×
×
homepage logo
LOGIN
SUBSCRIBE

Formal driver ed falls short of goals

By Staff | Mar 22, 2012

Opposition is growing to legislation allowing New Hampshire residents younger than 18 to get a driver’s license by taking online education courses combined with behind-the-wheel training from parents or guardians. Detractors were caught off guard last week when the measure breezed through the House of Representatives after getting a big thumbs down from the Transportation Committee.

The debate will be more contentious in the Senate where the defenders for formalized driver education will be better organized. While their cause is noble, a preponderance of evidence suggests the legislation would not put young drivers at greater risk.

Accident numbers for the younger age group already are horrific. Motor vehicle crashes are consistently the leading cause of death among 13- to 19-year-olds in America. The fatal crash rate of males 16- to 19-years-old is six times higher than for drivers 30- to 59-years-old and three times higher for females.

The question is not whether government should be involved in helping reduce the fatality rates of young drivers, but what methods are most effective. For 40 years, formal driver education has been the main line of defense. But study after study and studies of studies have concluded there is no convincing and consistent evidence that young drivers who graduate from formal driver education courses are less likely to die in automobile crashes.

In a July 2008 report to Congress, the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration concluded: “It was once thought that effective driver education and training would reduce high crash rates of young, novice drivers. … Many carefully conducted studies of driver education in the United States and abroad have failed to provide evidence for decreased crash rates among teen drivers who have participated in driver education programs.”

The report’s explanation for why makes sense: “Teens do not get into crashes because they are uninformed about the basic rules of the road or safe driving practices; rather, studies show they are involved in crashes as a result of inexperience and risk-taking.”

For example, the administration found teenage drivers and passengers are among those least likely to wear seat belts and hand-held cellphone use was highest among 16- to 24-year-olds. In addition, 37 percent of male drivers ages 15 to 20 involved in fatal crashes were speeding at the time and 28 percent had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or higher.

Studies have found more skillful and knowledgeable drivers aren’t necessarily safer drivers. That’s because experience and age play a bigger role in crashes than reaction time or being able to recite rules of the road.

States that have had success in lowering teenage automobile fatality rates have focused on changing behavior not just improving skills. Ohio uses a graduated licensing system to increase young drivers’ privileges as they grow older. It also requires 50 hours of supervised driving. New Hampshire by contrast requires just 10 hours of supervised driving.

When Ohio enacted its program five years ago, the fatal crash toll for 16- to 20-year-olds was 107. Last year, it dropped to 73.

If driver education is ever to achieve its goal of reducing serious teen auto crashes, it must refocus its goals toward achieving a better understanding of the interrelationships among young driver skills, behavior, motivation and risk.

Newsletter

Join thousands already receiving our daily newsletter.

Interests
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *