the chronicle...the cellular phones used by the participants were identical in brand, model number,...

AAAAAmericanmericanmericanmericanmerican

DDDDDriver andriver andriver andriver andriver and

TTTTTrafficrafficrafficrafficraffic

SSSSSafetyafetyafetyafetyafety

EEEEEducationducationducationducationducation

AAAAAssociationssociationssociationssociationssociation

of theof theof theof theof the

TTTTThe Chroniclehe Chroniclehe Chroniclehe Chroniclehe Chronicle

A journal of theAmerican Driver and Traffic

Safety Education Associationin cooperation with theHighway Safety Center

Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Fall Issue 2007 Volume 55 No. 2

In this Issue:

My Past, My Present and MySoapbox

Hello, my fellow ADTSEAmembers!!

Oregon teen driving lawsimprove safety

Poverty, Not “Risk Taking,”May Be the Real Problem inTeenage Accidents

Allen Robinson 2007 RichardKaywood Award Recipient

Teenage Drivers and Hand-free Cellular Phones:

Vehicle Dynamics and theirImpact on Directional ControlWhile in Turns

The Role of Driver Educatorsin Instructing Students to “SEE”Engineering, Human andOther Attributes andObstacles of the HTS

Secondary Review ofData From“Teen Driver LicensingProgram – 2005”Executive Summary

The Chronicle

TTTThhhheeee CCCChhhhrrrroooonnnniiiicccclllleeee for Driver Education Professionals

Publication GuidelinesArticles submitted for The Chronicle aresubject to peer review and shouldconform to the American PsychologicalAssociation style. The basic referencefor style is 1983 Publication Manual ofthe American Psychological Association(3rd ed.). Authors are responsible foradherence to style. A Word for Mac 6.0or RTF file is required for peer review.Articles may be reprinted with credits tothe author and to The Chronicle

Allen Robinson, Ph.D.Chief Executive, ADTSEA

IUP Highway Safety CenterIndiana, PA 15705-1092(724) 357-4051 (Office)(724) 357-7595 (Fax)

[email protected] (new)http://adtsea.iup.edu

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Editorial DeadlinesWinter ‘08 Issue Dec. 15, 2007Spring ‘08 Issue April 15, 2008Fall ‘08 Issue Oct. 15, 2008

Printing InformationThis publication is prepared using

PageMaker 7.0 and printed bySpeedy Print, Waite Park, MN.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Maurice E.. Dennis, Ph.D.Director, Center for Alcoholand Drug Education StudiesTexas A&M University

Richard D. Ellis, Ed.D.Professor EmeritusUniversity of the State ofNew York-Albany

Allen Robinson, Ph.D.Director, IUP Highway SafetyIndiana Univ. of Pennsylvania

Dale O. Ritzel, Ph.D.Director, Center for InjuryControlSouthern Illinois University

Editorial Advisory Council

Table of ContentsFall 2007

Volume 55 Number 2

My Past, My Present and My SoapboxDana Sosnick-Bowser, Executive Director ..................... 2

Hello, my fellow ADTSEA members!!Gary Scott, President.........................................................3

Oregon teen driving laws improve safety.......................3

Poverty, Not “Risk Taking,” May Be the Real Problem inTeenage AccidentsMike Males..........................................................................4

Allen Robinson 2007 Richard Kaywood AwardRecipient.............................................................................6

Teenage Drivers and Hand-free Cellular Phones:An Equation for TragedyDr. Shari Willis, Rowan University, Ms. Dawn Tarabochia,Montana State UniversityDr. Michele DiCorcia, Rowan University..........................9

Vehicle Dynamics and their Impact on Directional ControlWhile in TurnsWilliam E. Van Tassel, Ph.D. and Richard ChidesterTraffic Safety Programs AAA National Office...............13

The Role of Driver Educators in Instructing Students to “SEE” Engineering, Human and Other Attributesand Obstacles of the HTS Dana Sosnick-Bowser, Executive Director.................15

Secondary Review of Data From“Teen Driver Licensing Program Survey – 2005”Executive Summary......................................................16

Publishing Information

Editor John Palmer, Ph.D.Send article submissions to:

John Palmer, Ph.D832 Halliday Road

St. Cloud, MN [email protected]

The Chronicle for Driver EducationProfessionals is published threetimes a year in cooperation with theIndiana University of PennsylvaniaHighway Safety Center.

Ron Hales, Ph. D.Retired ProfessorCentral Washington Univ.

Raymond Ochs, Ed.D.Coordinator, Traffic SafetyInstituteEastern Kentucky University

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Chronicle for DE ProfessionalsFall 2007

The Chronicle

My Past, My Present and My SoapboxDana Sosnick-Bowser, Executive Director

Greetings to all and hope mymessage finds you all well. It waswonderful to see so many of you inBurlington, Vermont. I had a greattime talking with and sharing ideaswith each of you.

While I’m quite a talker, I do findmy writing style is one that is shortand sweet to say the least. My dadtold me once not to dry out the ink,say what I had to say and get onwith it. I guess I’m always true todoing that, but today, I may not. Igot a new pen!

I’ve also always taken anapproach not to share much aboutmyself and family and try to makeprofessional impressions andrelationships. Again, I think I havemet enough of you folks out thereto leave that approach behind andnot save any ink in the process.How can you trust, bond or evenlisten to a word someone says whenthey don’t share their stories, theirheart and their passions for whatthey do and believe in? I think thatnot sharing makes educators andleaders contradictory andhypocritical of what we ask of ourstudents and colleagues everyday.Think of the special teacher/mentorin your life...who shaped you andreally made you think. I’m guessingthey shared a story or two and madeyou believe in them and theirmessage.

I’m a life-long native of WesternPennsylvania. I had never been ona plane, never rented a car, neversaw more than a few states awayuntil July of 2005 when Allen,(Robbie), said, “You’re ready,” andthis country gal got on her firstairplane. I had the honor of joiningthe NSSP crew in JacksonMississippi and immediately knew,“These kids get it!” Their advisorswelcomed me with open arms and Inever looked back since. Don’t getme wrong, I started my “working

years” working with youth and adultswith the disease of addiction. So, Inever got much further than thecounty jail, hospital, my office orgroup homes to see our youthembracing much of anything besidesa session, meeting, or adjudicationhearing. So, this group seemedunbelievable and overwhelming tome. But, they too, in many ways andin many different ways were just asamazing as my kids back in PA whoI pray have found their way.

You learn a lot in the outpatientalcohol and other drug treatmentfield. You get how the brain works,you know how to run a structuredgroup, you guide with love, patienceand structure and again you pray.

Guess what, driver and safetyeducation has a lot in common. Wecare, we learn, meet, work, growprofessionally and in the end hopewe don’t “fizzle out” and pray “they’llget it.” All the while, funding is cut oreliminated, enrollment is up, 24hours still remain in a day and weknow we can’t possibly touch thehearts and minds of our kids in thecut timed/cut funded half of aprogram that never really was. Webeg out legislators. We tell ourstories, we go to conferences, wealso pray... common theme there.And we wonder “Do they get any ofit?” “Where will we be in 5 years, 5months, 5 days?” Of course not allprograms are like this…some of youare so fortunate and work in greatplaces among wonderful people withsome great programs in place.Some of you are not so fortunate andare the people needing additionalsupport. I hear you.

I won’t pretend to tell you I knowthe answers to anything. I’vewatched in awe as so manywonderful human services programsand people working within theprograms or needing them in mystate got turned upside down in the

Getting to know meDana Sosnick-BowserSince meeting and seeing many

of you in Vermont this summer, Ihave gotten many emails, notesand questions regarding who I amand what I do within ADTSEA andIUP. I am writing to let you know afew things about myself and towelcome any additional questions.Feel comfortable to call on me atany time.

Since May of 2000 I haveworked at IUP’s Highway SafetyCenter. My first endeavor includedworking on a ComprehensiveHighway Safety Program grantthrough the PA Department ofTransportation. I presented,researched and developed safetyprograms for citizens of fivecounties of PA. It was a large task,but looked much smaller when in

(go to page 3)

past six years, but the peopleneeding the help couldn’t go away.They just waited longer, for less time,less guidance and less help. Is thisour fate? I pray no. But I also knowwithout a voice, a fight, leadership,guidance and support, we too willend up like my human servicecolleagues in WesternPennsylvania. Yeah, they foughttoo, for their clients and jobs – butthey fought too late.

I’d like to say that I have a crystalball, yeah right! I do have ears,ability to use them and listeneffectively and the notion to knowwhen to guide, lead, trample or getthe hell out of the way. Folks, I’mnot getting the hell out of the way.I’m going to do my best to teach,guide, lead, support and makewaves for you. ADTSEA has beensilent for too long.

May you keep your passion,your fight and love of your craftand your kids.


The Chronicle(continued on page 7 )

Summer of 2005 Allen Robinsonasked me to come on board with theHighway Safety Center, NHTSA andADTSEA work and see whattranspired. Obviously, I loved it, didwell and have never turned back.

Back then, I was a ProjectManager. I was so thrilled to do thelevel of research and writing I finallyhad the opportunity to do. But, Iwanted to lead. I felt I could do somuch more for the organization.And, I thoroughly enjoyed therelationships I had formed thus farwith so many of you. I had alwaysbelieved in ADTSEA and that moreneeded said for the group…press,press, press is what I believed weneeded to express our views andgain more of an awareness andrespect for driver education.

In Burlington this summer, it wasannounced that I would take thereigns of Executive Director ofADTSEA. I can’t tell you howsurprised, proud and excited I was.Not to mention the level of press wegot in Burlington! I called home, mymom cried a little, yes mom, I couldtell. And, my dad was thrilled. Theyhave supported me immensely.More than words can say. I lovedgiving them my new business card,and took back my maiden name of“Sosnick” to show my gratitude tothem and their ambition and beliefin me for the past 30 years. Thankyou Mom and Dad and I love youvery much.

My husband Gino was hesitant.While he’s accomplished so verymuch in his work that I am proud of,I think he was just looking out for mein a leadership role. He’s a caring,and considerate man, and likes tolook after everyone in his life. Irespect him for that. I hope that’s atrait or two I’ve brought with mealong the way. Thank you Gino, or“G”, you’re incredible.

If I can ever be of assistance, orjust an ear or shoulder that you findyou might need, don’t hesitate to

Hello, my fellow ADTSEAmembers!!

Gary Scott, PresidentI am truly excited about serving

as your President. I have muchanticipation and hope for what wecan accomplish for traffic safetythrough our ADTSEA organizationthis year.

I hope that each of you whoattended the conference inBurlington, Vermont, benefited fromthe excellent program that PastPresident James Gibb organized. Asusual, the host committee led by JoeBarch and Barbara Brody, withassistance from Nancy Andrus andLindsey Townsend plus manyothers, did an excellent jobdisplaying their wonderful town andstate. Each year I am pleasantlysurprised what each community andstate have to offer that is unique intheir own way.

