220 likes | 354 Views
Graduated driver licensing: Recent research undertaken at the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q) . Prof Barry Watson, Mrs Bridie Scott-Parker . Acknowledgements. Research Team Dr Lyndel Bates (former-PhD Candidate)
E N D
Graduated driver licensing: Recent research undertaken at the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q) Prof Barry Watson, Mrs Bridie Scott-Parker
Acknowledgements • Research Team • Dr Lyndel Bates (former-PhD Candidate) • Bridie Scott-Parker (PhD Candidate-under-examination) • Prof Barry Watson (Principal Supervisor) • Dr Mark King (Associate Supervisor) • Dr Melissa Hyde (Associate Supervisor)
Overview of Research • Project 1 Comparing the experience of Learners in Queensland and New South Wales pre-July 2007 Dr Lyndel Bates • Project 2 Comparing Queensland pre- and post-July 2007 PhD candidate-under-examination Mrs Bridie Scott-Parker
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 compared with pre-July 2007, Victoria • The experiences of young Learner drivers • Comparison of pre- and post-July 2007 experiences • Post-July 2007 experiences • GDL-related issues • Other factors in young novice driver safety • Person-related factors • Social factors • Questions
Methodologies: Pre- and Post- * Small group interviews (n =21)
GDL-Related Issues [1] • When did Learners have most driving practice? • One third “from the beginning” 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?
GDL-Related Issues [2] • Logbook accuracy • 83% logbook accurate • 13% some rounding up • 4% included extra hours • Risks associated with logbook inaccuracy? General riskiness? • ‘Problem young driver’ • 13% of novices at highest risk (self-reported driving behaviours, personal characteristics including attitudes) • Can GDL address this group? Other interventions?
GDL-Related Issues [3] • 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 • Speeding: 70% of Learners reported speeding by <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?
GDL-Related Issues [4] • 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 • Some Learners reported multiple simultaneous offences were missed by Police • One quarter of males actively avoided Police presence • Perceived as rewarding by the young novice driver, so how do we address this?
GDL-Related Issues [5] • 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? • Safer cars?
GDL-Related Issues [6] • Younger (16-17 year old Learners) vs Older (18-19 year old Learners) • Pre-Licence driving: 12% of younger and older novices • 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)
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 don’t intend to be risky, but are more willing to be risky • How can GDL address these?
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?
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
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 limits, can GDL address peer influences?
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
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