Spring 06 Chronicle · 2020-07-28 · Page 13 Spring 2006 The Chronicle of ADTSEA safety policies,...

Page 24

The Chronicle of ADTSEA Spring 2006

Front Cover

Page 23

Spring 2006 The Chronicle of ADTSEA

Back Cover

Page 22


aaa

Page 21


INTERACTIVE DRIVING SYSTEMS

ADD

FACING

FrontCover

Page 20


DORON

ADD

REAR

Page 19


new ad

Page 18


Florida Safety

Page 17


ADTSEA Officers and Board of DirectorsExecutive Committee

James Gibb, Missouri PresidentCarol Hardin, Virginia President-ElectElizabeth Weaver Shepard, Idaho Past PresidentRobin Bordner, Michigan Senior DirectorGerald Apple, Washington Secretary TreasurerJan Meeker-Sevilla, Hawaii NSSP LiaisonWilliam Van Tassel, Florida Corporate Representative

Board of Directors

NORTHEASTBarry Thayer, Connecticut 2008Lindsay Townsend, Vermont 2007

SOUTHEASTJo Ellen Suter, Virginia 2008Chuck Lehning, North Carolina 2007

NORTH CENTRALStan Henderson, Indiana 2008Robin Bordner, Michigan 2007

ADTSEA Corporate Members

ADTSEA numbers its’ Corporate Members among its’ most valuable assets. Our relationship is one inwhich the Association and the individual Corporate Members seek to provide counsel, assistance,and service to one another whenever possible. Additionally, the Corporate Members make financialcontributions without which the Association would be far less effective.

AAA Foundation for Traffic SafetyAmerican Automobile AssociationCingular WirelessCognifitContinental TevesCountry Insurance & Finacial ServicesDiscovery EnterprisesDoron Precision Systems, Inc.Drunk BustersEvent Solutions InternationalGeneral MotorsGeneral Learning CommunicationsGlencoe (MacMillan/McGraw-Hill)Global Learning SolutionsInteractive EnterprisesInnovations for Improvement of InstructionKemper Auto /Home Insurance

Moorshire GroupNational Association of State Motorcycle Safety AdministratorsNational Road Safety FoundationNational Institue for Driver BehaviorOhio Safe-T-BrakeOPW FuelingPrentice-HallPropulsion International, Inc.Raydon CorporationRoad WiseRoush IndustriesSimulator Systems InternationalState Farm Insurance CompaniesTeen Arrive AliveToyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.United Safety Council

SOUTH CENTRALFaye Smith, Missouri 2008Gerald Dickinson, Jr., Texas 2007

NORTHWESTDavid Huff, Montana 2008Debbie Cottonware, Montana 2007

SOUTHWESTLarry Woodruff, California 2008Lyle Kajihara, Hawaii 2007

Page 16


ADTSEA State Affiliates

Arizona CaliforniaColorado

ConnecticutFlorida

Georgia Hawaii

IllinoisIowa

KansasKentucky

MaineMarylandMichigan

MinnesotaMissouriMontanaNebraska

New HampshireNorth CarolinaNorth Dakota

OregonPennsylvania

South CarolinaSouth Carolina

TennesseeTexasUtah

VermontVirginia

WashingtonWest Virginia

Wisconsin

SSI Ad

unfortunate that not all individualscould be elected, but it speaks wellfor the Association when a varietyof qualified candidates are willing tobe nominated for office and servewhen they are elected. Thanks toall the candidates and all of you whovoted.

Our annual conference isnearing and Beth Weaver hascompleted the program planning.You can view this program on theADTSEA webpage, as well as theNSSP program completed by JanMeeker and Dana Bowser.

If you have not used thewebpage recently, you should. Thereis a new forum section that allowsyou to share ideas. You can respondto questions that have already beenasked, or you can ask questions ofyour own. While you are at thewebpage, look at the information onthe recently released ADTSEA DriverEducation Curriculum.

Your contributions as anADTSEA member are important. Iurge you to continue supportingquality driver education.

Thank you.

It remains to be seen ifgovernments and the automotiveindustry can adopt those policies,procedures and trainingrequirements that havedemonstrated improvements andresults in usage behavior; in Finland,in the Federal AeronauticsAdministration (FAA) or by theAmerican Society of Anesthesiology,as deterrents to mishap, injury andfatality.

