1 / 17

The impact of an enhanced graduated driver licensing program in Queensland

The impact of an enhanced graduated driver licensing program in Queensland. Mrs Bridie Scott-Parker. Overview. The Queensland graduated driver licensing (GDL) context (post-July 2007) The experiences of young Learner drivers

meredith-anchoret
Download Presentation

The impact of an enhanced graduated driver licensing program in Queensland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The impact of an enhanced graduated driver licensing program in Queensland Mrs Bridie Scott-Parker

  2. Overview • The Queensland graduated driver licensing (GDL) context (post-July 2007) • The experiences of young Learner drivers • Comparison of pre- (‘Original-GDL’) and post-July 2007 (‘Enhanced-GDL’) experiences • Post-July 2007 experiences • GDL-related issues • Other factors in young novice driver safety • Person-related factors • Social factors • Questions

  3. Methodologies: Pre- and Post-

  4. Results: Sociodemographics Bold font indicates a statistically-significant difference.

  5. Driving Practice Bold font indicates a statistically-significant difference. 6

  6. Duration, Difficulty and Tests Bold font indicates a statistically-significant difference.

  7. GDL-Related Issues [1] • When did Learners have most driving practice? • One third “throughout” the Learner period BUT • 50% of males & 60% of females “mainly at end” • Implications: Persistent practice effects vs ‘cramming’? • Continued practising after submitting logbook and waiting for practical driving assessment? • 95% yes • Implications: Delayed testing, ‘accruing hours’ focus? • Logbook accuracy • 83% logbook accurate (13% some rounding up, 4% included extra hours) • Risks associated with logbook inaccuracy? General riskiness?

  8. GDL-Related Issues • Compliance with GDL and general road rules • Pre-Licence driving: Reported by 12% of Learners • Unsupervised driving: Reported by 11% of Learners • Can GDL address these risky behaviours? • Role of parents? Inadequate supervision? • Difficulties detecting unlicensed driving/ plate compliance • ‘Problem young driver’: 13% of novices at highest risk • Can GDL address this group? Other interventions? • Speeding: 70% of Learners reported speeding by up to 10 km/hr, 32% by 10-20 km/hr, 13% by more than 20 km/hr • Learners continue speeding at greater amounts and more frequently as Provisional 1 drivers • Can GDL address speeding?

  9. GDL-Related Issues [2] • Punishment avoidance • Some Learners (and P1) drivers reported their parents took the demerit points on their behalf • Some Learners successfully talked themselves out of a ticket for the same offence on multiple occasions, or multiple simultaneous offences were missed by Police • One quarter of males reported actively-avoiding Police • Perceived as rewarding, so how do we address this? • Car ownership in Provisional 1 (P1) phase • 78% of P1 drivers have own car within six months • Owners report more crashes, offences, driving exposure, and risky driving • Can GDL ameliorate this risk?

  10. GDL-Related Issues [3] • Younger (17-18 years) vs Older (19-20 years) • Pre-Licence driving: 12% of younger and older • Unsupervised driving: 10% of younger, 20% of older novices • Learner duration: younger = 15 months; older = 25 months • Practice characteristics • ‘Difficult’ to obtain practice: 20% of younger; 38% of older novices • Parents/friends supervisors: younger = 90 hours; older = 84 hours • Professional instructor: younger = 10 hours; older = 14 hours • Logbook accurate: 84% of younger; 79% of older • Punishment avoidance • Avoid Police: 18% of younger; 28% of older (40% of older males)

  11. Personal Factors [1] • Sociodemographic characteristics • Gender: Males consistently more risky (e.g., speeding, unsupervised driving, actively avoiding Police) • Age: ‘Younger’ young novice drivers reported more speeding, ‘older’ reported more difficulty practising, longer Learner period and more logbook inaccuracy • Attitudes: More risky attitudes, more risky driving; develop before licensed • Willingness: Novices report greater willingness than intentions to be risky • How can GDL address these?

  12. Personal Factors [2] • Psychological state • Psychological distress (anxiety, depression) • Depression, anxiety predictors of risky driving • Depression predictor of speeding • Suggests a need for countermeasures to complement GDL • Emotional driving • Sensation seeking (personality trait) • Upset so ‘get in car and drive’ • Become upset whilst driving • More risky driving behaviour • Can GDL address this?

  13. Social Factors [1] • Parents and Peers • Social environment exposes adolescent to attitudes and behaviours regarding road use • Dynamics of adolescence • Influence adolescents’ attitudes and behaviours • Observe their attitudes and behaviours • See the consequences for these (punishments/ rewards) • Imitate their driving behaviour • Receive punishments and rewards for their own driving and this has considerable implications for risky driving • ‘Cool’ status in social group, teased for not showing off • Confiscate mobile phone for risky driving

  14. Social Factors [2] • Interviews and surveys: Parents and peers • Models to imitate or ignore; sources of punishments and rewards (dependent upon outcome of behaviour: ‘bad’ vs ‘not bad’) • Parents • Unlikely to impose additional punishments • Some facilitated punishment avoidance • Some low-quality supervision of Learner driving (eg, speeding) • How can GDL address parent influence? • Peers • Likely to encourage and to reward risky behaviour • Can effectively punish/ discourage risky behaviour but unlikely to do so (age of friends appeared important) • Apart from passenger restrictions, how can GDL address peer influences?

  15. Strengths and Limitations • Self-report data (surveys, interviews) • Difficult to investigate any other way • Low response in online surveys, high attrition for longitudinal research, despite incentives • Flooding during longitudinal second-wave • Greater participation of females • Moderation analyses • Generalisability of findings • Small, matched sample for GDL-comparison, results need to be confirmed by larger-scale evaluations • Longitudinal research participants’ reflected Queensland ‘s ARIA profile

  16. Questions? Contact Details:Bridie Scott-Parker, PhD Candidate under examination. Email: b.scott-parker@qut.edu.au Acknowledgements: • Supervisory team: Prof Barry Watson, Dr Mark King, Dr Melissa Hyde • Pre-July 2007 GDL data: Dr Lyndel Bates Mark your Diaries! International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference (T2013) 25-28 August 2013, Brisbane

More Related