The Efficacy of Young Driver Interventions

Lauren Weston, Plymouth University Dr Liz Hellier, Plymouth University Nigel Flower, Devon County Council

The Young Driver Problem

•One in five young drivers crash within 6 months of passing their test (DfT, 2008).

•UK road deaths account for 0.5% of all deaths, but 25% of deaths amongst 15 – 19 year olds (Box & Wengraf, 2013).

Risk Factors

• At night and over the weekend

• Peer passengers

• Not wearing seat belts

• Under the influence of drugs or alcohol

• Single vehicle events

• Speeding

• Driver error

• Young males

(Box & Wengraf, 2013)

How do we solve the problem

•Education & Training

•Interactive, multi-agency programmes.

•Launchbury et al (2007) – 122 out of 173 road safety teams had pre-driver initiative in place.

But do they work?

•Implemented in most UK counties.

•Very few formal evaluations.

•Launchbury (2007) – only 55% respondents had information to support intervention effectiveness.

Example (1)• Poulter & McKenna (2010) – Safe Drive Stay

Alive

- 15-and-16-year-old pre-drivers

- Measured attitudes to road safety pre-event, post-event and five months later.

- Some improvement in attitudes immediately post-intervention.

- After five months this effect much reduced.

Example (2)• Deighton & Luther (2007) – Scottish Executive

New Driver Project- 17-21-year-old learner drivers.

- Group 1: formal tuition and private practice- Group 2: as G1, with pre-driver training- Group 3: as G1, with post-test training

- Nine months post-test no difference in attitudes, knowledge or intentions to drive safely.

- Target attitudes before adolescents learn to drive.

Lack of Evidence• Large number of pre-driver interventions

available.

• Very few evaluations of sufficient scientific quality can be found (Kinnear et al, 2014).

• Results will justify expenditure.

• McKenna (2010): It is not that “… no educational initiatives can work, but rather that the evidence must be provided”.

Present Study: Purpose

•To evaluate the effectiveness of the Learn2Live road safety intervention on pre-drivers’ self-reported attitudes and behavioural intentions to behave safely as a passenger.

Present Study:

•For 16 – 18-year-olds in school.

•Delivered to 12,000 students per annum.

•Staged event - DVD of a collision, personal experiences shared, risk factors highlighted.

Present Study: Design

•Two groups:- Students attending intervention (DE)- Students not attending intervention (CO)

•Two data collection points:- Two weeks before intervention- Three months post intervention

Present Study: Participants

Group DE CO

Time 1 Responses (N)

780 272

Time 2 Responses (N)

154 66

Final Male:Female (N)

64: 90 21: 45

• Considerable loss at follow-up.

• Considerable number of incomplete responses.

Table 1. Total number of participants at each data collection point, split by group.

Present Study: Measures

•Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB)(Ajzen, 1991).

- Attitudes towards risky driving

- 6 TPB components: behavioural intentions, perceived behavioural control, behavioural beliefs, social norms of friends, social norms of family, and regret.

Present Study: Hypotheses1. Learn2Live attendees would report a

significant decrease in risky attitudes and behavioural intentions from time 1 to time 2.

2. The control group i.e. those not attending a road safety event, would not demonstrate any significant decrease in risky attitudes and intentions from time 1 to time 2.

Present Study: Results

Figure 1. Mean attitude scores for male participants at time 1 and time 2, split by group: intervention or control.

Figure 2: Mean attitude scores for female participants at time 1 and time 2, split by group: intervention or control.

There was a significant interaction found between group, gender and time F(1, 216) = 19.6, p< .001. There were significant main effects found for group F(1, 216) = 64.3, p< .001, gender F(1, 216) = 19.5, p< .001 and time (F(1, 216) = 93.5, p< .001.

Present Study: Results (2)

Figure 3: Mean behavioural intentions scores for male participants at time 1 and time 2, split by group: intervention or control.

Figure 4: Mean behavioural intentions scores for female participants at time 1 and time 2, split by group: intervention or control.

There was a significant interaction found between group, gender and time F(1, 216) = 25.4, p< .001. There were significant main effects found for group F(1, 216) = 82.7, p< .001, gender F(1, 216) = 18.8, p< .001 and time F(1, 216) = 111.1, p< .001.

Conclusions• Much safer attitudes and intentions three

months post-intervention.

• Females showed biggest improvement.

• Control group showed no improvement.

• Learn2live improves young people’s, in particular young females, attitudes towards risky driving and intentions to behave safely as a passenger.

Future Directions

Future Directions

• Unclear how the intentions of a pre driver will translate into actual behaviour once on the road.

• Associations between Learn2Live and subsequent collision rates now needed.

• Evaluations of pre-driver initiatives essential.

Acknowledgements

We thank Devon County Council for their encouragement and helpful cooperation in the undertaking of this evaluation; in particular Nigel Flower and Jeremy Phillips.

We also thank all the schools who contributed considerable time and effort in ensuring their students took part in this evaluation.

ReferencesAjzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179 – 211.Box E, Wengraf I. Young driver safety: solutions to an age-old problem. 2013. Retreived October 14, 2014, from http://www.racfoundation.org/assets/rac_foundation/content/downloadables/youngdriver

_safety-box_wengraf-july2013.pdf. Deighton, C. & Luther, R. (2007). Pre-driver Education: A Critical Review of the Literature on Attitude Change and Development, Good Practice in Pre-driver Education and Programme Effectiveness. Road Safety Research Report. London: Department for Transport. Department for Transport. (2008). Learning to drive. A consultation paper, London: Department for Transport. Retrieved 14 October, 2014, from http://www.dsa.gov.uk/learningtodriveKinnear, N., Lloyd, L., Helman, S., Husband, P., Scoons, J., Jones, S., Stradling, S., Mckenna, F., & Broughton, J. (2013). Novice drivers: Evidence Review and Evaluation. Pre-driver

education and training, Graduated Driver Licensing, and the New Drivers Act. Road Safety Research Report. London: Department for Transport. Launchbury, C., Deighton, C. & Luther, R. (2007). Pre-driver Education: Survey of Pre-driver Education Provision. Road Safety Research Report. London: Department for Transport. Maycock,G.& Lockwood,C.R.& Lester, J.F. (1991).The accident liability of car drivers. TRL Research Report 315.Transport Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.McKenna, F. P. (2010). Education in Road Safety: Are we getting it right? Report No. 10/ 113. London: RAC Foundation. Poulter, D.R., & McKenna, F.R. (2010). Evaluating the effectiveness of a road safety education intervention for pre-drivers: An application of the theory of planned behavior. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 163-181.