Page 15


ADTSEA Driver Education and In-Car Curriculum Version 1.0Available NOW

The ADTSEA Driver Education and In-Car Curriculum, Version 1.0 was developed to provide currentinformation and techniques on teaching novice drivers the basics of motor vehicle operation. The “DriverEducation Classroom and In-Car Curriculum” guide is divided into 10 units that are provided to assist in thecoordination of 45 hours of classroom instruction, a Skills Log, and an In-Car Guide. Eight hours of in-carinstruction are grouped into the In-Car guide and alternate forms of the final exam are provided along with unitexams.

The curriculum visuals are in a DVD format to provide efficient, cost effective and ease of use. ThreeDVDs are provided in the curriculum package along with printed lesson plans, worksheets and fact sheets.

Specific DVD content is listed below:Disc 1 - ADTSEA DVD Curriculum

∑ Unit 1 - Introduction to Novice Driver Responsibilities and the Licensing System∑ Unit 2 - Introducing Operator and Vehicle Control Tasks in a Controlled Environment∑ Unit 3 - Space Management System∑ Unit 4 - Basic Maneuvering Tasks∑ Unit 5 - Risk Reducing Strategies for High-Speed Multi-lane Expressways∑ Unit 6 - Personal Factors Influencing Operator Performance∑ Unit 7 - Environmental Conditions that Affect Safe Vehicle Operation∑ Unit 8 - Vehicle Functions and Malfunctions, and Collision Reporting∑ Unit 9 - Sharing the Road with Commercial Motor Vehicles∑ Unit 10 - Reducing the Influence of Distractions on the Driving Task

DVD Disc 2 - AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Videos∑ “Using Your Eyes Effectively”∑ “Managing Space and Time”∑ “Freeway Driving”∑ “Sharing the Road”

DVD Disc 3 - American Automobile Association“Teaching Your Teens to Drive”∑ Lesson 1 - Developing Basic Vehicle Control∑ Lesson 2 - Moving, Turning, Stopping and Securing the Vehicle∑ Lesson 3 - Maneuvering in Light Traffic∑ Lesson 4 - Maneuvering in Moderate Traffic∑ Lesson 5 - Backing and Turning Maneuvers∑ Lesson 6 - Assessing Highway Conditions∑ Lesson 7 - Identifying Traffic Control Devices∑ Lesson 8 - Searching for Clues to Motor Vehicle Conflicts∑ Lesson 9 - Searching for Clues from Non-Motorized Road Users∑ Lesson 10 - Positioning and Timing at Intersections∑ Lesson 11 - Positioning and Timing When Following and Meeting Other Vehicles∑ Lesson 12 - Critical Time/Space Decisions∑ Lesson 13 - Adverse Driving Conditions∑ Appendix - Parent-Teen Contract

Costs:DVD Set with Printed Content (ADTSEA Members price): $225.00DVD Set with Printed Content (Non-ADTSEA Members price): $275.00Shipping & Handling: $25.00

For additional information, you can contact the ADTSEA office toll free at 800-896-7703. You can also order atwww.adtsea.org.

Page 14


Re-Thinking Traffic Safety: The Global Situation,Under-Utilized Resources, Strategies for Improvement

Bob Green, Instructor/Trainer survivethedrive

“We know the laws of Nature, butwe also know, to our cost, that thoselaws never overlook a mistake, ormake the smallest allowance forignorance.”, Paraphrased fromThomas Huxley (1825-1895)

“(The laws of Nature are) terriblyunforgiving of any carelessness,incapacity or neglect.” British AviatorCaptain A.G.Lamplugh, (1930’s)

“People need new tools to work withrather than tools that ‘work’ for them”Ivan Illich, 1926-2002, (Energy andEquity)

Abstract –Automobile crashes have

recently become officiallyrecognized by the United Nationsand the World Health Organizationas a global epidemic, projected toescalate, in violent severity, beyondthe medical health threats of HIV/Aids, malaria, tuberculosis, et al.The most dramatic increases aretaking place in countries lackinginfrastructure and controls on “more-newly-acquired”, unrestrained“independent discretionary mobility”.Still, even those countries with moreeconomic resources continue toexperience high levels of extreme,needless automotive violence.Medical effectiveness can only beapplied after the crash.

Volumes of recent scholarlywritings describe the ineffectivenessof education and training as ameans to deter, reduce or eliminatethe threat of car crashes in our dailylives. An influential ideology refersto the need for technology and“sound science” to resolve theproblem and citing the need for“experience” to be the trainingnecessary for a lifetime of driving;that spontaneous learning will occur

over time with minimal guidance,scrutiny and expense.

