Good afternoon Chairman Oropeza and members of the Transportation Committee. It is my pleasure to be in Sacramento today to talk about the National Transportation Safety Board’s recommendations regarding driver education.

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent Federal agency charged by Congress to investigate transportation accidents, determine their probable cause, and make safety recommendations to prevent their recurrence. The recommendations that arise from our investigations and safety studies are our most important product. The Safety Board cannot mandate implementation of these recommendations. However, in our 39-year history, organizations and government bodies have adopted more than 80 percent of our recommendations.

The Safety Board has recognized for many years that motor vehicle crashes are responsible for more deaths than crashes in all other transportation modes combined. More than 90 percent of all transportation-related deaths each year result from highway crashes. A disproportionate number of these highway crashes involve teen drivers age 15 through 20, young people who have only recently obtained their licenses to drive. Young drivers have been the focus of U.S. driver licensing systems primarily because they constitute the largest group of beginners and have the highest crash risk.

Teen Driving Problem

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, traffic crashes are the leading cause of death among 15-20 year olds, accounting for 40 percent of all deaths for this age group. Drivers between the ages of 15 and 20 represent a little more than 6 percent of licensed drivers in the U. S., yet were 13.6 percent of the drivers involved in fatal crashes. Almost 21.5 percent of highway fatalities in 2004 involved teen drivers. As noted by the Safety Board in 1993 and reconfirmed in a recent study conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, the majority of fatalities in teen crashes are people other than the teen driver. In 2002, the estimated economic cost of crashes involving 15- to 20-year-old drivers was $40.8 billion. Crash statistics for California are just as ominous. Teens make up about 5.6 percent of the driving population, but constituted 13 percent of the drivers involved in fatal crashes in 2004. More than 20 percent of California’s highway fatalities involved teen drivers. Further, a study of crashes in four States revealed that 16-year-olds account for the highest percentage of single-vehicle crashes and crashes involving speeding and driver error.

Because fatalities in car crashes are the leading cause of death among teenagers and teenage drivers are disproportionately involved in crashes, action needs to be taken to identify and implement solutions to reduce these fatalities. Graduated licensing, which the Safety Board has recommended and California has implemented, is a three-stage system that incrementally gives young novice drivers added privileges as they gain experience driving. A number of studies have determined that graduated driver licensing has been effective in reducing young driver and passenger fatalities. In many States, teenagers cannot receive their learner’s permit until they have completed the classroom phase of driver education. However, beyond the first stage of graduated licensing, the opportunities for additional classroom education are limited. While graduated licensing provides novice drivers with actual driving experience under controlled conditions, the opportunity for behind-the-wheel practice in a safe environment while accompanied by a qualified driving instructor is minimal.

Driver Education

Driver education has been available since the 1930s and, intuitively, should improve driving safety. But, in fact, little consensus exists on the benefits of driver education and training, what it should entail, and how it should be delivered. This led the Safety Board to convene a 2-day public forum in October 2003 to survey the current state of novice driver education and training, including the extent to which it is used, its effectiveness and shortcomings, and what can be done to improve it.

The 29 forum participants included the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), State government representatives, safety and consumer associations, groups offering driver education, teachers, students, and researchers. California was not directly represented, but was indirectly represented through the Governor’s Highway Safety Association.

Driver Education History

In 1949, the National Education Association’s National Commission on Safety Education recommended 30 hours of classroom education and 6 hours of behind-the-wheel training (30 + 6) as a standard for driver education and training. The commission derived these recommendations based on a compromise between the time needed to teach driver education and the time funded and feasible for teaching driving skills during the school day.

Despite the dramatic changes in vehicles, highways, and the driving environment over the past 56 years, the approach to driver education has changed little. According to one of the speakers at the Safety Board’s public forum, many schools still regard the 30 + 6 formula as the standard. But, researchers have shown that driver education accomplished in 30 hours of classroom and 6 hours of behind-the-wheel training cannot reasonably be expected to transform a nondriver into a safe driver.

One driver education teacher at the forum agreed that, based on her experience, precision driving skills and safe driving habit development cannot be taught in only 6 hours of behind-the-wheel instruction. A teenage speaker at the forum also said she did not receive enough driving time with her instructor. A speaker from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety noted, “the courses are generally short duration, leading to concentration on teaching basic driving skills and less opportunity to teach safe driving techniques.”

A demonstration project conducted in DeKalb County, Georgia, from 1978 to 1981, comparing the effects of two driver education programs and no driver education, has long been the basis for statements regarding the effectiveness of driver education. S everal analyses and re-analyses of the DeKalb study have been conducted. The majority of the studies found either no effect or different or conflicting effects. Further, research has advanced significantly since the DeKalb study 2 decades ago, particularly in the area of how teenagers learn. A representative from the Idaho Department of Education stated at the forum that, in her experience, “traditional classroom lecture methods that we have used so long in our schools no longer work with teenage drivers today. Our teenagers need to be visually, mentally and physically stimulated and challenged.”

