Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Preventing Crashes Among
Novice Teenage Drivers: Research on Risk and Prevention
Dr. Bruce Simons-Morton
Senior Investigator, Health Behavior Branch &
Associate Director for Prevention
National Institute of Child Health &
Human Development
National Institutes of Health
YOUNG DRIVER PROBLEMDriver Fatal Crash Involvement/Million Miles
THE YOUNG DRIVER PROBLEMInexperienced Drivers of All Ages Have High Crash Rates
Twisk & Stacy, 2007
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS
Exposure- Miles- Condiitons
Individual Variability- Errors- Attention- Riskiness
Maturity/AgeInexperience
Crash Risk
Driving Performance
NATURALISTIC DRIVING RESEARCH DRIVINGNaturalistic Teenage Driving Study
A. Purpose: examine variability in teen driving performance
B. Overview
� N = 42 teens and 54 parents, 18-months of driving
� Continuous data collection
� Instrumentation: accelerometers, cameras, GPS
C. Surveys at 0, 6, 12, 18 months
Driving Clips
7
8
IRR=3.91
Simons-Morton, et al., AJPH, 2011
Naturalistic Teen Driving Study
Crash/Near Crash – Teens and Parents
Variability in CNC Rate by Group
Guo, Simons-Morton, et al., J of Pediatrics, 2013
Variability in CNC Rate Over Time
2.0 2.1
1.8
2.2
0.4 1.0
8.8
9.2
4.8
0.8
3.2
5.1
9.2
7.9
5.9 5.8
4.2
5.8
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Months 1-3 Months 4-6 Months 7-9 Months 10-12 Months 13-15 Months 16-18
CN
C r
ate
(C
NC
pe
r 1
0K
KM
T)
Low-Risk Drivers (n=13)
Moderate-Risk Drivers (n=16)
All Drivers (n=42)
Kinematic Risky Driving
Acceleration Event Gravitational Force Correlation w/ CNC
Hard braking > -0.45 g 0.76
Rapid starts > 0.35 g 0.75
Sharp turns > 0.50 g 0.60
Yaw + 6 degrees w/i 3 seconds
0.46
Composite 0.60
Simons-Morton, et al., American Journal of Public Health, 2011; Simons-Morton et al., American Journal of Epidemiology, 2012
*Notes: 1) High monthly KRD = 10 times greater likelihood of a CNC in next month2) KRD rate/month is 75% accurate in predicting CNC
Turns
.57**
Yaw
.31*
TEEN AND ADULT KRD
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
IRs
fo
r g
-fo
rce
ra
tes
/ 1
00
mil
es
Time since licensure (3-month time periods)
Parent driver
Teen driver with nopassengers
Simons-Morton et al., Journal of Adolescent Health, 2011
Kinematic Risky Driving Rates
IRR = 5.08
Turns
.57**
Yaw
.31*
TEEN AND ADULT KRD
With Adult Passengers
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
IRs
fo
r g
-fo
rce
ra
tes
/ 1
00
mil
es
Time since licensure (3-month time periods)
Parent driver
Teen driver with nopassengers
Teen driver withadult passengers
IRR = 5.08
Simons-Morton et al., Journal of Adolescent Health, 2011
Kinematic Risky Driving Rates
INATTENTION INCREASES CRASH RISKCNC Odds Ratios
NTDS
(Novice Drivers)
100-Car Study(Experienced Drivers)
Secondary Task OR 95% CI OR 95% CI
Texting 4.3 1.9/10.0 n/a n/a
Dialing 7.8 2.7/23.1 2.5 1.4/4.5
Talking - Phone 0.8 0.4/1.5 0.7 0.5/1.1
Reaching - Phone 4.7 1.8/11.7 1.4 0.3/6.1
Reaching - Object (not phone) 7.8 3.5/16.8 1.2 0.6/2.3
Looking – Roadside object 3.7 1.7/8.5 0.7 0.4-1.2
Eating 3.3 1.5/7.2 1.3 0.7/2.1
Vehicle Operations 2.5 0.9/7.3 0.6 0.2/2.7
Radio/HVAC 1.4 0.8/2.7 0.5 0.3/0.9
Klauer, Guo, Simons-Morton et al., New England Journal of Medicine, 2014
Figure 4: The Smart Road Intersection
TEST TRACK RESEARCH ON DISTRACTION
Dialing When Approaching Intersection
Test Track Phone Task:
Intersection Stopping Behavior (n=16 teens; 16 experience adults)
200' w/phone