Given that logic, trainingrequirements and evaluation forairline pilots, medical professionals,military personnel, Olympic athletes,musicians and the apprenticeshipand licensing requirements forelectricians and plumbers shouldalso be dropped. Each of youreading and comprehending this textwill have completed twelve and moreyears of education and training in theexpectation of becoming a citizencontributing to society; an average,minimum requirement. What is to beconsidered adequate, good enough?Pursuing ideologies based onaccepted or perpetuated practiceshas gotten our culture into difficultiesbefore, “I was just following orders”.

Rather, it follows, that theeducation, training, evaluation andmonitoring of the “general motoringpublic” needs to be more effective,thorough and comprehensive;adjusted and upgraded to achievetraffic safety goals, howevernecessary. Present preparation fordriving is focused on the goal ofobtaining the driver’s license. Anyrequired testing/evaluation is oftena cursory chore at the onset of nearlya lifetime of use and not indicativeof the seriousness of the task.Finland, for example, has achievedmajor reductions their violations andcrash rate based a comprehensive“mind set” that incorporates alldimensions of the society in itsautomotive consciousness.

Science and technology havecontributed great digitizedadvancements directed towarddriver assistance in continuous andimmediate situational analysis,aimed at preventing and controllingthe not-so-rare ”all of a sudden”,“emerge-urgencies”, the sensors

and controls operate over thephysical conditions that arerecognized to contribute to crashes;tire/surface slip rates, proximity tohazards, perceptive aids and thoseprotective mechanisms that protectpersons within the car in the eventof catastrophic, Newtonian collision.The achievements are significant.

Still, problems occur and areunresolved. Even with historic,conventional equipment, behavioralusage patterns demonstratedeficiencies in knowledge, abilityand operation. More sophisticatedequipment, mechanically workingmore effectively, will not resolvethose deficiencies and maycomplicate or create unwarranteddependencies on the equipment’sabilities to “save” the problem. Onesample evaluation showed that mostfolks, given cars equipped with ABSdid not access or utilize the systemin a simulated emergency, non-threatening environment, afteracknowledging they had learnedhow to use it in a preceding “techtalk”. Yet, these folks stated theywould purchase the car with theexpectation that they were safer ina car with ABS. There would be onlyone “best attempt” in an emergency.

The dream of a “self-intelligent”vehicle or transportation system isnot all that remote. It would certainlybe difficult to implement, expensiveand would necessarily limit self-directed, mobile independence anddiscretion. Still, untraineddependence on such systems wouldbe just that, reliance on what someperson(s) devised to resolveindividual, personal problems. In theevent the system was ineffective,disabled, misused or unused thedrivers would stil l have anunresolved problem, “all-of-a-sudden”.

(continued on page 16)

Page 13


safety policies, procedures andcommunications. Lastly,administrators should ensure that allfleet vehicles are maintained to theutmost level.

Currently in their infancy, carsharing programs hold substantialpromise for positive impact on theenvironment, congestion andtransportation costs. However, theymay also involve the potential foradditional risks to their customersand other roadway users. It isrecommended that research be

conducted to study car sharingprograms more thoroughly to assessthe programs’ effects on drivers andon the transportation system as awhole.

In this article, the authors choseto limit the focus on car sharingprograms’ potential benefits andsafety issues. It is quite clear thatmany related vehicle ownershipissues are not addressed in thisdiscussion and warrant a thoroughhearing in another article.

References

CarSharing. (2006). Available http://www.carsharing.net.Flexcar. (2006). Available http://www.flexcar.com.Millard-Ball, A., Murray, G., ter Schure,J., Fox, C. & Burkhardt, J. (2005). Car-sharing: Where and how it succeeds.Transit Cooperative ResearchProgram, Report 108.Sturges, D. (2006). Car on demand.Automobile Magazine, 21(1), 86-88.Washington Examiner (2006).Available http://www.examiner.com.March 1.Zipcar. (2006). Available http://www.zipcar.com.

The relationship between performance on the standardised field sobriety tests, driving performanceand the level of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in blood.- Papafotiou K, Carter JD, Stough C. Forensic Sci Int 2005; 155(2-3): 172-8.

Cellular telephones and driving performance: the effects of attentional demands on motor vehiclecrash risk. Hunton J, Rose JM. Risk Anal 2005; 25(4): 855-66.

Mobile phone use-effects of handheld and handsfree phones on driving performance.- Törnros JE, Bolling AK. Accid Anal Prev 2005; 37(5): 902-9.

