Licensing Examination and Crash Outcomes Postlicensure in Young Drivers

Abstract

Key Points Question Do drivers younger than 18 years and subject to comprehensive licensing policy (graduated driver licensing laws, mandatory driver education and training) have better licensing and crash outcomes compared with drivers aged 18 to 24 years who are exempt from these licensing policies? Findings In this cohort study of 136 643 individuals aged 16 to 24 years, license applicants aged 16 to 17 years performed better on license examinations than those aged 18 to 24 years. Individuals licensed when younger than 18 years had lower crash rates in the first year of licensure than those licensed at 18 years, and individuals licensed at 18 years had the highest crash rates of all those younger than 25 years. Meaning The findings of this study suggest that it may be useful to reevaluate comprehensive driver licensing policies, including driver training, as a strategy to reduce crashes in young novice drivers.

Do the Youngest Drivers Crash the Most?

“…Among adolescents who are legally qualified for licensure, Latino vs non-Latino White individuals, those with low vs high family affluence, and those whose parents have lower vs higher levels of education were significantly more likely to delay licensure. These findings align with the hypothesis proposed by Walshe and colleagues that professional BTW training and GDL may place a meaningful burden on adolescents of lower SES status that could reduce their ability to obtain licensure through GDL graduation at younger legal ages, practice driving more owing to economic-related limitations, and in turn potentially increase the risk of crash involvement.…”

“…In a pragmatic sense, answering the question of whether the youngest drivers crash the most seems fairly straightforward. However, on more critical examination, with a focus on meaningful implications for crash and injury prevention and related policies, the question is not only a provocative one owing to the findings of the study conducted by Walshe et al, but it is also steeped in greater complexity and paradox. Walshe et al set out to address this question by analyzing Ohio state licensing data from 136 643 young novice licensed drivers (age 16-24 years), followed up to 1 year after their licensure.…”

“…Given the Walshe et al findings that drivers licensed before age 18 years had significantly fewer crashes than those licensed at age 18 years (individuals aged 18 years had the highest crash rates of all licensed drivers younger than 25 years), another question arises related to the strength and confidence experts currently have when considering the role of adolescent neurodevelopment in driver crash risk and safety: are we looking at a paradigm shift in our understanding of what group of young drivers crashes the most? This issue could, in part, be the case, as more experience might mitigate and/or overcome neurodevelopmental vulnerability among some young drivers.…”

“…It is concerning that some adolescents who delay licensure could be essentially aging out of protections afforded to them by GDL driver restrictions and placing themselves at higher risk for crash involvement when they seek licensure at a later age. The Walshe et al findings appear to realize this concern with evidence that novice drivers licensed at 18 years, presumably having bypassed mandated GDL restrictions and driver education, including behind-the-wheel (BTW) training, exhibited “the highest population-based rates of crashes” in the first-year postlicensure. This finding is one of the first to more explicitly show that delaying licensure, within the scope of GDL, could lead to higher crash rates for young novice drivers.…”

“…Despite the use of a large 1-state sample of young novice drivers that provides informative longitudinal results addressing the question at hand, the Walshe et al study has some key limitations and challenges that should prompt caution in interpretation of the results and require thoughtful consideration, particularly when viewing them through an exposure-based lens. First, this study showed that lower SES groups had worse road safety examination scores as well as more crashes at 2 and 12 months.…”