I am looking forward to thisyear’s conference in Fort Worth (July27 – 30) and what the Texas hostcommittee has in store for the 2008ADTSEA Conference. (My only visitto Fort Worth was on way to SanAntonio for the 2004 NCAA Mens’Final Four. I had a good time - eventhough my KU Jayhawks were notthere). I know that it will be betterthis time with the assistance of thehost committee. Since this city hasso much to offer a family whilevisiting, I strongly encourage you tostart planning your trip to the 2008ADTSEA Conference.

I want to thank all of you whohave offered to assist me as I carryout the duties of ADTSEA President.I would like to recognize thechairpersons of the ADTSEACommittees for 2007 – 2008.Parliamentarian, Constitution and

Bylaws: Jerry Gaines – California/Publications: John Palmer –Minnesota/History: Owen Crabb –Maryland/ Budget: Fred Nagao –Hawaii/Elections : Dana Bowser –Pennsylvania/ Resolutions: JerryApple – Washington/ NSSP: RhondaReid – North Carolina/ Corporate BillVan Tassel – Florida & Tim Ochipa– Illinois/ Standards: Terry Kline –Kentucky/ Teacher Excellence(formerly Teacher Of Year ): RobinBordner – Michigan/ andMembership: Stan Henderson –Indiana.

With support and assistancefrom each of you, I firmly believe thatADTSEA will have a great year.Please contact me with anysuggestions or concerns [email protected].

contact me. I am best contacted byemail, but letters, calls or visits arealways welcomed.

Thank you to everyone, and Ilook forward to serving you for many,many years to come.

Oregon teen driving lawsimprove safety, support valueof driver education, national

study saysThe first six months after

obtaining a driver license tend to bethe most dangerous for teenagedrivers across the nation, butOregon’s graduated driver licensingprogram has improved safety sinceit started in 2000, according to a newstudy.

“I’m pleased that the OregonDriver Education program is savinglives and reducing injuries,” saidTroy E. Costales, administrator ofTransportation Safety at the OregonDepartment of Transportation. “Thestudy shows we are succeeding inmaking our newest drivers betterand safer and dramatically reducingthe potential negative impacts ofteen driving.”

Graduated driver licensing inOregon, as in most other states,places a variety of restrictions ondrivers younger than 18, an agewhen novice drivers are gainingexperience behind the wheel.

“After GDL implementation,conviction and suspension rates

(from page 2)(from page 2)


The Chronicle

Poverty, Not “Risk Taking,” May Be the Real Problem in Teenage AccidentsMike Males, Senior Research Fellow Center on Juvenile & Criminal Justice

counties for ages 45-54.Meanwhile, average poverty ratesof 15% or higher afflict teenagersin 15 of the 27 counties, versusnone for Californians ages 45 andolder (US Census Bureau, 2000).The contribution of lowsocioeconomic status to what wecall “adolescent risk,” especially formotor vehicle fatality, has profoundimplications for

safety education and policies.Analysis.

From 1994 through 2005,resident drivers ages 15-74 wereinvolved in 52,416 fatal crashes in

California’s 27 largest counties(those over 200,000 population),the US Department ofTransportation’s Fatality AnalysisReporting System (FARS, 2007)reported. Drivers’ fatal crash ratesper billion vehicle-miles driven(VMD) were subjected toregression with each driver age

group’s average poverty rate,percent licensed to drive, percent ofcrashes involving unlicensed drivers,number of vehicle occupants in fatalcrashes, time of day of crash, andVMD for each county along withmedian family income, urbanization,and per-capita motor vehicleregistrations by county. VMD,calculated by a standard technique(see McCarthy, 2002) from CalTransand National Household TravelSurvey (2001) figures, showedCalifornia teens ages 15-19averaging fewer than half as manyVMD as adults, consistent withnational estimates.

Effects of socioeconomic statuson fatality risk.

Poverty and related socialconditions were associated withsubstantially higher fatal crash risks,as the unadjusted rates in Table 1show. Teenaged fatal crash rates perbillion vehicle-miles driven (BVMD)

US teenagers’ high rates of trafficaccidents have been ascribed totraits allegedly innate toadolescence, such as developmentalimmaturity, impulsiveness, and risk-taking; in short, “the adolescentdoes…not think like the adult” (Floyd-Bann & Van Tassel, 2006, p. 8). Arecent review attributed“adolescents’ inclination to engage inrisky behavior” to “the temporal gapbetween puberty, which impelsadolescents to thrill-seeking, and theslow maturation of the cognitivecontrol system, which regulatesthese impulses” (Steinberg, 2007, p55).

However, theseconclusions appear tohave been reached inhaste. We know thatsocioeconomic statuspowerfully influencesrisk, yet researcherscontinue to compareadolescents’ andadults’ behavioroutcomes “straightacross” withoutemploying evenrudimentary controlsfor economic ore n v i r o n m e n t a ldifferences. As will beseen in the followinganalysis of Californiateenaged drivers’fatality risks, teenagersand older adultsoccupy very differentsocioeconomic worlds.In every county,teenagers and young adults are twoto three times more likely thanmiddle-aged adults to live inhouseholds with incomes belowfederal poverty thresholds. Age-based income stratification is sopronounced that teens enjoy povertyrates averaging below 10% in onlyfour of the 27 most populouscounties examined, versus in 19

(continue on page 5)

The Chronicle for DE Professionals Fall 2007

Table 1. Poverty and fatal crash involvement rates by age, selected California counties, 1994-2005

Fatal crashes per billion vehicle-miles driven by driver age ( Fatal Crash Rate) Percent of population living in poverty by age (Percent in Poverty)

County Fatal Crash Rate by Age Group Percent in Poverty by Age Group 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 15-17 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74

Richer counties Richer counties Marin 17.9 14.3 10.4 5.8 6.3 4.8 12.7 10.4 13.7 8.9 6.1 5.2 4.4 3.3 San Mateo 19.5 14.3 8.6 7.5 6.8 10.0 10.1 7.9 11.6 6.2 4.8 4.1 4.4 4.7 Orange 29.0 19.6 11.9 9.8 8.4 9.7 11.6 13.8 17.6 10.9 8.2 6.0 6.4 5.1 Santa Clara 33.0 20.1 11.4 9.5 8.3 8.2 12.2 11.2 14.7 7.6 5.7 4.8 5.2 5.7 Solano 34.4 22.3 18.6 14.5 10.2 14.0 18.2 10.4 11.4 8.9 6.6 5.3 5.7 5.0

Poorer counties Poorer counties Fresno 70.0 57.0 42.1 32.8 26.0 26.0 33.1 27.0 29.9 22.8 18.7 13.2 13.0 9.1 Stanislaus 80.9 51.3 31.7 31.9 24.4 24.8 27.3 19.8 20.9 17.0 13.5 11.0 10.1 8.4 Butte 92.0 51.2 41.9 38.0 34.0 30.6 29.8 19.3 45.7 22.3 13.9 11.8 10.3 5.3 Tulare 105.5 74.1 52.4 52.5 39.8 35.8 42.0 29.8 27.4 25.6 20.6 13.4 13.5 10.5 Merced 118.6 79.5 56.7 40.0 41.6 41.2 53.1 27.6 27.5 21.5 18.0 13.6 13.8 10.3

Sources: Authors’ calculations from FARS (2007); US Census Bureau (2000).

The Chronicle

varied 6.6 times from the mosthazardous county (Merced) to thesafest (Marin). Adult fatal crash risksshowed similar patterns at everyage level. The regression modelsaccounted for three-fourths of thevariance in fatal crash rates by ageand county.

After poverty, the biggest riskfactors boosting teenaged drivers’fatality rates were driving fewermiles and residing in counties withlow household incomes. Table 2illustrates these risk factors in twomajor urban counties. Within eachcounty, teenaged drivers sufferedpoverty rates double and fatal crashrates triple those of middle-ageddrivers. Between the two counties,teenagers’ and middle-agers’ fatalcrash rates both averaged two tothree timeshigher inpoorer FresnoCounty than inricher OrangeCounty eventhough Fresnor e s i d e n t saveraged 800fewer milesdriven peryear. Fresno45-54 year-olds, withs i m i l a rnumbers of drivers and povertyrates, had fatal crash risks per VMDsimilar to those of Orange Countyteenagers. The number ofpassengers and time of crash werenot associated with teen fatality riskonce poverty was controlled.

For the 27 counties as a whole,differences in poverty and relatedconditions explained five-sixths ofthe difference between teenagedand adult traffic safety:∑ When rates were comparedstraight across (as researchershave), teenaged drivers sufferedfatal crash involvement rates 3.19

times those of the safest adult agegroup (45-54).∑ But when the multipleregression standardized povertyand other social conditions for allage groups, teenaged drivers’ fatalcrash rates fell to just 1.32 timesthose of drivers ages 45-54. Thatis, external conditions, not age,explain around 85% of thedifference between teenage andmiddle-aged crash rates.∑ Similarly, under standardizedconditions, the fatality gapbetween richer and poorer teensnarrows sharply. In Table 2,Fresno’s actual teenage fatalcrash rate, 70.0 per BMVD, is 2.42times Orange County teens’ rate(28.9). However, under equalizedpoverty and related conditions,

that gap shrinks to around 1.20times.Implications for driver andsafety programs.

The most effective measure tocombat teenage (and adult) motorvehicle fatality may be to reduce theUS’s excessive rates of youthpoverty and to improve drivingconditions and health care in poorerareas. But since driver and trafficsafety personnel aren’t authorizedto redistribute the nation’s economicresources, what practicalimplications do these findings have?

One may be to advise reformsto address the disappointing results

of California’s Graduated DriverLicensing (GDL) law, which tookeffect July 1, 1998, and is among thenation’s strictest (see CaliforniaDepartment of Transportation,2006a; Males, 2006; Masten &Hagge, 2004). Compared to theprelaw period (January 1995through June 1998, when noteenage drivers were subjected toGDL restrictions and delayedlicensing), teenaged drivers’ fatalcrash involvement rates rose by3.6% relative to adult crash rates inthe postlaw period (July 2002through December 2005, whenvirtually all 15-19-year-old drivershad grown up with GDL). Recentinvestigation has found initially-reported declines in crashes among16-year-olds were more than offset

by significant fatality increasesamong 18- and 19-year-oldsaffected by the law (Table 3 on page8).