Parent-teen disagreement of parent-imposed restrictions on teen driving after one month of licensure:is discordance related to risky teen driving?Beck KH, Hartos JL, Simons-Morton BG. Prev Sci 2005; 6(4): 259-67.

The effects of the checkpoints program on parent-imposed driving limits and crash outcomes amongConnecticut novice teen drivers at 6-months post-licensure.- Simons-Morton BG, Hartos JL, Leaf WA, Preusser DF. J Saf Res 2006; ePub: ePub.

The observed effects of teenage passengers on the risky driving behavior of teenage drivers.- Simons-Morton B, Lerner N, Singer J. Accid Anal Prev 2005; 37(6): 973-82.

The impact of driver education on self-reported collisions among young drivers with a graduatedlicense. Zhao J, Mann RE, Chipman M, Adlaf E, Stoduto G, Smart RG. Accid Anal Prev 2006; 38(1): 35-42.

A profile of adolescents who attend driver education for the insurance discount: are insurersrewarding bad risks? Hirsch P, Maag U. Insur Risk Manage 2006; 73(4).

Vehicles driven by teenagers in their first year of licensure.- Williams AF, Leaf WA, Simons-Morton BG, Hartos JL. Traffic Injury Prev 2006; 7(1): 23-30.

Can we prevent road rage? Asbridge M, Smart RG, Mann RE. Trauma Violence Abuse 2006; 7(2): 109-21.

The Effectiveness of Electronic Stability Control (ESC) in Reducing Real Life Crashes and Injuries.Lie A, Tingvall C, Krafft M, Kullgren A. Traffic Injury Prev 2006; 7(1): 38-43.

The strength of graduated drivers license programs and fatalities among teen drivers and passengers.Morrisey MA, Grabowski DC, Dee TS, Campbell C. Accid Anal Prev 2006; 38(1): 135-41.

Recent Articles of Interest

(from page 12)

Page 12


(from page 7)

2001 (see NationalTelecommunications andInformation Administration, 2002,for report of access by state).However, Internet access increasesevery year and is readily availablefor a significant portion of thepopulation, especially families withteenagers (Atkinson & Gold, 2002).The results of this study indicatedthat 87% of these families withteenagers in driver educationreported having Internet and emailaccess at home. Such a high ratewould indicate widespread accessto internet or email driver educationmaterial. This finding should besubstantiated in further research.

Montana’s graduated driverlicensing (GDL) program will beinitiated in July 2006, and that, inand of itself, may help increaseparent involvement in teen driving,because research shows thatparents do, for the most part,provide the required amount ofpractice driving for their teenagersduring the learner’s phase (Beck,Shattuck, Raleigh, & Hartos, 2003)and that parents in states with GDLmay place greater restrictions onteen independent driving than doparents in states without GDL(Hartos, Simons-Morton, Beck, &Leaf, 2005). However, becauseMontana is mostly rural, theintegration of parent informationabout management of teen drivinginto driver education, beforeteenagers become licensed, maymake the transition to, and through,teen driver training and GDLrequirements easier for families.Although the findings of this studyindicated that parents may not betaking the initiative to be active intheir teenagers’ driver educationclasses, they were more than willingto receive related information andwould like to be (or at least thinkthat they should be) involved in theirteenagers’ driver education classes.ReferencesAtkinson, N. L., & Gold, R. S. (2002).The promise and challenge of e-healthinterventions. American Journal ofHealth Behavior, 26(6), 494-503.Beck, K. H., Hartos, J. L., & Simons-

Morton, B. G. (2002). Teen driving risk:The promise of parental influence andpublic policy. Health Education andBehavior, 29(1), 71-82.Beck, K. H., Shattuck, T., Raleigh, R., &Hartos, J. L. (2003). Does graduatedlicensing empower parents to placegreater restrictions on their newlylicensed teens' driving? Health Educationand Behavior, 30(6), 695-708.Brownson, R. C., & Kreuter, M. W. (1997).Future trends affecting public health:Challenges and opportunities. Journal ofPublic Health Policy, 3(2), 49-60.Hartos, J. L., Simons-Morton, B G., Beck,K. H., & Leaf, W. A. (2005). Parent-imposed limits on high-risk adolescentdriving: Are they stricter with graduateddriver licensing? Accident Analysis &Prevention, 37(3), 557-562.Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.(2005). U. S. licensing systems for youngdrivers. Available at http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts /state_laws/us_licensing_systems.pdf.Accessed August 10, 2005.Kreuter, M., Farrell, D., Olevitch, L., &Brennan, L. (1999). Tailoring healthmessages:customizing communication withcomputer technology. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Publisher.Kreuter, M. W., Strecher, V. J., &Glassman, B. (1999). One size does notfit all: The case for tailoring print materials.Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 21(4),276-283.Mayhew, D. R. (2003). The learner’spermit. Journal of Safety Research, 34,35-43Montana Department of Transportation(2004). Traffic safety problemidentification: FY 2005. Available at http://www.mdt.state.mt.us/trafsafety/docs/probid.pdf. Accessed January 10, 2005.National Center for Injury Prevention andControl. (2005). WISQARS LeadingCauses of Death Reports, 1999 – 2002.Available at http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcausl0.html. AccessedAugust 10, 2005.National Telecommunications andInformation Administration. (2002). Anation online: Percent of households withinternet access by state, 2001. Availableat http:I/vvww.ntia.doc.govIntiahome/dn/hhs/TableHl.htm. Accessed January 25,2004.Simons-Morton & Hartos, 2003a