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Teen Adult Teen Adult
T0 T6
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Wh
o S
top
pe
d
Olsen, Simons-Morton, Lee, 2006
Time 1 Time 2
Teen Passengers
Teen Passengers Increase Fatal Crash Risk
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Number of passengers
0 1 2 3+
Ages 16-17
0 1 2 3+
Ages 18-19
0 1 2 3+
Ages 30-59
Chen, Baker, 2003NPTS & NASS/GES Fatal crashes/10,000 trips
Observing Teen Drivers Leaving High School
10 area high schools; 3000 observations
Compared teen drivers with usual traffic
Speed - radar gun
Close following - video
1
2
3
HS parking lot
Radar
Video camera
Observer
Video camera
Simons-Morton. Lerner, Singer, AAP, 2005
Teen Driver Speed by
Driver and Passenger Type
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
A ll T e e n s D rive r G e n d e r P a sse n g er G e nd e r
Tra
ns
form
ed
Sp
ee
d
Fem ale Driver
Ma le D riv e rM a le P assenge r
M ale P assenge r
F ema le P ass enge r
F ema le P ass enge r
No P ass enge r
N o P ass enge r
Simons-Morton et al, AAP, 2005
Mean for usual
traffic
Experimental Simulation Study on Effect of
Teen Passengers on Teen Risky Driving
Confederate Passenger
TEEN PASSENGER STUDY #1 (n=58)
Passenger Effects (ANOVA)
Outcome/
ConditionPassenger Solo p
Average Average
Failed to stop 30% 24% <0.01
% time in red 22% 17% <0.01
*Significant passenger presence * passenger type interaction (p <0.001)
Risky Intersection Behavior
Simons-Morton, Bingham, et al., Health Psychology, 2013
TPS#1 (n=58)
Risky Intersection Behavior
**p <0.001
Simons-Morton, Bingham, et al., Health Psychology, 2013
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Passenger Drive Solo Drive
Prob
ab
ilit
y o
f fa
iled
to s
top
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Passenger Drive Solo Drive
Percen
t ti
me i
n R
ed
zInteractions Between Passenger Presence and Passenger Type
Failed to Stop** Percent Time in Red**
______ Risk-accepting passenger
- - - - - - Risk-averse passenger
SUMMARY
Teen Risk Factors
1. Young age & inexperience
2. Kinematic risky driving
3. Inattention due to 2nd tasks
4. Teenage passengers
Crashes Increase at Licensure
27
Safety Approaches ToThe Novice Young Driver Problem
SAFETY APPROACH GOALS
EVIDENCE OF
SAFETY BENEFIT
� GDL Limit exposure +++
� Driver education &
training
Vehicle management
and driving test
???
� Supervised practice Provide experience,
improve skills,
judgment, norms
?
� Improve parent
management
Limit exposure +
Effects of GDL in Michigan
Shope, Molnar, 2004
• Delays licensure
• Reduces exposure to
high-risk driving
GDL POLICY ANALYSES
Fatal Crash Rate Declines by Number of
Graduate Driver Licensing Components
Chen L et al. Pediatrics 2006;118:56-62
EVALUATIONS OF DRIVER TRAINING
Approach Objective Safety Benefits
DeKalb Study, 1973 Intensive/usual DE No safety benefits
Vernick et al, 1999; Mayhew & Simpson, 2002; Elvik, 2004; Peck, 2011; Lenero & Mayhew,2015
Reviews (pre-openlicensure training)
No safety benefits
Beanland et al., 2013; Washington et al., 2011; Mynttinen et al., 2010
Reviews (post-drive training)
No safety benefits of post-drive training (2-stage)
LSEDE, 2015 Oregon, Manitoba Probably no benefits
Senserrick, Ivers, et al., 2009 NSW DRIVE risk orientation/resilience
44% reduced crash RR
Thomas et al., 2016 Hazard skills training Possible crash reduction
“More skillful drivers do not necessarily crash less; regardless of skill drivers must actually drive more safely to minimize risk.” (Lonero, Meyhew, 2015).