The teenage fatality increasewas more pronounced amongunlicensed drivers in inland andpoorer counties, though county-by-county experiences were extremelyvariable. Whether the GDL lawcaused or contributed to the fatalityincrease among the older teenagedrivers it affected or simply failed toaddress important factors causingthe increase, reassessment isneeded. We suggest there areserious flaws in American GDL laws

(more on page 8 )

(from page 4)


Table 2. Fatal traffic crash involvement by driver age in a poorer (Fresno) versus richer (Orange) county

County level Fatal crash characteristics: Fatal crash rates per Average annual counts

County Poverty

rate Median income

Population Drivers VMD

Vehicle occupants

Percent unlicensed

Crash time

100,000 population

Billion VMD

Age 15-19 Fresno 27.0% $34,725 69,300 22,600 3,830 2.16 28.6% 17:10 26.90 70.00 Orange 13.8% $58,820 191,700 77,400 4,640 2.17 13.8% 18:50 13.40 28.90

Age 45-54 Fresno 13.2% $34,725 90,800 82,400 11,870 1.70 16.2% 15:70 30.90 26.00 Orange 6.0% $58,820 356,700 352,900 12,630 1.58 4.9% 16:00 10.70 8.40

The Chronicle

Allen Robinson 2007 Richard Kaywood Award Recipient

Aloha! My name is Jan Meeker.I'm from Honolulu, Hawaii. I'm theDepartment of Education Director ofEducation Resource Teacher, whichmeans I'm in charge of the troops. Idon't actually teach, but I haveto make sure they all meet theircriteria and have their licenses inplace. I was introduced to ADTSEAabout 13 years ago, and I am heretoday, honored to present to you theAcademy Award for ADTSEA, the"Oscar" winner for this year.

The task is difficult. Like everyone of you with your years on thisEarth, there is so much to say, sohow do you put that down in threeparagraphs to make sure you givethe person time to acknowledge whohe wants to acknowledge? So Istayed up last night until 3:30 and Ithought "I'm going to give you theformal part, and then heck, I'm goingto continue giving my owninterpretation as to how he got here."

All Right, Dr. Allen Robinsonearned his bachelor in SecondaryEducation in 1964 from EasternIllinois University. When hegraduated, he began his 33 yearsin driver education by becoming adriver education teacher inWheaton, Illinois. Then after threeyears of doing that, he decided thathe wanted to go back and get aMasters Degree, so he went toIllinois State University and hebegan his master's program there.After completing his masters degreein traffic safety he joined the staff ofthe Automotive Safety Foundationas a research associate.

In 1971 Allen became agraduate assistant for the HighwayTraffic Safety Center at MichiganState University. One year later hegot his PhD in secondary educationwith a focus in curriculumdevelopment from Michigan StateUniversity.

From 1972 to 1980 Allen servedas the Director of Education and

Research for the Motorcycle SafetyFoundation.. In 1981 IndianaUniversity of Pennsylvania hired himas a professor for their HighwaySafety Center, and that is where hehas continued to stay. Over the yearshe has been a consultant andcontractor for many, organizations,state and national. To name a few:National Transportation SafetyBoard, the Consumer Product SafetyCommission, the American TruckingAssociation, and many more. Youknow the recent years he has beenworking very closely with NHTSA toobtain funds to assist with theADTSEA program. In 1993 ADTSEAcontracted with IUP for managementservices. IUP agreed to provide dayto day management of the AmericanDriver and Traffic Safety Association.As a professor in the Highway SafetyCenter Allen also undertook the roleof C.E.O. of ADTSEA. In 1999 hewas selected to be the Director ofthe Highway Safety Center at IUP.In 33 years has produced andpublished 18 professionalpublications. He has co-authoredseven with other individuals. He is amember of several professionalorganizations; he has devoted a lotof his focus with us at ADTSEA. Hehas received six other rewards, oneof which I was surprised to learn wasa Lifetime Chief Instructor awardfrom the Motorcycle SafetyFoundation because of hiscontributions in developingmotorcycle safety and ridereducation programs nation wide.

He has several bosses. When Ifirst got to here in 1994 I did not likethe man. He was mean looking, hewas not friendly. And I thought "oh, Idon't know if I want to do this." Whenyou get to know him he's just roughon the outside. Remember thesaying: don't judge a book by itscover," and it's true. I got to knowhim in a real different light. I'm astraight up person, when I think of

something I'm going to ask youdirectly if you're the one involves he'sthe same way. We have ourdisagreements but we are allowedto disagree in a nice way, and I havelearned through the years on thisEarth that you meet people for acertain reason. I met him, heintroduced me to all of you and Iintroduced him to about 1,000 kidsacross the country, and to me that ismy blessing. So I am very happy tobe a part of his program this morning.

He has complained about havingtoo many bosses. Number one isBecky, number two is Terry Kerfontaand he reports to Dr. Carleen Zoni,Dean of the College of Health andHuman Services and to Dr. ElaineBlair Department Chair. His currentADTSEA bosses are Carol Hardinand myself.

When I met Allen several yearsback in NSSP there was not even athought to come to Hawaii for NSSPor for ADTSEA Conference. Hebrought NSSP over because hebelieved in us and he brought thekids over twice, and he also broughtall of you over two years ago withthe 2005 ADTSEA Conference. Sowith that I truly appreciate his openmind.

I am truly honored to present toyou Dr. Allen Robinson as theKaywood Award winner for 2007.

Jan said some things that, as Iremember, I might want to clarify. AsJan described some of the thingswe've done in the past probably 80%of them were true, and some of theothers is a little bit of her memoryproblems because of her older age.Even though she hasn't wrinkled andshe's a delight to be with. Whatactually happened in 1994 inTacoma, Washington: she was thegrumpy one. She said, in fairness tomy predecessors, they would neverlisten to her, she didn't like them; shedidn't want any BS about your



The Chronicle

willingness to come to Hawaii. I said"you don't even know me; you've gotto give me a chance. If you thinkthere is a way to host conferencesin your state we will figure out howto do it." And she is correct about thefact that we've been there twice withNSSP (huge attendance), and we'vebeen there once with this conferencewhich was two years ago and manyof you were there and remember justhow much fun that was.

I want to also thank PiersonPrentice Hall for this continuedsupport of the Kaywood award. Thesignificance of Dick, that Terry so welldescribed, is important to all of us.Because I look back to 1968 whenJames Aaron from Southern IllinoisUniversity was our president and wewere in Ypsilanti, Michigan and I justremember that Dick Kaywood wasone of the first people to greet me atthat conference. It was the firstADTSEA Conference I attended andDick made me feel welcome.

I am able to accept this awardbecause of the educational andprofessional guidance I received inCollege. If it wasn't for the inspirationand guidance from Dr. HarlandRiebe at Eastern Illinois University Iwould have never entered the drivereducation field. Dr. Frank Kenel atIllinois State University convincedme that I could accomplish greatergoals. Dr. Bob Gustafson guided methrough my doctoral program.

This award is due to thesupportive effort that I've had fromall of the ADTSEA Presidents since1994. I would like all of those presentto please stand and remain standing.Our current president Carol Hardinhas been a great pleasure to workwith. Others present are Jim Gibbs,Randy Thiel, Jim Lewis, Kal Kelliher,Marty Rossini, Gerry Apple, C. E.Welsh, and Barbara Brody. JohnPalmer was president whenADTSEA and IUP developed thiscontract for management.

The ADTSEA Executive

Committee is the group that makesthis association function. Would allthe past Executive Committeemembers please stand. Would theentire board members stand up whohave been active since 1994.This isnot an organization of one. This isan organization of many. Now, wouldwe have one more group stand upand then I'll let you sit down. I wouldlike all the previous Kaywood awardwinners to please stand. I know thatseveral are here. Owen Crab, JohnHarvey, Terry Klein, Fred Mottola,John Palmer, Frank Kenel, and ofcourse Joe Intore.

The last group that is so essentialis the staff that works at IUP . I'm notsure where they all are but DanaBowser, Lou Pesci, Velian Georgievand Joani Bowser are essential inproviding management services toADTSEA. We've also had Beckyworking at our registration desk forthe last three days and we certainlyappreciate that continued help. Butmy staff works hard, and they workhard for you, and they are a greatasset, so I give my thanks to all ofthem in appreciation of this award.

I do want to say a little aboutwhat has happened since 1993. Weactually started, as John can tell you,with a negative balance in ourcheckbook and thanks to 16 stateswho loaned money to ADTSEA,ADTSEA was able to pay the billsand continue to function as anassociation. Within one year wewere able to pay back that money.Since 1994 we have always had apositive cash balance, I sometimesworry when I tell people how positivebecause then they think we shouldspend it. In 1994, we were here inBurlington and we had very little foodservice. The Wednesday nightbanquet was the only meal provided.Today we have very good foodservice . So now we have asubstantial amount of meal functionsthat I think are good, and I know thatthere are times that you maybe youmay not like exactly what is served,

but at least there was a variety offood and beverage choices to helpyou get through the week.

I'm always asked aboutattendance. I can tell you what theaverages are: 225 delegates attendevery year, that's all of us; 60spouses and 20 people representingexhibitors. So when you do yourquick math you have over 300people who attend our nationalconference on a regular basis.

So I close in thanking all of youfor your participation and allowingme to work through the IUP officeas a professor at the Highway SafetyCenter, Indiana University ofPennsylvania, and as your ChiefExecutive Officer.

Again, thanks, I hope you enjoythis conference; the host committeehas done a beautiful job planningactivities. They even went out andchanged the weather: it's mild, it'snot real humid. So I hope you havea good time. Thank you very muchfor your support and recognition.

(from page 6)

(Oregon from page 3)


were lower for all age groups, evenamong the unrestricted 18- and 19-year-old novice drivers,” accordingto the study released Sept. 24 by theNational Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration (www.nhtsa.gov).

“Particularly for 16-year-olddrivers, suspensions and crashesdropped by the second year of GDLimplementation,” the study said.“The drivers who show the mostimproved safety are those who weremost affected by the law, thoughenhanced safety is seen even inolder teens (18- to 19-year-olddrivers) who are not restricted byGDL regulations.”

Parents’ involvement insupervising their teenage children’sdriving is a key in improved safety,the study found.

“The clearest safetyimprovements (e.g., 16-year-olddrivers in their first six months oflicensure) occur not only when the


The Chronicle

whose restrictions on novice

drivers’ full licensing, supervision,passenger transport, etc., arebased on age alone. Theseprovisions codify the assumptionthat teenagers are fundamentallydifferent from adults: that is, 16-17year-olds are too reckless to permitunsupervised driving while adultsages 25-older with driver ’s licensesare safe, qualified drivinginstructors. Yet, our study’s findingsargue that whether or not teens“think” differently than adults, theyact in strikingly similar ways undersimilar conditions. Marin teenagersdrive more like Marin adults thanlike Tulare teenagers, who drivemore like Tulare adults. Low-income drivers of all ages tend todrive older, less-maintainedvehicles (Bureau of Transportation

Statistics, 2001), live in areas with

lower tax bases where roads maybe more hazardous, drive withmore passenger distractions, drivelater at night, and suffer poorerhealth care when injured. Thisanalysis suggests that the higherfatal crash risks among teenagers,including those driving at night orwith more passengers, areattributable not to internally-motivated risk-taking supposedlyinnate to young age, but largely toexternally-imposed conditionssuch as high exposure to povertyand attendant dangers that alsoboost fatality risks for adult drivers.