Simons-Morton, B. G., & Hartos, J. L.(2003). Improving the effectiveness ofcountermeasures to prevent motorvehicle crashes among young drivers.American Journal of Health Education,34(5), 357-361.Simons-Morton, B. G., Hartos, J. L., &Beck, K. H. (2004). Increased parentlimits on teen driving: Positive effectsfrom a brief intervention administered atthe Motor Vehicle Administration.Prevention Science, 5(2), 101-111.Simons-Morton, B. G., Hartos, J. L.,Leaf, W. A., & Preusser, D. F. (in press).The persistence of effects of theCheckpoints Program on parentalrestrictions on teen driving privileges.American Journal of Public Health.Williams A. F., & Ferguson, S. A. (2002).Rationale for graduated licensing andthe risks it should address. InjuryPrevention, 8(Supplement II), ii9-iil4.

experts in the field of drivereducation as they strive to deliver themost effective programming to theirstudents with the continuing goal ofcreating new generations of safedrivers.BibliographyBandura, A. (2001). Social CognitiveTheory: An Agentic Perspective. AnnualReview of Psychology, 52, 1-26.Paus, T., and Giedd, J. (1999)Structural maturation of neural pathwaysin children and adolescents: in vivostudy. Science 283.Sowell, E.R., Thompson, P.M., Tessner,K.D., and Toga, A.W. (2001) Mappingcontinued brain growth and gray matterdensity reduction in dorsal frontal cortex:inverse relationships during post-adolescent brain maturation. Journal ofNeuroscience 22.Sowell, E.R., Thompson, P.M., Colin,J.H., Jernigan, T. I., and Toga, A.W.(1999) In vivo evidence for post-adolescent brain maturation in frontaland striatal regions. NatureNeuroscience 10.

broaden the discussion among thecurrent safety policies arecommunicated and followed.Second, they should also remainvigilant for opportunities to improvedriver safety through additional

(from page 11)

(from page 9)

(more on page 13)

Page 11

Spring 2006 The Chronicle of ADTSEA(from page 10)

many of their customers nolonger have personal vehiclesthat are just waiting to be driven,car sharing users tend to makefewer trips, resulting in feweroverall miles driven per year.D. Reduced fuel consumption.The vehicles offered by theseservices tend to be very fuelefficient. For example, the EPAcity/highway mileage rating forthe Mini Cooper and Scion xB are30/34 and 28/36, respectively.Assuming car sharing programscontinue to offer high efficiencyvehicles, this could serve toreduce the average fuelconsumed per mile driven,regardless of driver, positivelyaffecting the nation’s need for oil.E. Fewer vehicle emissions.More efficient vehicles wouldproduce fewer exhaust gases,resulting in less total emission ofexhaust gases. This could havesubstantial positive impact on theenvironment.F. Fewer motor vehiclecrashes. If there are fewervehicles, there would be feweropportunities for vehicles tocollide with one another.G. Fewer injuries and deathsresulting from motor vehiclecrashes. Likewise, fewer motorvehicle crashes would result infewer injuries and deaths fromsuch collisions.

