-Morton B, Ouimet MC, Catalano RF. Parenting and the Young Driver
Problem. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008.35(3, supplement 1):s294-
s303.
52. Goodwin AH, Foss R, Margolis LH, Waller M. Parents, teens and the learner stage of
graduated driver licensing. Washington: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety; 2010.
53. O'Brien N, Foss R, Goodwin A, Masten SV. Supervised hours requirements in
graduated driver licensing: Effectiveness and parental awareness. Accident Analysis
& Prevention 2013.50:330-5.
54. Bates L, Watson B, King M. Parental perceptions of the learner driver log book
system in two Australian states. Traffic Injury Prevention in press.
55. Bates L, Watson B, King M. The structure of the learner licence affects the type of
experiences novices gain during this phase: Examples from Queensland and New
South Wales. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety 2008.19(4):36-42.
56. Carpenter D, Pressley JC. Graduated driver license nighttime compliance in U.S. teen
drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention
2013.56:110-7.
57. Fell J, Todd M, Voas RB. A national evaluation of the nighttime and passenger
restriction components of graduated driver licensing. Journal of Safety Research
2011.42:283-90.
24
58. Jones SJ, Begg DJ, Palmer SR. Reducing young driver crash casualties in Great
Britain – Use of routine police crash data to estimate the potential benefits of
graduated driver licensing. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety
Promotion 2012.1-10.
59. Russell KF, Vandermeer B, Hartling L. Graduated driver licensing for reducing motor
vehicle crashes among young drivers. The Crochane Library 2011.10.
60. Lee C, Abdel-Aty M. Presence of passengers: Does it increase or reduce driver's crash
potential? Accident Analysis & Prevention 2008.40(5):1703-12.
61. Bates L, Davey J, Watson B, King M, Armstrong K. Factors contributing to young
driver crashes: A review. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal in press.
62. Shope JT, Bingham CR. Teen Driving: Motor-Vehicle Crashes and Factors That
Contribute. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008.35(3, supplement 1):s261-
s71.
63. Senserrick T, Whelan M. Graduated Driver Licensing: Effectiveness of Systems and
Individual Components. Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre;
2003 October. Report No.:Report No. 209.
64. Carpenter C. Did Ontario's zero tolerance and graduated licensing law reduce youth
drunk driving? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2006.25(1):183-95.
65. Gauld CS, Lewis I, White KM. Concealing their communication: Exploring
psychosocial predictors of young drivers’ intentions and engagement in concealed
texting. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2014.62:285-93.
66. Bener A, Lajunen T, Ozkan T, Haigney D. The effect of mobile phone use on driving
style and driving skills. International Journal of Crashworthiness 2006.11(5):459-66.
25
67. Seo D, Torabi M. The impact of in-vehicle cell phone use on accidents or near-
accidents among college students. Journal of American College Health
2004.53(3):101-7.
68. Cazzulino F, Burke R, Muller V, Arbogast H, Upperman J. Cell phones and young
drivers: a systematic review regarding the association between psychological factors
and prevention. Traffic Injury Prevention in press.
69. Hafetz J, Jacobsohn L, Garcia-Espana J, Curry A, Winston FK. Adolescent drivers'
perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of abstention from in-vehicle cell
phone use. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2010.42:1570-6.
70. McEvoy S, Stevenson M, McCartt A, Woodward M, Haworth C, Palamara P, et al.
Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: A
case-crossover study. British Medical Journal 2005.331:428-30.
71. Foss R, Goodwin AH, McCartt A, Hellinga LA. Short-term effects of a teenage driver
cell phone restriction. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2009.41:419-24.
72. Curry A, Hafetz J, Kallan M, Winston FK, Durbin D. Prevalence of teen driver errors
leading to serious motor vehicle crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention
2011.43:1285-90.
73. Gauld C, Lewis I, White K. Concealed texting while driving: What are young
people’s beliefs about this risky behaviour? Safety Science 2014.65:63–9.