Similarly, the lower fatal crashrisks of older drivers derive notfrom greater maturity, but mainlyfrom the increasing affluenceaccompanying aging that allows

(from page 5 ) them to purchase safer vehicles, livein areas where drivingrisks are lower, bettercontrol their drivingconditions, and availbetter health care.Indeed, we mightwonder why middle-aged drivers withthree decades’ drivingexperience (andwhose highest-riskcontingent shouldhave died out atearlier ages) are onlymarginally safer fromfatality under similarconditions thanteenaged drivers withonly a couple of yearsbehind the wheel.

T h epersistence of baddriving habits intoolder years, visiblewhen socioeconomicfactors protectingolder ages arecontrolled, suggestsattention to thesecond importantvariable: drivingexperience, which

may be positively affected by drivereducation and safety programs. Thesefindings suggest that, independently ofeconomic status, teens who are leastat risk of fatality occupy groups thatdrive the most. While teenagers sufferapproximately 7% more fatal crashesfor each 1% increase in poverty, theyaverage 9% fewer fatalities per VMDfor each additional mile driven per day.The rapidity of young drivers’ learningcurves logically depends on the qualityof their accumulating experience.

This preliminary analysis arguesthat socioeconomics harborspotentially powerful implications fortraffic safety. Those experienced indriver and safety programs may seemore than the few suggested here.First, the anti-youth rhetoric common

(more on page 19)


Table 3. Fatal crashes per 100,000 population before and after California’s GDL law, 27 most populous counties

Age Prelaw Postlaw Change n 1/1995-6/1998) (7/2002-12/2005) By age

15 3.17 1.87 -40.9% 83 16 13.30 9.25 -30.5% 365 17 19.81 18.44 -6.9% 613 18 29.33 35.52 +21.1% 1,035 19 30.62 35.79 +16.9% 1,062 15-19 19.05 19.87 +4.3% 3,158 20-74 19.19 19.32 +0.7% 27,950

IRR* 0.993 1.028 +3.6% Licensed drivers (licensed population)

15-19 36.56 36.60 +0.1% 2,350 20-74 17.83 17.72 -0.6% 22,715

IRR* 2.050 2.065 +0.7% Unlicensed drivers (unlicensed population)

15-19 7.43 8.98 +20.9% 808 20-74 29.25 31.13 +6.4% 5,235

IRR* 0.254 0.288 +13.6% Coastal drivers (15 coastal counties)

15-19 15.78 15.05 -4.6% 1,711 20-74 15.46 14.85 -3.9% 16,126

IRR* 1.021 1.013 -0.7% Inland drivers (12 inland counties) 15-19 24.93 27.30 +9.5% 1,447 20-74 27.11 28.14 +3.8% 11,824

The Chronicle

Teenage Drivers and Hand-free Cellular Phones: An Equation for TragedyDr. Shari Willis, Rowan University, Ms. Dawn Tarabochia, Montana State University

Dr. Michele DiCorcia, Rowan University

IntroductionFatalities from motor vehicular

accidents continue to impact thelives of all Americans. According toLewis (2006), a baseball stadiumseating over 40,000 spectatorscould provide a seat for theapproximate number of individualskilled in vehicular crashes in 2004.Consider that in the United States,16- to 19-year-olds run the highestrisk of motor vehicle crashes thanany other age group (IIHS, 2006).“In fact, per mile driven, teen driversare four times more likely than olderdrivers to crash” (IIHS, 2006). Inaddition, teen drivers are at greaterrisk for motor vehicle fatalities. In2004, nearly 6,000 teens were killedand 303,000 were injured. Whileteen drivers make up 6% of alllicensed drivers, they are involvedin 14% of deadly automobilecrashes (USA Today, 2006).

According to Van der Hulst,Meijman, and Rothengatter (1999),the operation of a vehicle is a multi-task challenge that demandsappropriate “detection of criticalevents and relevant changes intraffic circumstances” (p. 336). Manydistractions may intrude on adriver ’s perception and ensuingperformance, but use of cellularphones poses serious risk for drivererror. Cell phone use has beenfound to cause an increasedvariation in accelerator pedalposition and cause drivers to drivemore slowly with more variations inspeed (Rakauska, Gugerty, & Ward,2004).

Redelmeier and Tibshirani(2001) reported that cellulartelephone use quadrupled a driver ’srisk of a collision during the time ofthe call. This risk is comparable todriving under the influence of alcoholand being involved in a crash. ADirect Line Insurance study (2002),

titled the Mobile Phone Report ,reported results consistent with thestatements of Redelmeier andTibshirani (2001). “Mobile phoneusers are as dangerous as drunk-drivers” (Direct Line Insurance,2002, p. 2). Drivers using the phonewhile operating a vehicle failed tonotice more road signs than whenunder the influence of alcohol. Inessence, when drivers converse ontheir cell phones while driving, theysubject “themselves and other roadusers to unacceptable dangers”(Direct Line Insurance, 2002, p. 3).Furthermore, Strayer, Crouch andDrews (2004) found that whencontrolling for driving conditions andtime on task, cell phone usersexhibited greater impairment thanintoxicated drivers.

In a study by Strayer, Drews &Johnson (2003) phoneconversations impaired a driver ’sreaction when the preceding vehicleapplied their brakes, and that thisphenomenon was mediated, in part,to decreased attention to visualinputs. Furthermore, Strayer (2006a)presented research findingsregarding cell phones, driverdistraction and multi-tasking. Strayer(2006a) found that out of 100 driversattempting to stop at a red light whileutilizing their cell phone, 82 users didnot stop at the red light as comparedto 352 of 1,246 non-cell phone users.This demonstrates approximately 25% of those driving with cell phonesstopped for the red light whileapproximately 75% without the useof cells phones came to a completestop.

For simulator based studies infollowing a periodically braking leadvehicle and using a hands-free cellphone in medium density traffic, thedual task of driving and using a cellphone slowed the driver reactiontime, increased the following

distance and caused rear endcollisions. Strayer (2006b)discovered that cell phones createinattention blindness for traf ficrelated events. Accordingly, cellphone drivers look but fail to see upto half of the information in thedriving environment. Even moreastounding was the finding that brainwaves were depressed in traf ficsituations when a cell phone wasbeing used.

Cellular phone conversations ofdrivers, especially hands-free, havebeen compared to passengerconversations (Haigney &Westerman, 2001). Both Strayer(2006b) and Hunton and Rose(2005) have indicated that drivingwith a cell phone is more distractingthat conversing with a passenger.This is due to the fact that thepassenger will stop conversing at atime when the driver must payattention to the traffic environmentas the passenger is able torecognize the needs of the driver.Conversely, during a cell phoneconversation between a driver andanother individual, the individual willnot stop the conversation becausethey are unaware of the drivingenvironment (Strayer, 2006b;Hunton & Rose, 2005; Elias, 2006).A higher cognitive demand is,therefore, placed upon the driverusing a cell phone.

Teenagers operating vehiclesrepresent a category of drivers ofparticular concern. As stated by theIntermountain Injury ControlResearch Center (2001), youngindividuals have elevated crashrates while they are learning the newskill of how to drive. Driver educationclasses have emphasized thedeadly effects of driving under theinfluence of alcohol and otheraddictive substances and with the

(more on page 10)


The Chronicle

t

(continued onpage 11)

simulator that corresponded with adriving movie being observed at thefront of the classroom. The drivingmovie included four distinct drivingsegments and the movie lasted atotal of 18 minutes. Each student-driver drove the first segment of themovie in which four maneuvers werepracticed. The students drove thisportion without the use of a hands-free cell phone. Each maneuverwas completed in order to avoid apotential crash. The students thendrove a second segment where themaneuvers were again needed toavoid potential crashes. During thesecond driving segment studentsused hands-free cell phones andparticipated in a discussion. Thenine simulators were arranged in aclassroom and included two rows ofsimulators; four simulators in thefront row and five in the rear row.The simulator classroom waswindowless; thus, the driving moviecould be clearly viewed withoutadditional lighting or glare. Thesimulators recorded miscues in theareas of acceleration errors,signaling errors, braking errors,steering errors, and excess speed.The simulator recorded only thenumber of errors, not the correctnumber of maneuvers achieved.Cell Phone Protocol

The cellular phones used by theparticipants were identical in brand,model number, shape, color, andfunctioning. All students were givenearpieces; thus, the phones wereconsidered hands-free models, asthe students did not need tophysically hold the phone with theirhand or shoulder. Prior to the drivingsegment that utilized the cellularphone, each student-driver made aphone connection with their partnerswho were out of sight in a secludedroom. Simply stated, the drivers didnot dial the phone while driving thesimulator. At the conclusion of thedriving movie, each student wasinformed of his or her errors with andwithout cell phone use.

Group ProtocolAll student participants were

divided into three equal groups.Each group completed all threeprotocols which included drivingwhile talking on a hands free cellphone, sitting along side the driverand recording answers to a standardset of questions, and using the cellphone in a secluded classroom toask questions to the driverperforming the simulated drivingtasks. To ensure that the samplequestions were being asked andanswered, a student was placed nextto the driver during each simulationand recorded the answers of thedriver as they were given. Thestudent recording the answers to thequestions did not interact with thedriver at any time during the drivingsimulation. Questions for the driverswere developed prior to testing tocreate a planned discussion. Thepurpose of the planned discussionwas to create a consistent andcontinuous discussion that wouldlast throughout the entire drivingsimulation. The questions rangedfrom easy to difficult and emotionalor shock value questions were notincluded in this study (Table 1). Acase crossover technique wasutilized to obtain results for this study.Each student driver was comparedagainst himself or herself regardingthe number of errors that occurredwhile driving undistracted ascompared to distracted by a hands-free cell phone.