Potential Safety IssuesIn addition to the risks normally

associated with driving a motorvehicle, customers of car sharingprograms may face additional safetyissues, including:

A. Ergonomic issues. Eachtime a customer enters a vehicle,he or she will have to adjustcontrols in order to achieve theproper fit between driver andmachine. Seat position, mirrorsand steering wheel angle will allhave to be adjusted for the driver

to have optimal control of thevehicle. If a driver fails toproperly adjust the vehicle’scontrols, he or she could faceadditional risk, especially if facedwith the need to executeemergency evasive maneuvers.B. Vehicle features. Despitesuch programs’ attempts to offera relatively homogenous fleet ofvehicles, differences in vehiclefeatures will always exist. Forexample, one vehicle mayfeature anti-lock brakes, whileanother does not. Other systemsand features that may varythroughout a given fleet couldinclude traction control, anti-skidcontrol, brake assist,automatically adjustingsuspension, and variable ratiosteering. Such variability couldresult in a customer believing avehicle to be equipped with aspecific system, when in fact it isnot, or getting used to particularsystem then driving a vehicle witha substantially different system.In an emergency situation, thiscould raise the driver’s risk.C. Vehicle structure issues.Even among relatively smallvehicles, overall vehicledimensions can varysubstantially. While this issuemay realistically only be ofconcern during low speed andparking maneuvers, variability inthe size of vehicles in a fleetcould raise the risk of collisionsdue to the driver being unclearabout the vehicle’s outer physicalboundaries.D. Driver visibility. Linked to thevehicle structure is the issue ofroof-supporting structures,otherwise known as “pillars.” Onmost vehicles, there are pillarssupporting the solid roofstructure. While any pillar canblock a driver’s view at least tosome degree, causing “blindspots,” the rearmost pillars tend

to be the largest, thus blockingthe most vision. Drivers ofmultiple types of vehicles may failto adjust to a specific vehicle’svisual limitations and blind spots.This could increase the risk ofcollision when drivers attempt tochange lanes, back out ofparking spots, and perform othermoves that require clear visionand space to the rear of thevehicle.E. Vehicle response. Differentvehicles respond differently. Forexample, a sporty vehicle’sresponse to steering input mayoccur much more rapidly thanthat of a larger, heavierpassenger van. Likewise,braking application speed andstopping distances can also varysignificantly among vehicles.Drivers who fail to adjust todifferences among a fleet’svehicles could be at higher riskof failing to successfully executean aggressive or emergencymaneuver, resulting in higher riskof collision.F. Damage report issues. If ashared vehicle sustains damage,it is possible that the driverrenting the vehicle at the timemight fail to report the damageto the car sharing programadministration in a timelymanner. Such unreporteddamage, or damage that wasreported but not addressed,could put subsequent drivers athigher risk of collision andpersonal harm.

Although car sharing programsmay offer substantial benefits, suchprograms’ administrators mustensure that customer safety remainsa top concern. Administratorsshould consider severalrecommendations to promote thesafety of their customers.

First, the administrators shouldcontinue to monitor and ensure that

(go to page 12)

Page 10


(go to page 11)

Car Sharing Programs: Operational and Safety AspectsW.E. Van Tassel, Ph.D.1 and E.E. Floyd-Bann, Ed.D.

1AAA National OfficeIntroduction

Although drivers have been ableto rent vehicles by the day for years,in some urban areas cars can nowbe rented by the hour. Hourly rentcar, or “car sharing,” programsprovide customers the opportunityto rent cars only during the periodof the day when actually needed.This article will briefly describe carsharing programs and examinesafety aspects related to suchprograms.

Since 2000, an innovativepersonal transportation system hasbeen growing: car sharingprograms. These programs providecity-dwelling drivers with short-term,as-needed transportation solutions,conveniently and at relatively lowcost. Instead of renting a vehiclefor a full day, drivers rent vehiclesfor only those hours during the daywhen they need personaltransportation.

How Car Sharing WorksAfter paying a nominal initial fee

(generally around $25 USD) andreceiving their membership card, carsharing program customers canreserve a vehicle using an onlinereservation system. At theappointed time, the customer walksto his/her reserved vehicle, which isparked at a convenient location inthe neighborhood (Millard-Ball, etal., 2005; CarSharing, 2006).

The membership card unlocksthe vehicle, and the customer getsin and drives away. Uponcompleting his/her transportationneeds, the customer returns thevehicle to the same location, oftena parking spot reserved by the cityfor car sharing program vehicles(Washington Examiner, 2006). Thecustomer locks the vehicle andwalks away, leaving the car readyfor the next renter. The customer

pays only by the hour, rather thanfor a full day’s rental. Fuel,maintenance, parking and insurancecosts are generally included in thevehicle rental fee, adding to theconvenience to customers.

