Michigan’s Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) and Beyond

1. 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

2. Overview • Michigan’s 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 Healthy Parent sign 6 hr class 24 hr class 6 hr driving Written exam

5. 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

6. Michigan’s 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) 286:1593-1598

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. Michigan’s 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) 35:337-344

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 • Can’t 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 Healthy Parent sign 6 hr class 24 hr class 6 hr driving Written exam

21. Michigan “Checkpoints One”Driver 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 Michigan’s driver education Segment 2 being evaluated with researchers and driver educators • If effective, could be implemented widely

27. Thank you! JShope@umich.edu