Table 1Sample Questions from the PlannedDiscussion1. Describe the yield sign.2. What is the speed limit in aresidential area?3. What is 8X8?4. What is 93+7-29?5. What is the difference betweena flashing yellow light and a yellowlight?6. How long should you signalbefore making a turn?

recent research suggesting the useof cellular telephones while drivingis as devastating as driving underthe influence of alcohol, drivers’education classes must assess andaddress the problems associatedwith the new technology(Redelmeier & Tibshirani, 2001).Developed habits during formativedriving experiences for adolescentvehicle operators can be difficult toalter later in life. Establishingdangerous or high-risk drivingbehaviors is a detriment to the teendriver, their parents and the broadersociety.MethodsStudent Recruitment

With Institutional Review Boardapproval, permission from theschool district and high school drivereducation instructors, students wereapprised of the research study. Thisstudy was voluntary and studentsfrom two sections of a Driver ’sEducation class were given theoption of not participating withoutpenalty to their grade. Furthermore,a notification letter was distributedto the parents or guardians of allpotential participating students toinform them about the researchproject. The parents or guardianshad the option of signing the form,which would withhold their studentsfrom participation. At the request ofthe school district, parents who didnot object to the study were notrequired to sign a permissionstatement.

The pretest questionnaire wasgiven two weeks prior to any actualsimulation driving. At the time of thestudy, all of the participants (N = 51)had prior experience with drivingsimulators and all students hadpassed their written drivingexamination. Of the original 51participants, 19 were females and 32males; however, due to attrition, thefinal number of participants was 45.Driving Simulator Information

Each student-driver drove a

( from page 9)


The Chronicle(Continued on page 12)

ResultsThe combined average error

rate for both classes while drivingwithout a cell phone was 9.71compared to 50.20 when drivingwith a cell phone (Table 2). Theclass ratio was greater for the firstclass because this class initially hadfewer drivingerrors whendriving withouta cell phone.The combinedclasses had a6.37 increasein driving errorw h e ndistracted byhands-free cellphones whiledriving.

A t-test wascomputed toensure thatthere weres i g n i f i c a n td i f f e r e n c e sb e t w e e nsimulated driving segments whenstudent-drivers were undistracted bycell phones and distracted by cellphones. The two classes werecombined for the t-test and the t-value was 31.87 which showedsignificant difference (p < .0001)between the number of drivingerrors without a cell phonecompared to the number of drivingerrors with a cell phone (Table 3).Limitations

A major limitation to the studywas the fact the students utilizeddriving simulators rather than inautomobiles and on actual roads.While students had previouspractice and felt comfortable drivingthe simulators, the technology of thesimulators is not equal with an actualdriving experience. In addition,actual road driving would have beena more realistic test of the drivingabilities of student-drivers whileusing a hands-free cell phone;

however, due to an increasedchance of an accident and theinherent risk to the student-driversand other driver’s, actual road drivingwas not utilized for this study.Discussion

The ultimate goal of drivereducation is to create a safeenvironment for students as they

learn how to operate a motor vehicle.As educators, it is important to teachstudent-drivers safe, healthy drivinghabits. Without educating these newdrivers about the harm that cancome from driving while talking on acell phone, we are not ensuring theirindividual safety or the safety ofothers. Unfortunately, cell phone usewhile operating a motor vehicle isbecoming common practice as is thebelief that a hands-free cell phoneis less dangerous than a hand heldphone.Translation to Driver Education

There is a need in drivers’education to create curricularcomponents that positively affect theattitudes and beliefs of studentstowards cellular use while driving.Teaching the facts related to cellphone use while driving is necessaryfor students to understand; however,drivers’ education must go beyondthe facts and begin to impact the

attitudes and beliefs of each newdriver and ultimately their intentionsto be safe drivers. Driver educationteachers are educators and are,therefore, a vital component tocarrying the message of safetythrough the avoidance of distraction.

Driver Education teachers needto be appraised of the distraction

potential of the technology invehicles and the methods to educatethe public concerning those dangersassociated with distractions.According to Szyman, Wanner, andSpencer (2003), health educators“should be aware of the threat topersonal and public safety posed bycellular phone use while driving andaddress the practice with studentsthrough” curricular efforts. The drivereducation teacher must make aconscious effort to increase theunderstanding of risk reduction to hisor her students. Driver Educationneeds to go beyond competencybased learning and includeobjectives in the affective domains.Only then will educators begin tomake a difference in the lives of newdrivers.

It is not known why one classhad significantly more driving errorsthan the other class. One suggestion

(from page 9)


Table 2 Errors Without and With Cellular Phones While Driving Class Class total Class Class total Class Class error without average error with average ratio cell phones without cell phones with cell of cell phones phones increase Class 1 168 7.00 1,237 51.54 8.52 Class 2 269 12.81 1,022 48.67 3.92 Total 437 9.71 2,259 50.20 6.37 Table 3 T Test for Simulated Driving Group No Phone With Phone Mean 9.71 50.20 SD 3.84 6.52 SE of Measurement .57 .97 n 45 45

The Chronicle

(from page 11)

(concluding on page 14)

is the class with more errors was thefirst class of the school day and thesecond began mid morning.Furthermore, the students hadspeeding errors which correlate topreviously mentioned researchfindings suggesting that cell phoneusers have more variations in speed.Previous research indicated thatdistracted drivers drive at a slowerpace; whereas, the beginner driversin this study actually showedincreased speed. This increasedspeed; reflected in speeding errors,might make the crash potential evengreater for teenagers talking on theirphones while driving.

The hazards of hands-freephones are greater than originallybelieved. In contrast to public belief,the content of a cell phoneconversation is more determinate ofdriver distraction than the type of cellphone (hands-free vs. hand held) isbeing used (Elias, 2006).Furthermore, experimental studieshave indicated that simulated drivingtasks are compromised when driversare distracted by a cell phoneconversation regardless of whetheror not they are using a hand-held ora hands-free cell phone. The mentaldistraction created from the use ofcellular technology while drivingtransfers the drivers’ attention fromwhere it should be, on the roadenvironment, to the conversation onthe phone. While drivers focus onthe conversation, they are “naturallydistracted from their primary task”(Direct Line Insurance, 2002, p. 4).This mental disruption occursregardless of whether the cell phoneis being held or a hands-free deviceis being utilized.

As previously mentioned,Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997)reported that cellular telephone usequadrupled a driver ’s risk of acollision during the time of the call.Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997)did not considerimplications0exclusively of hands-

free cell phones as this cellulartechnology was not commonlyavailable when their study wasconducted. According to findingsfrom this study, an adolescence riskhas been more than sextupled whenusing a hands-free cell phone,indicating that whether or not thecellular phone is hand-held or handsfree, the danger comes from thedistraction that is associated with themental task of a phone conversation.When combined with the knowledgethat teenagers in their initial yearsof driving are prone to moreautomobile crashes than other agegroups (Center for Disease Control,2006), the use of cellular phones byyoung drivers becomes an equationfor tragedy.

Laws and ordinances have beencreated regarding the use of handheld cell phones. Brooklyn, Ohio,was the first U.S. city to pass anordinance restricting the use ofcellular phones. Mayor John Coyne,in conjunction with other city officialsin Ordinance Number 1997-27,suggested

That the operation of a motorvehicle on the public roadways whileusing a telephone may cause theoperator to maintain less than fulltime and attention to the operationof said motor vehicle, and…theregulation of the use of mobiletelephone while operating a vehiclein the City will enhance the safety ofthose persons operating motorvehicles as well as pedestrians in theCity (n.p.).

The law was adopted March 22,1999. As an aside, under thesupervision of long-standing MayorCoyne, Brooklyn was the first city toenact an ordinance mandating theuse of seat belts in 1966.

The aforementioned ordinanceswere a step in the right direction;however, with the potential fordrivers using hands-free cell phoneshaving the same error rate as thoseusing hand held (Elias, 2006), thelaws give consumers the false sense

of security that hands free is safer.Public health measures as well aslegislative acts based upon currentresearch are efforts needed todecrease the problems associatedwith the distractions created by cellphone use while driving. Legislativeefforts need stronger driving lawsand regulations to require studentsnot to use cell phones and to notacquire the habit.

While this study only focused onthe distraction potential of thehands-free cell phone, thedistraction potential of other lowtechnological activities while driving(e.g., reading a newspaper, shaving,and putting on make-up) and hightechnological activities (e.g.,operating a computer and watchingdigital video discs) are alsodeterrents to safe driving. Futureinterventions with beginner driversshould include a myriad of newtechnologies desired by teendrivers. Cellular phones have beencommonplace since the 1990s.Newer technologies such as textmessaging and computercapabilities in an automobile shouldbe included in future research toestablish their distraction potential.Furthermore, future interventions fordrivers’ education should consideradding these distractions todemonstrate the technology’spotential for distractions and errorsof users while driving.

According to Mintz (1995, p. 1),“Most automobile crashes are notaccidental, but are situations thatshould have been avoided”. Mintz(1995) suggested that the failure ofa driver to recognize an impendingdangerous driving situation and dealwith the situation prior to it becominga crash is “not often a knowledgeproblem, but usually an attitudeproblem” (p. 1). Driver education andfurther research should also makea conscious effort to increase theattitude that it is not appropriate touse a cell phone while operating a


The Chronicle (continued on page 15)

Vehicle Dynamics and their Impact on Directional Control While in TurnsWilliam E. Van Tassel, Ph.D. and Richard Chidester

Traffic Safety Programs, AAA National OfficeTurning the steering wheel has

traditionally been the method mostoften used for initiating a change invehicle direction, as well as to makeadjustments to one’s path of travelonce in a turn. However, there areat least two additional techniquescapable of adjusting a vehicle’s pathof travel (POT) while in a turn thatare available to all drivers. Andalthough the techniques discussedare equally effective when turningleft or right, for simplicity’s sake itshall be assumed that all turnsdiscussed in this article are rightturns.

If a vehicle is going straight ona flat surface, the most effective wayto change its direction is to turn thesteering wheel. To accomplish thisis simple; the driver turns thesteering wheel to the right to turnright, and to the left to turn left.

However, once in a turn, a drivermay need to adjust the vehicle’sdirection to maintain proper laneposition and the intended path oftravel. For example, a driver whomay have initially turned the steeringwheel too much may need to“widen” their POTthrough the turn tomaintain propervehicle positioning onthe roadway.Alternatively, a drivermay have initially notturned enough,resulting in a need totighten the vehicle’sPOT.Available Techniques

Adjusting vehicledirection mid-turn iswhere a driver ’soptions increase innumber. While turningthe wheel is the soleway to initiate a turn

from the “straight ahead” position,there are at least three ways toadjust vehicle direction once in aturn. The first and most commonway to is to use the steering wheel.Steering wheel inputs can result inadditional or reduced turning force.The effect on POT is usuallyimmediate and relatively accurate:the driver turns the wheel and thevehicle changes direction.

A second way to adjust POTwhile in a turn is to brake slightly orjust lift off the accelerator a bit(Lopez, 1997). Either of theseactions will result in an“tightening”of the vehicle’s POT. When a driverlifts off the accelerator or applies thebrakes, this has the ef fect oftransferring weight toward the frontof the vehicle. This extra weightpresses down more on the fronttires, resulting in extra traction fromthe front tires, especially the tiretoward the outside of the turn. Theresulting extra traction causes thefront tires to grip more relative to therear tires, bringing the vehicletoward the inside of the turn.

