Michigan’s Graduated Driver Michigan’s Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) and BeyondLicensing (GDL) and Beyond

Jean T. Shope, MSPH, PhDMichigan Traffic Safety Summit

March 15, 2007

Support: NHTSA, NIH, CDC/NCIPC, NSCColleagues: Waller, Molnar, Zakrajsek, Bingham, Elliott, Simons-Morton

OverviewOverview

Michigan’s GDL evaluation

Other jurisdictions’ GDL evaluations

National GDL evaluations

Program to enhance parental involvement

BackgroundBackground

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)

Segment 1Segment 1DriverDriver

EducationEducation

Level 1Level 1LicenseLicense

14 yr 9 mo14 yr 9 mo

Segment 2Segment 2DriverDriver

EducationEducation

Level 2Level 2LicenseLicense

16 yr16 yr

Level 3Level 3LicenseLicense

17 yr17 yr

24 hr class24 hr class

6 hr driving6 hr driving

Written examWritten exam

Drive only with Drive only with parent or adultparent or adult

6 hr class6 hr class

Drive alone Drive alone Night restrictionNight restriction

Michigan GDL/Driver EducationMichigan GDL/Driver EducationApril 1, 1997April 1, 1997

No restrictionsNo restrictions

HealthyHealthy

Parent signParent sign

6 mo Level 16 mo Level 1

Driven 50 hrDriven 50 hr

Road testRoad test

90 day clean90 day clean

Parent signParent sign

6 mo Level 26 mo Level 2

12 mo clean12 mo clean

Parental Experience with Michigan’s Parental Experience with Michigan’s GDL Program (July 1998 Survey)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

Michigan’s GDL: Early Impact on MVCs Michigan’s GDL: Early Impact on MVCs Among 16-Year-OldsAmong 16-Year-Olds

1996 vs 1999 crash data, adjusted1996 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

All Crashes: Counts, All Crashes: Counts, Pop Rates, Licensee RatesPop Rates, Licensee Rates

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001

Count

0

50

100

150

200

250

300Rate

Crash Involvement Crash/1,000 Population Crash/1,000 Drivers

Shope, Molnar. Journal of Safety Research 35 (2004) 337-344.

Casualty Crashes: Counts, Casualty Crashes: Counts, Pop Rates, Licensee RatesPop Rates, Licensee Rates

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

1994 1995 1996 1998 1999 2000 2001

Count

01020

30405060

708090

Rate

Crash Involvement Crash/1,000 Population Crash/1,000 Drivers

Shope, Molnar. Journal of Safety Research 3 (2004) 337-344.

Michigan’s GDL: First Four Years: Michigan’s GDL: First Four Years: 16 yo MVCs 1996 vs 1998-200116 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

Updated Michigan GDL ResultsUpdated 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

Novice Teen Driving/GDLNovice Teen Driving/GDLInvited SymposiumInvited 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

GDL Evaluation Results (20): GDL Evaluation Results (20): Individual Jurisdiction StudiesIndividual 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

GDL Evaluation Results (6): GDL Evaluation Results (6): Nationwide StudiesNationwide 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

What in GDL works?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)

How do we enhance GDL?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

Checkpoints ProgramCheckpoints 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

Checkpoints ProgramCheckpoints 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

Checkpoints ProgramCheckpoints Program Persuasive Communications (mailed/DMV)

Video Newsletters

Agreement

3 studies completed (CT, MD)

1 study underway (RI) 2 studies underway (MI)

Checkpoints Study ResultsCheckpoints Study Results(Simons-Morton & Colleagues)(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)

Segment 1Segment 1DriverDriver

EducationEducation

Level 1Level 1LicenseLicense

14 yr 9 mo14 yr 9 mo

Segment 2Segment 2DriverDriver

EducationEducation

Level 2Level 2LicenseLicense

16 yr16 yr

Level 3Level 3LicenseLicense

17 yr17 yr

24 hr class24 hr class

6 hr driving6 hr driving

Written examWritten exam

Drive only with Drive only with parent or adultparent or adult

6 hr class6 hr class

Drive alone Drive alone Night restrictionNight restriction

Michigan GDL/Driver EducationMichigan GDL/Driver Education

No restrictionsNo restrictions

HealthyHealthy

Parent signParent sign

6 mo Level 16 mo Level 1

Driven 50 hrDriven 50 hr

Road testRoad test

90 day clean90 day clean

Parent signParent sign

6 mo Level 26 mo Level 2

12 mo clean12 mo clean

CHECKPOINTSCHECKPOINTS

Michigan “Checkpoints One”Michigan “Checkpoints One”Driver EducationDriver Education

(NICHD-funded)(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)

““Checkpoints One” InterventionCheckpoints 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

““Checkpoints One” StatusCheckpoints 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

Michigan “Checkpoints Two” Michigan “Checkpoints Two” (CDC/NCIPC-funded)(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

““Checkpoints Two” StatusCheckpoints 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

SummarySummary

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

Thank you!

JShope@umich.edu