The Safety Board concluded that the 56-year-old formula of 30 hours of classroom training followed sequentially by 6 hours of behind-the-wheel training was determined arbitrarily and is probably inadequate to teach teenagers the skills necessary to drive safely on today’s roadways.

Driver Education Programs

A 1996 review of the role of driver education as part of graduated driver licensing (GDL) programs in the United States included the recommendation that an effective program, “should be empirically based and focus on those psycho-motor, cognitive, and perceptual skill deficiencies that have been shown to be associated with high collision rates of novice drivers.” However, most driver education courses today are not based on an evaluation of the amount of time needed to master these skills. They therefore may not have sufficient hours or the right mix of classroom and behind-the-wheel training (30 hours classroom, 6 hours behind-the-wheel is the typical amount of training provided) to provide this type of instruction.

Many driver education curricula, public and private, have been developed without the benefit of information about what constitutes an effective program. For example, the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association (ADTSEA), with funding from NHTSA, has developed a model driver education curriculum for classroom and behind-the-wheel instruction to provide information on the basics of safe vehicle operation. But, it, too, is based on the 1949 standard (30 hours of classroom instruction and 6 hours of behind-the-wheel instruction), because it reflects the number of instruction hours allotted in States that offer school-based driver education. This curriculum has not yet been validated to determine whether it improves teenagers’ safety.

Some States use the ADTSEA curriculum and some supplement it with other curricula. For example, Idaho and Oregon use parts of the National Institute for Driver Behavior’s¹ behind-the-wheel curriculum, in addition to the ADTSEA curriculum. Other States have no standard driver education curricula. Several private companies and associations discussed the content and effectiveness of their driver education curricula at the forum, and each claimed some level of success in reducing crashes. However, no individuals or groups have comprehensively identified and evaluated best practices for driver education and training.

In addition, the majority of States that require both classroom and behind-the-wheel training do not require that they be taken concurrently. Most classroom training in driver education takes place when a novice driver has had little or no experience behind the wheel to relate concepts learned to real-life driving. Students listen to a lecture, but often do not practice the lesson until weeks or even months later. Michigan, in cooperation with NHTSA, is studying the effect of providing two-phased classroom education, which inserts the behind-the-wheel training between the two classroom phases. Some privately offered driver education courses discussed at the forum combine classroom and behind-the-wheel learning so that they are done concurrently. No studies to date have shown whether students’ driving skills benefit from concurrent classroom and behind-the-wheel training.

As stated at the forum, without national leadership, everyone has done their own thing. As a result, what driver education is in one community is entirely different [from what it is] in another community. The Safety Board concluded that although the various approaches to driver education in the United States and Europe may have aspects that provide novice drivers with some of the training and skills needed to drive safely, no systematic evaluation has been conducted to determine which components are effective in teaching safe driving skills. Consequently, educators and commercial driving schools have little or no reliable guidance to follow in designing an appropriate curriculum or in establishing requirements for classroom or behind-the-wheel instruction.

The Future

Driver education takes place worldwide, and studies are under way in Europe, for example, to determine how best to provide driver education and behind-the-wheel training. Although driver licensing generally does not occur until age 18 in Europe, the crash rate for European novice drivers is still higher than that for more experienced drivers. Consequently, the European Union is researching ways to improve driver education and to reduce the novice driver crash rate. European researchers note, “[N]ovice drivers can have superior manoeuvering skills and still have many crashes. Teaching scanning and anticipating as well as self-evaluation skills appear to be promising ways to reduce crash rates of novice drivers.” Another European research program found that “driver education should expand from the knowledge and skills of vehicle manoeuvering and the mastery of traffic situations to include more about driving goals and context as well as about goals for life, risk awareness, and self-evaluation.”

In the past year, NHTSA has initiated a review of how driver education is currently being provided in the United States. NHTSA’s review will cover such issues as the content of current driver education courses, whether they are provided through the schools or by commercial driver education programs, instructor training and certification, and how the information is delivered. This information will set the stage for future developments and enable NHTSA to track developments in the field. NHTSA anticipates having a report completed by the end of 2006.

Teenagers vary greatly in their learning capacity, learning style, maturity, and risk-taking behavior. Driver education and behind-the-wheel training need to accommodate those who learn visually, those who learn by listening, and those who learn by doing. Having students only read a book or listen to a lecture, as many classroom curricula do, does not take into consideration the varying ways in which students learn. A multivariate approach to teaching and learning can reach the maximum number of students and help them learn to drive safely. Noting that most programs do not attempt to employ the wide-ranging methods by which teenagers learn, a 2000 study² of policies and practices in driver education stated, “it will be important for future initiatives to ground efforts in the overall cognitive, emotional, and physical developmental processes of youth.”