A third way to adjust POT whileturning is to accelerate. This actionis not performed to increase thevehicle’s speed, but rather to shift thevehicle’s weight rearward. As theweight moves rearward, the reartires are pressed downward andthere is a reduction in downwardpressure on the front tires. As thepressure on the front tires is acorresponding reduction in tractionoccurs. This has the effect ofpushing the front end of the vehicleout a bit wider, toward the outside ofthe turn. While this third techniqueis not used as often as the braking/lifting technique, it still remains avaluable tool in the driver ’s repertoireof actions. Table 1 summarizes thetechniques, processes andoutcomes.Additional Points

Several additional points ofinformation are relevant here. First,note that the braking andaccelerating techniques discussedabove are both accomplished bychanging the amount of weight overthe front tires, rather than by turning

Table 1


Turning Technique (While Turning Right) Initial Action Turning the Steering

Wheel (from the straight ahead position)

Braking/Lifting Off

Accelerator (while in a turn)

Accelerating

(while in a turn)

Principle Applied Increased demand on front tires

Forward weight transfer

Rearward weight transfer

Impact on Vehicle Components

Left suspension compresses, and left tires’ carry more weight

Left front suspension compressed a bit more, and more weight is transferred

Left front suspension unloads a bit, and left front tire’s carry less weight

Impact on Vehicle Attitude

Vehicle leans to the left

Vehicle leans left a bit more

Vehicle leans left a bit less

Impact on Vehicle Direction

Vehicle turns correspondingly right

Radius through the right turn tightens, vehicle turns right a bit more

Radius through the right turn widens, vehicle “unwinds” a bit from its right turn

The Chronicle

(from page 13)the steering wheel. Thus, itbecomes clear that instead of beingsomething that “happens” to avehicle, weight transfer becomes thedriver’s tool with which to adjusttraction and thus POT while in a turn(Karasa, 2001).

Second, these two weighttransferring techniques are mosteffective when traveling at highwayspeeds. At city driving speeds, thesteering technique remains the mosteffective. Finally, be aware that tooaggressive application of either thebraking or acceleration techniquescan result in loss of traction in theform of understeer (front tire) oroversteer (rear tire) skids.

In summary, the steering wheelremains the sole method to initiatea turn drivers have three options foradjusting path of travel while in aturn. Braking and accelerationtechniques can help drivers adjusttheir vehicle’s position withenhanced precision, resulting indecreased chance of colliding withother vehicles or fixed objects.

While instructors may find thisinformation useful in discussingbasic vehicle dynamics withstudents in the classroom, theseconcepts are not intended to beused during actual in-car trainingwith novice drivers. These conceptsare relatively advanced, and areapplicable only while driving athigher speeds. These techniquesmay involve higher risk than wouldappropriate during in-car training;thus, it is recommended thatinstructors not attempt to teach,perform or otherwise apply thetechniques during in-car training.Application of the concepts shouldbe limited to supplementingclassroom discussions about basicvehicle dynamics.

ReferencesKarasa, A. (2001). Drive Smart!Xlibris Corporation,Lopez, C. (1997). Going Faster!Robert Bentley, Inc., MA.

motor vehicle.ReferencesCenters for Disease Control andPrevention (n.d.). National Center forInjury Prevention and Control: TeenDrivers Fact Sheet. Retrieved October26, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/teenmvh.htm.

City of Brooklyn, Ohio. (1999, March23). Ordinance No. 1999-27 [introducedby Mayor John M. Coyne, Tom Coyne,John Frey, Kathy Pucci, Rita Brown andGreg Frey].

Direct Line Insurance. Mobile PhoneReport, Report (Report TRL547).Retrieved November, 2002, fromw w w . t r l . c o . u k / a b s t r a c t s /547summary.pdf.

Elias, M. (2006, August 13). Cell phoneCalls Affect Driver’s Brain. USA Today.Retrieved August 14, 2006, from http://usatoday.com/news/health/2006-08-13-cell-car_x.htm.

Haigney, D. & Westerman, S. J. (2001).Mobile (cellular) phone use and driving:A critical review of researchmethodology [Electronic Version].Ergonomics, 44(2), 132-143.

Hunton, J., & Rose J. M. (2005). Cellulartelephones and driving performance:The effects of attentional demands onmotor vehicle crash risk. Risk Analysis,25, 855-866.

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety(IIHS). Fatality facts: Teenagers 2005.Arlington (VA): The Institute; 2006 [cited2006 Dec 1]. Retrieved August 14, 2006from www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/teenagers.html.

Intermountain Injury Control ResearchCenter. (2001). 2000 Utah CrashSummary: Utah crash outcome dataevaluation system. Salt Lake City, UT:University of Utah, Department ofPediatrics.

Lewis, L. (2006). It’s No Accident: TheReal Story Behind Senseless Deathand Injury on Our Roads. United States:Lulu.com.

Mintz, N.O. (1995). The most neglecteddriver attribute remains attitude[Electronic Version]. The Chronicle ofADTSEA, 43, 1-2.

Rakauska, M. E., Gugerty, L. J., &Ward, N .J. (2004). Effects of naturalisticcellphone conversations on drivingperformance. Journal of SafetyResearch, 33(4), 453-464.(from page 12)Redelmeier, D. A. & Tibshirani, R. J.(1997). Association between cellular-telephone calls and motor vehicle

collisions. New England Journal ofMedicine, 336(7), 453-458.

Redelmeier, D. A., & Tibshirani, R. J.(2001). Car phones and car crashes:Some popular misconceptions.Canadian Medical Association Journal,164(11), 1581-1582.

Strayer, D. L. (2006a, August). Cell Phonesand Driver Distraction: On-road Study ofover 1700 Drivers. Paper presented atNational Meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, New Orleans,LA.

Strayer, D. L. (2006b, August). Cell Phonesand Driver Distraction: Cell Phone vs.Passenger Conversations. Paper presentedat National Meeting of the AmericanPsychological Association, New Orleans,LA.

Strayer, D.L. (2006c, August). DriverPerception While Conversing on a CellPhone. Paper presented at NationalMeeting of the American PsychologicalAssociation, New Orleans, LA.

Strayer, D. L., Crouch, J., & Drews, F.A. (2005). A Comparison of the CellPhone Driver and the Drunk Driver.Paper presented at the Proceedings ofthe Second International DrivingSymposium on Human Factors in DriverAssessment, Training and VehicleDesign, Salt Lake City, UT.

Strayer, D. L., Drews, F. A., & Johnson,W. A. (2003). Cell phone inducedfailures of visual attention duringstimulated driving. Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Applied, 9,23-32.

Szyfman, A., Wanner, G., & Spencer, L.(2003). The relationship betweencellular phone use, performance, andreaction time among college students:Implications for cellular phone use whiledriving. American Journal of HealthEducation, 34(2), 81-83.

Time for Driver’s Education Overhaul?(2006, August 19). USA Today.Retrieved August 14, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-08-19-drivers-ed_x.htm

(Oregon from page 7)among safety authorities in publicforums and the press should betempered until multiage, multivariatestudy convincingly shows that youngdriver age remains a significant,substantial risk factor even aftersocioeconomic, environmental, andexperiential variables are carefullycontrolled. Second, unless young

( continued on page 29)

(Cell phones from page 12)


The Chronicle

The Role of Driver Educators in Instructing Students to “SEE” Engineering,Human and Other Attributes and Obstacles of the HTS

Dana Sosnick-Bowser, Executive Director

The role of the driver in thehighway transportation system(HTS) is primarily that of processinginformation and making decisions.Competent drivers do not justoperate and guide vehicles: stop, goturn; they are involved in a complexand constant process of perceivingand deciding how best to control thespeed and position of their vehiclesin one traffic situation after another.This is an attribute or characteristicof a competent driver because theyhave been introduced to, taught andpracticed over a prescribed amountof time such skills that allow for idealperception of HTS characteristicsand the proper action to deal withsuch features.

Fortunately, most trafficsituations to be encountered areroutine and easy to deal with due toengineering considerations.However, every now and then arather complex traffic problem ariseswhich drivers must cope with in avery limited amount of time due tomany factors including, but notlimited to, need for change in theroadway, work zones and/or trafficcongestion. And, it is the failure ofdrivers to respond properly to suchproblem situations that lead to mostcollisions. Therefore, thedevelopment of traf fic problemsolving skills is a basic requirementof safe driving.Perceptual Driving: Skills forLearning to Deal with the HTS

The Defensive Driving Course,the Smith System for Expert Seeing,and the Identify, Predict, Decide andExecute (IPDE) and SearchEvaluate Execute (SEE) processhave been introduced in varyingmanners into high school drivereducation programs, etc.

SEE involves, as mentionedabove, searching for highway signs,signals and pavement marking.

Obviously, highway designcharacteristics play heavily inscanning or searching for theseitems for driver guidance.Evaluating is the process ofdetermining what all has beenperceived within the search stageand what these may be telling adriver to do. Executing involvesmaking a final conclusion of thesafest action to take for what hasbeen perceived in the traffic sceneahead and then doing it. For the firsttime, the best ideas from theseprograms have been integrated intoone comprehensive and coherentprogram of instruction; PerceptualDriving.

Perceptual driving bestdescribes such a program wherestudents, administrators, parents,traffic engineers, inspectors andworkers better understandperceptual driving skill developmentas thinking skills and problemsolving skills that should become ahigh priority in the educationalreform movement and withinworkplace training anddevelopment. Hence, the teachingof problem solving skills in drivereducation can make a significantcontribution to the general objectiveof high schools as well as trafficsafety in many venues.

In addition to the driver ’s mentalskills or processes, perceptualtraining highlights the five basicrequirements that are needed for thesafe control of a motor vehicle. Then,they are applied and reinforcedduring succeeding sessions. Thesefive basic concepts are traction,space, time, visibility, and the pathof travel. As highway engineeringis involved, all five of these conceptsare essential in HTS development,design and construction and thusshould be a vital part of driver

education and continued educationprograms for those in the HTS field.

Adequate Traction — Withouttraction, vehicle movement andcontrol would not be possible.Traction is required for accelerating,decelerating, and steering. A drivermust constantly assess the tractiondemands of his or her vehicle.

Adequate Space — An adequatemargin of space gives drivers plentyof time to react to the changingconditions. It also gives them bettervisibility. As a result, they rarely needto make sudden stops or swervingactions. Space is needed forcrossing, joining, turning, and anyother maneuver. Space needed, willvary with the speed being traveled.

Adequate Time — The drivermust assess the time needed fordriver control actions, vehicleresponses, maneuvers, andprocessing information. The use oftiming is extremely important foravoiding hazards.