In fact, many car sharingprogram customers do not own apersonal vehicle or have chosen tosell their personal vehicle (Zipcar,2006). Instead, they use suchprograms to supplement their usualtransportation solution, which onmost days involves publictransportation systems. Thus, carsharing programs often act as adriver ’s secondary andsupplemental, rather than primary,mode of transportation. Customersmay require personal transportationonly occasionally, solving needssuch as having to travel outside thereach of public transportation, carrycargo, or transport other personssuch as family or friends.

Currently, these programs areavailable in areas with concentratedurban populations, including SanFrancisco, Seattle, Chicago, NewYork City and Washington D.C.(Sturges, 2006).

Vehicles AvailableThese programs often feature

economical, attractive and efficientvehicles. For example, onecompany offers vehicles such as theMini Cooper and Scion xB (Zipcar,2006). These vehicles are relativelysmall and easy to maneuver, havesubstantial cargo capacity and arevery fuel efficient. For manycustomers, they feature the addedbenefit of being fun to drive.

Gas-electric hybrid vehicles, such asthe Toyota Prius, are also featuredby some programs. Larger vehiclesmay also be available for customersneeding additional capacity, such as

BMW sedans, pickups and minivans(Flexcar, 2006).

Potential BenefitsLike any transportation system,

car sharing programs feature bothpotential benefits and potentialnegatives. Potential benefits, bothshort-term and long-term, couldinclude:

A. Lower personaltransportation costs. Instead ofhaving to own, insure andmaintain a personal vehicle,hourly rent car programcustomers pay only for the timeduring which they actually usethe vehicle. With the averagecost of owning and operating avehicle in the U.S. exceedingthousands of dollars per year, itcan make sense for some driversto reduce their overall personaltransportation costs throughshort-term vehicle renting. Infact, many car sharing programcustomers have sold theirpersonal vehicles as a result oftheir satisfaction with access ofthese types of programs (Zipcar,2006).B. Reduced traffic congestion.As more drivers come to usefewer vehicles as a whole, the netresult could be a reduction in thetotal number of vehicles on theroad. Fewer total vehicles couldresult in reduced trafficcongestion, decreased transittime, and diminished driverfrustration and even fewer roadrage incidents.C. Decreased transit time.Fewer vehicles could alsotranslate into shorter averageper-driver transit times, resultingin less total time spent behind thewheel. Car sharing programshave also learned that, because

Page 9


(finishing on page 12)

adolescent more time unsupervisedwith friends and peer groups.

The second change will beincreases in risk-taking andexploration. Not all risk-taking isnegative. The idea of risk is simplythat an element of uncertainty in theoutcome exists. Some risks are verypositive like participating in sports,the arts, debate, etc. and lead to anincreased sense of self-confidenceand esteem. The personalboundaries in adolescents getpushed hard and parents must allowa certain amount of failure and defeatas well. It is a balancing act thatneeds to be allowed to occur.

Thirdly, will also be increasedconflicts with authority, includingparents. This fits with the idea ofmastery and of boundaries. Theadolescent brain is hard-wired forexperiences. Telling an adolescentis not the same as showing anadolescent and even moreimportantly, an adolescent will needto do it for him or herself as well.Plus, emotional lability or the up-and-down quality of emotional responsesis prevalent in adolescence due tohormonal fluxuations.

Next, there will be dramaticchanges in sleep patterns, includinggoing to sleep and waking up muchlater. This is relatively easy tounderstand. Growth is acute inadolescence and hormonal andphysical changes take an enormousamount of energy. Most adolescentsare not getting enough sleep to beginwith and estimates are thatteenagers probably need ten totwelve hours of sleep a night duringthe height of their growth andmaturation spurts. The switch ofdiurnality is also related to serotoninand dopamine levels in the brain,which are fluxuating regularly at thisstage of development. Parentsshould really try to get their teenagerto sleep and don’t worry if they arein bed on Saturday afternoon until 2p.m.

Finally, this is the age of puberty.The ramifications of puberty are well-publicized and it is enough toremember that the adolescent brainis wired for sensations. So,

wherever the brain goes withadolescents, the body is going tofollow. It should be understood byparents and teachers alike that whilethere will be dramatic changes inphysical appearance, even moredramatic changes are occurring infeelings and beliefs and the ways inwhich adolescents view themselvesas sexually maturing beings.To review, adolescent behavior is anoutcome of adolescent braindevelopment. Changes in brainstructure and function lead tochanges in behavior and emotionalresponse. Reasoning abilities aswell as social and cognitiveinteractions will undergo vast shiftsand unstable periods duringadolescence. The adolescent is inthe process of becoming somethingelse entirely and it is often a bumpyroad.