Thus, developing comprehensive driver education and behind-the-wheel training curricula requires an understanding not only of traffic safety, but also of how teenagers learn. In the absence of such an understanding, educators can lose the opportunity to teach teenagers how to drive safely. Furthermore, as is reflected in their behavior, teenagers are extremely susceptible to peer pressure. Understanding this pressure and other aspects of the cultural and societal pressures that affect their behavior could help educators design curricula that take into account and compensate for risks associated with this environment. Some European programs have begun to focus on this aspect of educating teenage drivers. The Safety Board concluded that to be effective, novice driver education must take into account research results that offer an understanding of how teenagers learn and of the behavioral environment in which teenagers typically function.

Training is necessary for skill development and proficiency in any activity, and, logically, driver education and training should provide such benefits for novice drivers. Although statistics have not shown whether driver education is beneficial for novice drivers in terms of reducing the incidence of crashes, this does not necessarily indicate that driver education is unsuccessful, when in fact no methodology is available to measure whether the roads would be less safe without driver education. Further, what specifically would improve novice driver performance has not been identified; rather, driver education curricula, including the recently developed ADTSEA course funded by NHTSA, have been developed largely based on subjective measures and use of readily available components that have not been validated.

NHTSA, through a cooperative agreement with ADTSEA, is preparing a summary of subjects being taught in driver education programs throughout the country, but this agreement does not include an evaluation of the benefits of these programs. Also, the U.S. Department of Education currently has no role in developing driver education courses even though one of its functions is to promote improvements in the quality and usefulness of education throughout the United States. Research results from other educational fields on how teenagers learn may have applicability to driver education, and the U.S. Department of Education is best equipped to make this determination.

Safety Board Recommendations

Therefore, the Safety Board recommended that NHTSA, in conjunction with the Department of Education, determine which driver training methods result in increased safety for novice drivers. Further, the Board has encouraged NHTSA and the U.S. Department of Education to solicit input from driver education providers during this effort. The Board believes that NHTSA and the U.S. Department of Education should jointly review current driver education and training programs in use nationally and internationally and determine which instructional tools, training methods, and curricula are consistent with what the U.S. Department of Education has identified as best teaching methodologies and have led to or are likely to lead to a reduction in crashes. Further, they should incorporate these best practices into a model driver education and training curriculum.

Although the specific number of hours that novice drivers need to learn to operate a motor vehicle safely may vary because of individual learning differences, setting a standard sequence for classroom and behind-the-wheel education, in conjunction with graduated licensing qualifications, could guide educators and trainers in providing optimum training to teach the majority of novice drivers to become safe drivers. The Safety Board recommended that NHTSA, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Education, determine the optimum sequencing, in conjunction with graduated licensing qualifications, for educating teenagers on safe driving skills, both in the classroom and behind the wheel.

In response to the Safety Board’s recommendations, NHTSA agreed that a review of current driver education programs would be useful. Further, it has obtained the commitment of the U.S. Department of Education to participate in a joint review of current knowledge and state of the art regarding instructional tools and curricula consistent with best teaching methods for teens. The U.S. Department of Education has committed to convening an expert panel to determine the most promising ways to integrate classroom and behind-the-wheel training. Perhaps California driver education experts could participate in this effort. If sufficient information is obtained from this review, NHTSA will seek changes in the driver education curriculum. NHTSA believes that many potential improvements can be made.

NHTSA also noted that it is possible that experts will not be able to clearly identify one “best” approach. In that case, NHTSA will undertake additional research and evaluation to test alternative approaches to determine their effectiveness.

California and this committee should be commended for being proactive while these Federal agencies are proceeding with their efforts. The driver education program efforts envisioned in Assembly Bill 2175 which follow the Safety Board’s recommendations should be helpful to those agencies. However, the Board suggests that California and other States exercise caution by working in concert with national efforts so that all can benefit. It is imperative that national guidelines or a model driver education program be based on sound research and analysis of best practices. It should be designed to assist States in implementing individual State programs.

As this Committee and the State of California consider how to move forward, the Safety Board encourages you to work cooperatively with NHTSA, perhaps offering to serve as a test site for driver education research and evaluation efforts or for a new driver education program. Through such participation, California will help highlight its driver education needs and the perspective of the States, which, we hope, will implement a new and effective driver education program based on national guidelines. Assembly Bill 2175 provides the necessary basis for improving driver education nationally and in California.

The Safety Board looks forward to reviewing the results of your efforts to identify effective ways of training our youth to be safe drivers. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you might have.

 

---

1. The National Institute for Driver Behavior (NIDB) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the premise that education is an essential component in the formula for crash reduction. NIDB has defined standards for driver behavior so that one can, over a period of time, acquire and internalize them into low-risk driving habits.

2. D. Anderson, A. Abdalla, C.N. Goldberg, T. Diab, and B. Pomietto, Young Driver: A Study of Policies and Practices, Report of Findings (Fairfax, Virginia: George Mason University, December 2000).