The Reliability of Drivers Education

If there was any statistical evidence to prove that high school driver education made an impact in the prevention of car accidental deaths, the government would still be funding the endorsement of such programs today. Due to the main reasons, driver education is not important because it does not prove itself as a significant source of countermeasure to prevent teenage driver deaths. First, there is a lack of evidence to back up claims that driver education improves chances of less accidents. Second, the contradiction of licensure to high-risk youth upon completion of driver education without restriction or supervision only increases the odds of a collision. Statistics have shown time again that with driver education, teenagers under the age of 18 are involved in more collisions due to having been provided with a drivers license.

To begin, during the 1970s and 1980s driver education was a topic of research for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the United States as well as other nations such as England and New Zealand. These studies were intended to prove whether drivers education reduced car collisions. Due to the inconclusive lack of evidence, the results of these scientific evaluations shifted the context to lead researchers to question the actual practice. Of the few longitudinal studies that were conducted, there is one of significance that was done in Dekalb County, Georgia. It is particularly known due to its scale which involved 16,000 students being tracked over a span of four years. In the International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, Brian O Niell says, “The study addressed the volunteer effect by identifying students who intended to become licensed and agreed to participate in the study. The students were matched on academics, gender, socioeconomic status and then randomly assigned to one of the three groups.” As a Vehicle and Highway Safety Consultant, Brian O Niell depicts what the experimental group was subject to in the article, Driver education: how effective, in which he describes saying, ‘“state of the art’ driver education program, which as referred to as the Safe Performance Curriculum (SPC), which included 70h of instruction including classroom, simulator instruction, closed course (with evasive manoeuvres), and on-road training (including at night).’” Unlike the expectations of the drivers education community, the only data that analysis results reported showed a higher rate of collisions for graduates of SPC in comparison to the control group. Two years later, the control group criteria showed a lower ratio of crash rating than both experimental training groups for the first year, though years two through four revealed unsubstantial evidence. These test scores shared similarities to studies done in other countries such as England and New Zealand when compared to when and how test subjects acquired their licenses. For instance, when trained groups aged 16-18 obtained licenses through drivers ed, their crash risk and rating increased.

On the other hand, an article in Consumers’ Research Magazine listed as a publication of the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, Mayhew and Simpson whereby state, ‘“Work supported by [the Institute] showed that the greater availability of driver ed stimulates earlier licensure among teenagers, which in turn leads to more crashes per capita.’” The same conclusion of higher statistics of minors involved in car accidents after being provided with licenses from drivers education can be seen in both the International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, and the Consumers Research Magazine. In 2001, the Cochrane Review was initiated by implementing three different random control trials, the Dekalb study, the Strang study and the Wynne-Jones study. These three different experiments were from United States, Australia, and New Zealand. They reflected on the comparison of crash ratios between trained minors provided with licenses upon graduation from drivers ed and untrained adults. Upon inspection the Cochrane Review says, ‘“The results show that driver education in schools leads to early licensing. They provide no evidence that driver education reduces road crash involvement, and suggest that it may lead to a modest but potentially important increase in the proportion of teenagers involved in traffic crashes.’” In the 1980 American Journal of Public Health a study was done regarding crash involvement of teenaged drivers when driver education in Connecticut had been eliminated from high school. It demonstrated that limiting the amount of 16-17 year olds who obtained licenses, resulted in a significant reduction of accidents.

When reviewing prevention and the steps that can be taken to reduce the number of deaths, there are several options to take into account. The first strategy would be to delay teen driver licensure but such an immense request would require a strong political backing. Setting diversions by creating an increase in areas such as cost of licensure, minimum ages and test standards have been used as common factors to prevent teenagers from getting their driver’s license. Also, in countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand the approach of drivers education has been shifted to a more extensive program called Graduated Drivers Licensing. In this process, the applying driver undergoes periods of license restrictions which do not allow the driver to drive at night, with passengers or unsupervised. In every country that has partaken in the induction of GDL-accumulated results indicate the same outcome of reduced accidents. Shope, 2007 reports in the International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion saying, ‘“A 2007 review of 21 GDL studies from 14 jurisdictions and 6 nationwide studies concluded that ‘GDL programs have reduced the youngest drivers’ crash risk by roughly 20-40%”’.

From personal experience, being in a car wreck renders many to ask what went wrong. Of the many variables that can be mentioned which increase odds of an accident, among them are: transporting passengers, alcohol impaired driving and nighttime crash risks. For instance, when I was involved in my first collision, the other party consisted of a woman, 22-years old and her two children. Even more, the lady had a history of running red lights. In the International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, it says, “-teen drivers have dramatically increasing fatality risks as the number of passengers in their vehicle increases. In contrast the 30-59 year old driver fatal crash risk show no change as the number of passenger increase” (Chen, L.H., Baker, S. P., Braver. E. R, & Li, G, (2000). Before a driver even starts the car, they must check their physical and emotional state. Reckless and careless driving can be caused by negative emotions and a lack of knowing where they are. One needs to have a sense of direction and always be attentive to oncoming traffic, signals and stops. Perhaps the reason why teenagers are prone to being involved in more accidents at night is due to the fact that their motor skills are still developing. In the end, it would be useful to keep in mind what causes car accidents such as transporting passengers, driving under the influence and being on the road at night in order to ensure safe driving habits.