Adequate Visibility — How wella driver can guide his or her caralong a pathway depends onvisibility and how well the eyes arebeing used. Changes in visibilitymust be perceived and respondedto.

Path of Travel — The path oftravel is that strip of roadway, wideenough and long enough, to permitthe safe forward movement of yourcar. This concept serves as the basicpoint of reference for all perceptionsand evaluations.

Another issue to consider thathas been heavily researchedevaluated and taught within thedriver education community is theeffect the roadway and vehicle itselfhas on vehicle balancecharacteristics. Obviously, highwaydesign and structure can affect

(go to page 17)


The Chronicle

(more on the next page)

SECONDARY REVIEW OF DATA FROM“TEEN DRIVER LICENSING PROGRAM SURVEY – 2005”

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYBy Jessica Hartos, PhD,”Assistant Professor, Department of Public Health Sciences, UNC Charlotte for

John Harvey Program Manager, Driver Education Program ODOT-Transportation Safety Division

Motor vehicle crashes are theleading cause of injury and death foryouth in the United States and causemore deaths than do the next fourcauses (i.e., homicide, suicide,cancer, and heart disease)combined. Three countermeasuresexist to help combat high crash ratesamong young drivers—graduateddriver licensing (GDL), drivereducation, and parental involvementin teen driving—and each state hassome combination of these in place.In 2004-05, the“Oregon Departmentof Transportation (ODOT) arrangedfor the“Oregon Survey ResearchLaboratory (OSRL) to conduct asurvey in Oregon“with“parents andtheir 16- and 17-year-old teenagedrivers with and without crashesposted to their Oregon driver recordsabout attitudes, behaviors, andexperiences related to teen driving,including aspects of GDL, drivertraining, and parent involvement inteenage driving. A final report wasissued by OSRL for the surveydata;“however, it did not includesignificant results or interpretation ofany significant results.

The purpose of this project wasto conduct a secondary review of thedata in the “Teen Driver LicensingProgram Survey – 2005” todetermine risk and protective factorsrelated to young driver crashes andpolicy implications for teenage driversafety utilizing the “Public HealthApproach” as promoted by theCenters for Disease Control andPrevention (CDC). This projectaddresses Steps 2 and 3 of thePublic Health Model—to identify riskand protective factors (Step 2) andto develop and test preventionstrategies (Step 3).Methods

Data were abstracted from the“Teen Driver Licensing Program

Survey – 2005” final report thatincludes survey results for 1,125parents and their 16-and 17-year oldteenagers (42% of which hadcrashes posted to their state driverrecords). Variables of interestincluded the following: attitudestoward Oregon’s teen driving laws,teen driver training , opinions aboutDMV family materials, factorsrelated to choosing educationcourse or 100 hours, amount ofsupervised practice driving, factorsrelated to age at licensure , teenadherence to Oregon’s teen drivinglaws, parent confidence in teendriving, parenting practices, teensubstance use, teen drivingbehaviors, and teen driver skills .Responses for all variables weredichotomized as “category ofinterest” vs. “referent category” andodds ratios were calculated torepresent the difference in risk forcrash due to being in the firstcategory vs. the referent category.Summary of Study Findings andPolicy Implications

A number of variables of interestshowed significant relations withcrash group: some were positivelyrelated (“risk” factors) and somewere inversely related (“protective”factors). But, there were nosignificant differences in parentreports or in teen reports for anyvariables of interest related to thetwo adolescent age groupsaddressed in this study (16-only vs.16-and-17). Therefore, there wouldbe no need to enact dif ferentstrategies or policies for 16-year-olds than for 17-year-olds.

ß Parent Support for and Teenadherence to provisional licensurerequirements : Oregon shouldassess and utilize various strategiesto promote (and require) parent andteen understanding of, support for,

and adherence to GDL lawsbecause in this study, parent overallsupport for GDL policies and teenadherence to provisional licensurerequirements was related to areduction in teen crashes of 40% to100% (1.4 to 2 times less crash risk).ß DMV family materials: Oregonshould assess and utilize variousstrategies to promote (even require)the use of DMV family materialsbecause in this study, use of a logbook and the Tuning Up Manual wasrelated to a reduction in teen crashrisk of 40% to 60% (1.4 to 1.6 lesscrash risk).

ß Driver education vs.supervised practice: Oregon shouldpromote and support (even require)the completion of driver educationfor teenagers because in this study,completing driver education vs. 100hours of supervised practice onlywas related to a reduction in crashrisk of 50% to 80% (1.5 to 1.8 lesscrash risk).

ß Parent confidence in teendriving: Oregon should assess andutilize various strategies to promote(even require) parent ef forts toassess their teenagers’ drivingthrough both driver education andsupervised practice because in thisstudy, parent confidence inteenagers’ safe driving, especially asrelated to teenagers taking drivereducation and being supervised,was related to a reduction in teencrash risk of 40% to 70% (i.e., 1.4 to1.7 times less crash risk).

ß Parenting practices: Oregonshould assess and utilize variousstrategies to promote the monitoringof teenagers’ whereabouts byparents AND the following of parentguidelines by teenagers as theyrelate to teen driving because in thisstudy, these were related to a


The Chronicle

(from page 16)reduction in teen crash risk of 40%to 50% (i.e., 1.4 to 1.5 times lesscrash risk). ß Teen substanceuse: Oregon should assess andutilize various strategies to promotethe zero tolerance policy, and stateofficials, law enforcement, andparents need to know it, support it,and enforce it because in this study,various substance use behaviors byteenagers were related to anincrease in teen crash risk of 50%to 110% (i.e., 1.5 to 2.1 times morecrash risk).

ß Teen driving behaviors :Oregon should assess and utilizevarious strategies to promote theprimary seat belt law and stateofficials, law enforcement, andparents need to know it, support it,and enforce it because in this study,teenagers’ seat belt use was relatedto a reduction in teen crashes of210% to 230% (i.e., 3.1 to 3.3. timesless crash risk). In addition, stateofficials, law enforcement, andparents need to support and enforcepenalties for young drivers’ riskybehaviors because in this study,risky driving, especially using cellphones and speeding, were relatedto an increase in teen crash risk of40% to 100% (i.e., 1.4 to 2 timesmore crash risk).ß Teen driver skills: Oregon shouldpromote (even require) the trainingof four skills—reacting quickly,paying attention to other road users,obeying the speed limit, andavoiding unnecessary risks—duringdriving instruction for teenagers(whether with state-sanctioneddriver education instructors orparents) because in this study, thelack of these skills by teenagerswere related to an increase in teencrash risk of 50% to 140%(i.e., 1.5 to 2.4 times more crashrisk). [email protected]

vehicle balance. And, driverperformance can also af fectbalance. These are issues that canbe addressed in all aspects of

deal effectively with a driverexamination. Group three receivedlittle or no training.

The expectation of the study wasthat highway fatalities woulddecrease by 10% with the aid ofdriver education. The expectation ofthe study was far too great; thereforeexperts ruled that driver educationwas ineffective.

However, if one really processesthis data, it is evident that exposureto driving was not considered.Obviously, group one receivedample training and thereforepursued, earned and utilized adriver’s license more often thangroup two. Group three with little orno training, mainly did not pursue orearn a driver’s license. Therefore,who do you think will be on theroadways more, logging more milesas a novice driver? Group one.

Despite some true positivesdiscovered in the study supportingdriver education, since the study,programs throughout the US havedeclined by greater than 50%. Theway driver education is being offeredis inconsistent and lackingmonitoring in nearly 40% of the US.Hence, how can we as safety,engineering and constructionprofessionals expect to develop the“perfect” roadway and HTSsituations when driver education isunable to support your efforts withprograms such as the PerceptualDriving Program?Driver Education NOW!

As professionals intertwined inour own fields, yet linked togetherwith the interest of traffic safety inmind, what needs to happen in thefuture to ensure novice drivers or alldrivers for that matter, gain the skillsnecessary to encounter the complexHTS?

First, one must be aware, thereare in place approved NationalDriver Education ClassroomStandards in place that prescribewhat should be taught within the

vehicle and roadway design, alongwith safe driving lessons.Driver Actions

Every action we take with ourmotor vehicle is determined by whatwe identify and process in our brain.The actions we are referring to arespeed selection, position and/ordirection selection andcommunication selection. As driverswe are constantly adjusting ourspeed, position and communicating,and this is all determined by whatwe identify and evaluate. Identifyingis done with all of our senses, but indriving, it is primarily done with oureyes. The average driver who isinvolved in a collision will usuallyindicate with one of three responsesas to why the collision occurred andthese are:

“I didn’t see him;”“I didn’t see him in time;” and“I didn’t think he would do what

he did.”These three statements indicate

most drivers do not know how to usetheir eyes in an effective manner.And they do not know what to searchfor in an orderly manner. Highwayconstruction features, roadwaytypes and heavy highway workzones are features that further addto what drivers need to see, processand deal with on a frequent basesdependant upon the area the driverutilizes.Not all Drivers Learn PerceptualSkills; Why?

Historically, Driver Educationwas a highly sought-after, nearlyuniversally offered discipline offeredin public and private schoolprograms throughout the UnitedStates since the 1950’s. In 1977-1981, the DeKalb study was initiatedin DeKalb County, Georgia throughthe National Highway Traffic SafetyEducation Association to evaluatethe effectiveness of DriverEducation. The study included threegroups. Group one received thehighest level of education. Grouptwo received just enough training to

(from page 15)

( continued on page18)


The Chronicle

∑ Workers encounter about27,000 reportable injuries onhighway work zones per year.∑ This costs approximately $2.6Billion per year.∑ There has been a 50% workzone fatality increase between1997 & 2004.∑ One worker dies approximatelyevery nine hours.

According to PennDotPublication 203, the primary functionof temporary traffic control is toprovide for the safety and efficientmovement of traffic. Temporarytraffic control zones present todrivers a sometimes constantlychanging environment. Thus, noone set of traffic control devices cansatisfy all conditions for any givenproject.

Primarily, the function of thetraffic control zone is to provide themost safe and visible area forworkers to perform all necessarytasks. The overall goal, therefore,is to provide roadway user safety,worker safety and efficient trafficflow.

Unfortunately, driver behaviorsthat include; speeding, distractions,(i.e. cell phone use), and emotionamong others often interfere with thegoal of the traffic control zone. Whendrivers enter a work zone too quicklywithout their full attention to thescene ahead, they are not utilizingperceptual driving skills and createa potentially dangerous situation forthemselves, other roadway usersand workers.

Below are some statisticsregarding the types of crashesinvolved in work zones:∑ Drivers encounterapproximately 40,000 reportedinjuries in work zones per year,along with 52,000 crashes withoutreported injuries.∑ Most drivers report rear-endscollisions, (31%), while othersreport small object collisions,(11%).

