No abstract

No abstract

Several studies have documented that the failure of drivers to attend to the forward roadway for a period lasting longer than 2-3 seconds is a major cause of highway crashes. Moreover, several studies have demonstrated that novice drivers are more likely to glance away from the roadway than experienced drivers for extended periods when attempting to do a task inside the vehicle. The present study examines the efficacy of a PC-based training program (FOCAL) designed to teach novice drivers not to glance away for these extended periods of time. A FOCAL-trained group was compared to a placebo-trained group in an on-road test, and the FOCAL-trained group made significantly fewer glances away from the roadway that were more than 2 seconds than the placebo-trained group. Other measures indicated an advantage for the FOCAL-trained group as well.

This study examined the effects of a 1-year high-visibility pedestrian right-of-way enforcement program on yielding to pedestrians at uncontrolled crosswalks, some of which received enforcement and some of which did not. The program included four 2-week enforcement waves supported by education and engineering components that increased the visibility of enforcement. The study produced five results: (a) enforcement led to a slow and steady increase in the percentage of drivers yielding the right-of-way to pedestrians over the year; (b) the program produced a large change in yielding over the course of the year; (c) the program produced higher levels of yielding to natural pedestrian crossing than to staged crossings, and the changes in both were highly correlated; (d) the effects of the program generalized to crosswalks that were not targeted for pedestrian right-of-way enforcement; and (e) the amount of generalization to unenforced sites was inversely proportional to the distance from sites that received enforcement.

Evaluation of the Maryland .02 Law 6' perler"t'"t 0rt•n'ast'M Cede

This study is a follow-up to a previous study that implemented high-visibility enforcement with social norming to produce a cultural change in driver yielding behavior. The objective was to determine the extent to which observed increases in driver yielding obtained in the previous study persisted over a follow-up period of nearly 4 years after the program of high-visibility enforcement intervention ended. The study involved limited enforcement and no new publicity. Observers collected data on staged and naturally occurring crossings at the same six sites at which enforcement took place in the previous study and at the same six spillover-effect sites (referred to as generalization sites in this report) where no enforcement had taken place. Observers employed the same observation procedures used in the original study. Results showed that yielding behavior continued on an upward trend with both the enforcement and generalization sites, exhibiting significantly higher rates of driver yielding during the follow-up period than at the end of the intervention period almost 4 years earlier. Yielding rates averaged 76.5% at the enforcement sites and 77.0% at the generalization sites. Thus, above and beyond the significant increase documented by the original study from before to immediately after the intervention, this study showed an additional significant increase in yielding from the end of the intervention to the follow-up period. The results suggest a fundamental change in driver behavior likely resulting from a tipping-point effect.

The objectives of this study were to: (1) identify and review current driver education and training programs in use nationally and internationally; (2) identify best teaching practices for teenagers; (3) examine the optimal sequencing for the presentation of safe driving skills in the classroom and behind-the-wheel training; and (4) assess whether a new approach to driver education would be beneficial. These objectives were accomplished using a survey of the driver education rules and practices in the 50 States performed by the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and Driver Education and Training Administrators (DETA); literature reviews of research on teen crashes, the best teaching methodologies for teenagers, and injury prevention strategies for teens; and an expert panel analysis that compared current teaching practices with identified best practices, combining driver training with graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems.Twenty-three States require driver education for all drivers under the age of 18; in 35 States a teen can obtain an unrestricted license before 18 whether or not he/she takes driver education. In 25 States, a teen who takes driver education can get an unrestricted license at a younger age. At least 18 States offer some benefit (waiving practice driving requirements, knowledge tests, road tests, or younger licensure) if a teen takes driver education. Twelve States said they developed specific curriculum guides for their driver education programs to use. Only 13 of 40 responding States were able to indicate how many teen drivers who received their first licenses in 2006 had taken driver education. Most of the States had both high school and commercial programs in operation; a few accept only one type. Six States accepted Internet driver education and 3 States accepted parent-taught driver education. The great majority of driver education programs include 30 hours of classroom instruction although the lowest number is 8 hours and the highest number is 56 hours. Oversight varies widely among States and often involves multiple agencies if more than one form of driver education is acceptable.The key findings were: (1) driver education appears to do a good job in preparing students to pass State licensing examinations; (2) the expectation that driver education by itself will lead to a decreased teen crash rate is unrealistic; (3) GDL has shown evidence of a significant safety benefit and may benefit from greater parental involvement; (4) expanding driver education training beyond the current classroom and behind-the-wheel training by integrating it with graduated driver licensing may have increased traffic safety benefits for young drivers; and (5) an expanded driver education system would start preparing future drivers at an earlier age and encompass more stringent testing than is characteristic of current driver licensing practices.

No abstract