SUPERVISED PRACTICED NATURALISTIC DRIVING STUDY
Driving Errors Improve With Practice
Driving Errors by Type
First 10 Hours
N=90 participants#
9,823 observations
Last 10 hours
N=78 participants#
8,523 observations
N Percentage (SD) N Percentage (SD)
Driving Errors - Total 1,138 13.4 (19.4) 786 8.8* (13.0)
Recognition 90 0.9 (1.2) 34 0.4 (0.9)
Decision 352 3.5 (2.9) 124 1.4 (2.4)
Performance 638 8.4 (19.3) 605 6.8 (11.3)
Other 58 0.6 (1.0) 23 0.2 (0.8)
High Risk Secondary Tasks 554 5.8 (4.6) 878 9.9* (7.6)
SUPERVISED PRACTICE NATURALISTIC DRIVING STUDY
Parent Driving Instruction Topics
Topic†Proximal
Instruction#
Higher Order
Instruction*
Navigation 94% 4%
Warning/Detect Hazard 75% 16%
Vehicle Handling or
Operation85% 7%
Remark on Driving Behavior 74% 17%
Asks Question - Driving Task 80% 19%
Rules of the Road 78% 15%#Proximal relates to the present driving task or immediate future*Higher order relates to principles of driving
N=76
PRACTICE DRIVING AND INDEPENDENT
RISKY DRIVING MEASURES
Correlations
MeasuresKinematic Risky
Driving
Crash/Near Crash
3-Months Total 3-Months Total
Miles -.13 -.14 -.10 -.12
Road Type Diversity
.01 .02 -.04 -.17
RESEARCH ON PARENTAL
MANAGEMENT OF TEENAGE DRIVERS
Authoritative Parents are Demanding and Responsive
Parental Restrictions on Trip and Risk Conditions
Never
allowed
Always
allowed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1 month <3 mos 3-5 mos 6-8 mos 9-11 mos >11 mos
Trip limits Risk Limits
Hartos, Simons-Morton. 2001
CHECKPOINTS PARENT
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Parent Management
of Teen Driving
- Limits on teen driving
Mediators1
- restriction norms
- expectations
�
Persuasive
Communications
� �
1Protection motivation theory
The Checkpoints Parent-Teen
Driving Agreement
Teen driver will: Parent will:
□□□□ Always obey all traffic laws
□□□□ Never speed, tailgate, or cut others off
□□□□ Always wear a seat belt and require all passengers to wear seat belts
□□□□ Never drive after taking any drugs or alcohol or ride with a driver who has
taken any drugs or alcohol
□□□□ Always tell parent/guardian where going and with whom
□□□□ Always call home if going to be late
□□□□ Always call home if for any reason it is not safe to drive or ride
□□□□ Be a good role model behind the wheel
□□□□ Point out and discuss safe and dangerous
driving situations and practices
□□□□ Apply rules fairly and consistently
□□□□ Consider necessary exceptions to driving
limits
□□□□ Provide a safe ride home (no questions
asked at that time)
PART II:PART II:PART II:PART II: DRIVING PRIVILEGES: These need to be tailored to your teen's driving progressThese need to be tailored to your teen's driving progressThese need to be tailored to your teen's driving progressThese need to be tailored to your teen's driving progress
DRIVING PRIVILEGESNighttime
Teen
passengersWeather Road types Review date
We agree
Initials
Checkpoint 1
Month 18 pm None Dry Local ____ ____
Checkpoint 2
Months 2-69 pm None Moderate No high speed ____ ____
Checkpoint 3
Months 7-1211 pm 1 Most Most ____ ____
WE AGREE (sign) __________________________ ______________________________PARENT TEEN
PART I:PART I:PART I:PART I: DRIVING RULES: These are absolutes These are absolutes These are absolutes These are absolutes ————ones that apply to every trip, every timeones that apply to every trip, every timeones that apply to every trip, every timeones that apply to every trip, every time
Checkpoints in Driver Education
Percentage of families with a completed
agreement
70.6
29.4
0
20
40
60
80
100
Intervention Control
%
1
1 Intervention greater than control (x = 42.54; p < .0001)
Zakrajsek, Simons-Morton, Shope, F&CH, 2009.
CHECKPOINTS PROGRAM Tx Group Improvements in Driving Outcomes
Intervention m (sd)
Control m (sd)
p
Overall High Risk Driving (past week) – 19 items 0.50 (0.5) 0.82 (0.9) .04 Sped in residential or school zone 1.51 (1.7) 2.20 (2.3) .09 Drove 10-19 mph over limit 0.31 (0.1) 0.80 (1.8) .10
Drove 20+ mph over limit 0.02 (0.1) 0.28 (0.7) .02 Tailgated 0.08 (0.3) 0.37 (1.0) .07 Went through intersection on yellow 1.79 (2.2) 3.15 (3.9) .04 Raced another vehicle 0.05 (0.2) 0.24 (0.7) .07 Drove to show off 0.03 (0.2) 0.15 (0.4) .08
TECHNOLOGY AND PARENT MANAGEMENT
Event Recorders Provide Feedback
and Enable Parent Monitoring
name
name
name
DriveCam TeenSafe Driver Feedback
Simons-Morton, Bingham, Shope, et al.,
Journal of Adolescent Health, 2012.
Randomized Trial:Group #1: Immediate Feedback to Teen (LO) Group #2: Lights+ Feedback to Family (DC)
IMPROVING NOVICE TEEN
DRIVING SAFETY
Summary
1. Goals:
A. Delay licensure
B. Limit exposure to high risk driving conditions
C. Create safe driving norms and practices
2. Improve training & supervision (Driver Ed & practice driving)
A. Higher order instruction
B. Safe driving expectations, judgment, self-control, norms
3. Parental management
A. Set strict limits on newly licensed teens
B. Monitor driving performance
Thank you!
UMass
Virginia Tech
DriveCam IncU Michigan
CDM, Inc
Collaborators
NICHD: Johnathon Ehsani, Kaigang Li, Fearghal O’Brien, Pnina Gershon, Paul Albert
Sherbrook U: Marie Claude Ouimet
VTTI: Sheila Klauer, Tom Dingus, Feng Guo, Suzie Lee,
UMTRI: Ray Bingham, Jean Shope, Anuj Pradhan,
U of PA: Emily Falk