∑ The remaining 58% ofcrashes appear to be a mixture ofincidents.

Driver education needs toaddress these issues. Since 2005,ADTSEA has done that withteaching workshops on the topic andinformation within their nationalcurriculum. Emphasis has also beengiven to other providers of highwaysafety information to provide trafficcontrol zone safety education.New Gains: Support for D.E.

New initiatives to support drivereducation that leads to saferhighways are explored and thenhanded to numerous organizationsdevelop programs to providestudents and the general public withthe most up to date safetyinformation that is available. TheDeKalb study may have not yieldednumbers to support initial hypothesison the effectiveness of drivereducation, however the followingwas realized:

Students receiving full scaledriver education showed fewercrashes than the control groupreceiving no driver education duringthe first six months of their drivingexperiences.

Students receiving full scaledriver education experienced afewer number of crashes byapproximately 6%.

Preliminary data showed thatstudents receiving full scale drivereducation reported fewer violationsthan the control and partialeducational groups for two years.Those receiving partial programmingalso received fewer violations thanthe control group.

Over a six year period, thosereceiving full scale driver educationhad approximately 10% fewerviolations. Those receiving partialprogramming had 9% fewerviolationsNTSB Report on Driver Education

In the summer of 2005, theNational Transportation Safety

classroom and during behind thewheel study. These were developedby the American Driver and TrafficSafety Education Association,(ADTSEA), revised by the group in2005 and approved that same yearby the group. These standards, ifutilized, would streamline what isbeing taught so that all students geta fair shake at successfully dealingeffectively with the HTS.

ADTSEA also has in placedelivery standards for programs thatprescribe how, how long and howoften students need to be exposedto knowledge and practice to gainas much information and practice aspossible. For example, the originalprescription for driver education hasbeen, in most states, 30 hours ofclassroom training with six hours ofbehind the wheel training. This wasprescribed in the 1950’s. Certainly,our students, vehicles and roadwayshave changed substantially sincethe 1950’s. Current ADTSEAdocumentation advocates for atleast 45 hours of classroominstruction with at least eight hoursof behind the wheel training.Perceptual driving is one skillincluded in the training prescription.

Graduated driver licensingrequirements at high levels are alsoadvocated to aid students in gettingthe most practice in the safestsituations during at least their firstsix months of driving as that is whenmost crashes occur for novicedrivers. Food for Thought

For several years, and emphasishas been placed upon driver andtraffic safety educators to emphasizethe importance of safer driving habitswithin heavy highway constructionwork zones. Many drivers, noviceor seasoned, have little knowledgeor empathy for the general safety ofthose working on improving orbuilding our roadways.

Studies show the following:

(from page 17)

(more on next page)


The Chronicle

Board released a report on thestatus of and recommendations fordriver education. Briefly, this reportsupported many ideals outlinedwithin ADTSEA’s Driver EducationStandards and Delivery Standardsdocuments. Basically, what wasbeing emphasized as effective in theminds of NTSB was prescribednationally by ADTSEA even prior tothe report. Therefore, it can be saidthat it has been known for years byprofessionals in the field them moreeducation, taught differently abouteven more safety topics wasneeded. NTSB validated manyideologies and has made DriverEducation more visible as a need fornovice drivers to increase safety onour roadways, in many situationsincluding work zones.

As mentioned previously, thereport outlined that, “Despite thedramatic changes in vehicles,highways, and the drivingenvironment over the past 56 years,the approach to driver education haschanged little. According to one ofthe speakers at the Safety Board’spublic forum, many schools stillregard the 30 + 6 formula as thestandard.” Therefore, again, howcan we enrich our classrooms whenutilizing prescriptions that are nearly60 years old? Imagine engineeringand building highways with ideals,materials and equipment that arenearly 60 years old?Are We Dreaming?

No, we are not dreaming. But,we are continually advocating andworking toward making keystakeholders aware that qualitydriver education is possible andnecessary. It can be technologicallyadvanced for the classroom of the21st century and with the support ofstakeholders along with federal andstate legislation, funding andsupervision for such programs ispossible.

With the incredible rates of workzone crashes and potential deaths

to those in the field, we cannot affordto avoid this educational area anylonger. It is necessary to worktoward teaching our students of allages how to perceive traf ficsituations, process this informationand deal effectively with what isahead.

(from page 18)

age can be shown to be the pivotalrisk factor, GDL laws should droptheir arbitrary age-based restrictionsand requirements in favor of driverexperience and performancemeasures. Rather than simplydeputizing any nearby over-25 adultas an instructor, which mayperpetuate intergenerational drivinghazards, GDL laws should requireprofessional driving instruction.Third, traffic safety educationstrategies should be broadened anddiversified to incorporate the risks ofpoverty, including special attentionto personal vehicle inspection andmaintenance, location-specificdriving hazards, nighttime driving,and transporting more passengers.Efficient, targeted licensingprocedures instead of staged delaysmay also reduce the illegal drivingthat endangers poorer and youngerpopulations the most.ReferencesBureau of Transportation Statistics(2001). National household travelsurvey, 2001. Washington, DC: USDepartment of Transportation, Table A-17. Accessed December 10, 2006, at:ht tp: / /www.bts.gov/publ icat ions/highlights_of_the_2001_national_household_travel_survey/

California Department of Finance(2007). Race/ethnic population with ageand sex detail, 1990-1999, estimatedrace/ethnic population with age and sexdetail, 2000-2005. Sacramento, CA:Demographic Research Unit. AccessedJuly 6, 2007, at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/DRU_datafiles/DRU_DataFiles.as

California Department of Transportation(2007). California motor vehicle stock,travel, and fuel forecast (annual).Sacramento, CA: TransportationSystem Information Program. AccessedJuly 20, 2007, at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tsip/otfa/mtab/

California Department of Motor Vehicles(2006). Teenage drivers’ licenses byage, driver’s licenses by age group andcounty, 1995-2006. Sacramento, CA:Research and Development Branch,David DeYoung, Chief.

California Department of Transportation(2006a). California strategic highwaysafety plan (draft). February 28, 2006.Accessed February 7, 2007, at:http://www.dot.ca.gov/SHSP.

FARS (Fatality Analysis ReportingSystem) (2007). FARS Web-BasedEncyclopedia. National Highway TrafficSafety Administration. AccessedJanuary 25, 2007, at: http://www-f a r s . n h t s a . d o t . g o v /queryReport.cfm?stateid=0&year=2005.

Floyd-Bann E, Van Tassel W (2006).Brain Development and Risk-Taking inAdolescent Drivers. Chronicle ofADTSEA, 54:2 (Spring 2006).

Males M (2006). California’s graduateddriver license law: Effects on olderteenagers. Californian Journal of HealthPromotion 4(30), 207-221.

Masten, S.V., & Hagge, R.A. (2004).Evaluation of California’s graduateddriver licensing program. Journal ofSafety Research 35, 523-535.

McCarthy, P.S. (2002). Public policy andalcohol related crashes among olderdrivers. 16th International Conferenceon Alcohol, Drugs, and Traffic Safety,Montreal, Canada, August 2002.Accessed February 1, 2007, at: http://w w w. e c o n . g a t e c h . e d u / p a p e r s /mccarthy_CADTS_paper_SOEwebst_091402.pdf.

NCIPC (National Center for InjuryPrevention and Control) (2007).WISQARS injury mortality reports,1999-2004. Centers for Disease Controland Prevention. Accessed February 1,2007, at: http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Steinberg, L. (2007). Risk-taking inadolescence: New perspectives frombrain and behavioral science. CurrentDirections in Psychological Science16(2), 55–59.

U.S. Census Bureau (2000). AmericanFactFinder, Census 2000, SummaryFile 3. Poverty status in 1999 by age.Accessed January 28, 2007, at: http://f a c t f i n d e r. c e n s u s . g o v / s e r v l e t /DTGeoSearchByListServlet?ds_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U&_lang=en&_ts=188786865265

Van der Hulst, M., Meijmn T., &Rothengatter T. (1999). Anticipation andthe adaptive control of safety marginsin driving. Ergonomics, 42(2), 336-345.

(poverty and crashes from page )


The Chronicle

ADTSEA Corporate MembersAAA Foundation for Traffic SafetyAmerican Automobile AssociationContinental TevesCountry Insurance & FinancialServicesCyberLearning TechnologyDoron Precision Systems, Inc.Glencoe (MacMillan/McGraw-Hill)International Traffic SafetyPublishersNational Association of State Motorcycle Safety AdministratorsNational Road Safety FoundationNational Institute for DriverBehaviorPearson-Prentice-Hall SchoolRaydon CorporationSafe America FoundationSimulator Systems InternationalState Farm Insurance CompaniesThe Drive Safety InstituteThompson LearningToyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.

restrictions are greatest, but alsowhen parents report the greatestvigilance in supporting the GDLrestrictions,” the study said. Focusgroup parents reported relaxing theirsupervision over time, and the studyshowed this easing parallels thelessening in safety improvements astime goes on. “We’ve always knownparents play an important part insafe driving for teens,” saidCostales. “In addition to closesupervision, we encourage parentsto consider an ODOT-approveddriver education program inpreparing their teen to drive.”

According to the study,graduated driver licensing laws alsoreduced the number of traffic ticketsand crashes by male teen drivers,who typically record more trafficconvictions and accidents than theirfemale peers.

“It is extremely promising thatafter GDL implementation, malecrash rates dropped to levelsapproximating female crash rates.Because young male crash ratesare typically higher than femalecrash rates, a reduction in thosecrash rates may be an importantfinding,” the study said.

Regardless of GDL restrictions,the study found that Oregon teenswho took an approved ODOT drivereducation course, in lieu of anadditional 50 hours of supervisedpractice, had fewer crashes, trafficconvictions and suspensions.

ODOT-approved drivereducation programs can be foundat www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/drivers_ed.shtml or by contactingDriver Education Program ManagerJohn L. Harvey at 503-986-4413.

(Oregon from page 14)


Prepare Your Students for the Road Ahead

Join the thousands of instructors that count on AAA’s

How To Drive to help them make a difference in driver safety.

To order: How To Drive - 13th Edition

Contact your local AAA club, or go toAAA.biz/trafficsafety

A recommended resource forinstructors using the ADTSEA curriculum.

The Chronicle


PRESORTED STDU.S. POSTAGE

PaidSt. Cloud, MN

Permit No. 2135

AMERICAN DRIVER AND TRAFFICSAFETY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

c/o Highway Safety CenterIndiana University of Pennsylvania

R & P Building629 Fisher Avenue

Indiana, PA 15705-1092

2008 ADTSEA CONFERENCEFort Worth, Texas

July 27to

July 30, 2008

the chronicle...the cellular phones used by the participants were identical in brand, model number,...

Documents