74. Fleiter J, Lewis I, Watson B. Promoting a more positive traffic safety culture in
Australia: Lessons learnt and future directions. In: 2013 Australasian College of Road
Safety Conference, 6-8 November 2013; National Wine Centre of Australia,
Adelaide, Australia; 2013.
26
75. Keall MD, Newstead S. The potential effectiveness of young driver high-performance
vehicle restrictions as used in Australia. Accident Analysis & Prevention
2013.52:154-61.
76. Clarke D, Ward P, Truman W. In-depth Accident Causation Study for Young Drivers.
United Kingdom; 2002. Report No.:TRL542.
77. Curry A, Pfeiffer M, Localio R, Durbin D. Graduated Driver Licensing Decal Law :
Effect on Young Probationary Drivers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine
2013.44(1):1-7.
78. Triggs TJ, Smith KB. Young Driver Research Program: Digest of Reports and
Principal Findings of the Research. Canberra: Federal Office of Road Safety; 1996.
Report No.:CR 164.
79. Harrison WA. Report on Review of Novice-Driver Road Safety Programs. Sydney:
NRMA Motoring and Services; 2003 March.
80. Senserrick T, Whelan M. Graduated Driver Licensing Systems. Melbourne: Monash
University Accident Research Centre; 2002 December.
81. Williams A, McCartt A. Views of New Jersey teenagers about their state's policies for
beginning drivers. Journal of Safety Research 2014.48:1-6.
82. Scott-Parker B, Bates L. "…it just feels like you are a suspect for everything":
Investigating young drivers' perceptions regarding their interactions with Police.
Police Practice and Research: An international journal under review.
83. Ferguson SA. Other high-risk factors for young drivers - how graduated licensing
does, doesn't, or could address them. Journal of Safety Research 2003.34(1):71-7.
84. Haire ER, Williams A, Preusser D, Solomon M. Driver license testing of young
novice drivers. Washington: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2011
February.
27
85. Taubman-Ben-Ari O, Katz-Ben-Ami K. Family climate for road safety: A new
concept and measure. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2013.54:1-14.
86. Brookland R, Begg DJ. Adolescent, and their parents, attitudes towards graduated
driver licensing and subsequent risky driving and crashes in young adulthood. Journal
of Safety Research 2011.42(2):109-15.
87. Campbell B, Chaudhary N, Saleheen H, Borrup K, Lapidus G. Does knowledge of
teen driving risks and awareness of current law translate into support for stronger
GDL provisions? Lessons learned from one state. Traffic Injury Prevention
2009.10(4):320-4.
88. Williams A, Leaf WA, Simons-Morton B, Hartos JL. Parents' views of teen driving
risks, the role of parents, and how they plan to manage the risks. Journal of Safety
Research 2006.37:221-6.
89. Ferguson SA, Williams A. Parents' views of driver licensing practices in the United
States. Journal of Safety Research 1996.27(2):73-81.
90. Allen S. What 'drives' compliance? : The deterrent effects of police and parents on the
driving compliance of Queensland provisionally licensed drivers. Mt Gravatt,
Queensland: Griffith University; 2013.
91. Scott-Parker B. Experiences of teen drivers and their advice for the Learner licence
phase. Traffic Injury Prevention in press.
92. Beck KH, Shattuck T, Raleigh R, Hartos JL. Does graduated licensing empower
parents to place greater restrictions on their newly licensed teens' driving? Health
Education and Behavior 2003.30:695-708.
93. Goodwin A, Foss R, Margolis LH, Harrel S. Parent comments and instruction during
the first four months of supervised driving: An opportunity missed? Accident
Analysis & Prevention 2014.69:15-22.
28
94. Bates L, Watson B, King M. Mothers Vs Fathers As Learner Driver Supervisors:
Time Commitment, Driving Activities And Perceptions Of Risk. In: 2013
Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing & Education Conference, 28 - 30
August; Brisbane, Australia; 2013.
95. Miller G, Taubman-Ben-Ari O. Driving styles among young novice drivers - The
contribution of parental driving styles and personal characteristics. Accident Analysis
& Prevention 2010.42:558-70.
96. Prato C, Toledo T, Lotan T, Taubman-Ben-Ari O. Modeling the behavior of novice
young drivers during the first year after licensure. Accident Analysis & Prevention
2010.42:480-6.
97. Brookland R, Begg D, Langley J, Ameratunga S. Parental influence on adolescent
compliance with Graduated Driver Licensing conditions and crashes as a restricted
licensed driver: New Zealand Drivers Study. Accident Analysis & Prevention
2014.69:30-9.
98. Beck KH, Hartos JL, Simons-Morton B. Parent-teen disagreement of parent-imposed
restrictions on teen driving after one month of licensure: Is discordance related to
risky teen driving? Prevention Science 2005.26(3):177-85.
99. Hartos JL, Simons-Morton B, Beck KH, Leaf WA. Parent-imposed limits on high-risk
adolescent driving: are they stricter with graduated driver licensing? Accident
Analysis & Prevention 2005.37(3):557-62.
100. Hartos JL, Eitel P, Haynie D, Simons-Morton B. Can I take the car? Relations among
parenting practices and adolescent problem-driving practices. Journal of Adolescent
Research 2000.15(3):352-67.
29
101. Ginsburg K, Durbin D, Garcia-Espana J, Kalicka E, Winston FK. Associations
between parenting styles and teen driving, safety-related behaviors and attitudes.
Pediatrics 2009.124:1040-51.
102. Simons-Morton B, Ouimet MC. Parent involvement in novice teen driving: a review
of the literature. Injury Prevention 2006.12(supplement 1):i30-7.
103. Bates L, Watson B, King M. The role of parents and non-parents in the supervision of
learner drivers in Australia. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2014.70:40-5.
104. Williams A, Tefft B, Grabowski DC. Graduated driver licensing research, 2010-
present. Journal of Safety Research 2012.43:195-203.
105. Chaudhary N, Williams A, Casanova T. Parents' attitudes about Connecticut's
required driver orientation course for parents. Traffic Injury Prevention
2010.11(5):478-82.
106. Hedlund J. Novice teen driving: GDL and beyond. Journal of Safety Research
2007.38(2):259-66.
107. Scott-Parker B, Watson B, King M, Hyde M. Young, inexperienced and on the road:
do novice drivers comply with road rules? Transportation Research Record 2012.
108. Foss R, Goodwin AH, Rodgman E, Feaganes J. Development and evaluation of the
North Carolina graduated driver licensing system. Chapel Hill, NC: University of
North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center; 2002.
109. Williams A, Nelson LA, Leaf WA. Responses of teenagers and their parents to
California's graduated licensing system. Accident Analysis and Prevention
2002.34:835-42.
110. Mayhew D, Simpson H, Ferguson SA, Williams A. Graduated driver licensing in
Nova Scotia: a survey of teenagers and parents. Journal of Traffic Medicine 1998.26
(1-2):37-44.
30
111. Foss R, Goodwin AH. Enhancing the effectiveness of graduated driver licensing
legislation. Journal of Safety Research 2003.34:79-84.
112. Desrichard O, Roche S, Begue L. The theory of planned behavior as mediator of the
effect of parental supervision: A study of intentions to violate driving rules in a
representative sample of adolescents. Journal of Safety Research 2007.38:447-52.
113. Bates L, Soole D, Watson B. The effectiveness of traffic policing in reducing traffic
crashes. In: Prenzler T, editor. Policing and Security in Practice: Challenges and
Achievements. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.
114. Goodwin AH, Wells JK, Foss R, Williams A. Encouraging compliance with
graduated driver licensing restrictions. Journal of Safety Research 2006.37:343-51.
115. Williams A, Chaudhary N. Views of Connecticut parents of teens and other adults
about graduated licensing upgrades. Traffic Injury Prevention 2008.9(6):503-7.