How to Use the Science in DriverEducation Settings: Suggestions

The information above isfascinating and does offer anextremely useful and reassuringprofile of adolescents because theywill, after all, grow out of it. But whatdoes it mean to driver educators?Here are a few respectfulsuggestions, with the understandingthat there are many types of settingsfor driver education and thatresources vary greatly among thosesettings.

First, review your curriculum. Doyou have more classroom time thatactual time in the car? Do you haveoutdated or outmoded visualmaterials? Do you explainterminology and techniques in teen-speak or adult talk? (boredomchecklist, please) What time of dayor night are your classes?(remember the sleep patterns)

Second, review your classroomrequirements. Do you have onesession and then no reviews beforelicensing examinations? What abouta follow-up refresher course in sixmonths, one year? Do you havetraining for parents, teachers, orother adults in you program to helpfacilitate their understanding of thecharacteristics of the students theywill be teaching? Have you updated

your rubrics to include the latesttechnological additions to thevehicles adolescents are driving likeGPS locators, cell phones, etc. aswell as latest safety innovationsunder the hood?

Third, consult local experts. Doyou have access to counselors,physicians, professors, of others whodeal with adolescent populations ona regular basis? Do you regularlyreview with experts to discuss thelatest developments and techniquesconcerning how adolescents thinkand learn? Do you regularly invitelaw enforcement and other officialsinto the classroom to facilitate thelearning experience and help yourstudents see these authority figuresas allies?

Fourth, become creative. Do youtake the opportunity to play thegames on XBOX or Sony Playstationthat involve driving? Have you everdone it in class? Have you evertaken your students to an arcade toplay the simulated driving games?Research indicates that these gamescan be deceiving, but do we usethem in learning settings to explainand demonstrate the differences insuch games and real drivingsettings? Do you have opportunitiesto do night driving or bad weatherdriving in safe settings like parkinglots or other controlled settings?What other creative things do you tryin class in order to engage thestudents’ attention and interest?

Fifth, share what you know withothers. Do you regularly network orattend conferences or talk withrpeesr to track expertise andexperiences? How do you sharewhat you have found effective aowdo you learn about innovations in thefield?

SummaryThis paper is meant to be a

starting point for driver educatorswho wish to utilize current scientificresearch in their curricula. It is byno means a complete review of allthe latest information, nor does beginto exhaust all the ways that theclassroom experience could beenhanced. Hopefully, it will help to

(from page 8)

Page 8


(continued on next page)

Brain Development and Risk-Taking in Adolescent DriversErin Floyd-Bann, Ed.D. and William Van Tassel, Ph.D.1

1AAA National Office

IntroductionThere has always been the

common understanding thatteenagers do not think like the restof us! Parents, teachers, andpsychologists all agree that the mindof the typical adolescent is a strangeand complicated place, but with theuse of modern and sophisticatedtechnology, this long-held wisdomnow has solid physical evidence tosupport it. Magnetic ResonanceImaging and Computed AxialTomography (CAT Scans) haverevealed the hitherto unknownreaches of the adolescent brain andbrought to light the many truephysical differences between theteen brain and the adult brain.

These differences in braindevelopment and structure translateinto very different ways ofapproaching problems, makingdecisions, and judging risk andreward. Even the way that one looksat the world is based upon thedevelopmental stage of the brain.Emotional responses and reasoningability vary within the age groups, butoverall, the adolescent does, in fact,not think like the adult and if we areto create the proper programmingwith our driver education bodies totap into the specific characteristicsof learning that are present inadolescents, we must understandthese differences and how theytranslate into behavior.

Adolescent Brain Development:The concept of "plasticity"

During childhood, there is anoverproduction of neuronal tissuethat is not designated in a specificsynaptic pathway. In simple terms,the brain is redundant to a largerdegree, possessing many moreunconnected neurons than an adultbrain. As experiences areaccumulated, connections are madeand the neural pathways becomefixed, as when language is acquired.

You could say that this is when cellsthat are fired together, get wiredtogether. Once the wiring processis completed, those neurons arefixed in synaptic pathways.

During adolescence, this"plasticity" is more pronounced thanin childhood, even though overallneuronal cell production decreases.What begins to increase in its steadis something called myelination,where the neurons become coatedwith a type of electrically-conductivematerial. This is a process that couldbe likened to a turbo-charge effectin the brain, creating fasterconnections between synapses.These changes are especiallyapparent in MRIs and cell biopsiesof the frontal lobes. This is an areaof the brain that is involved in suchhigher functions as planning,decision-making, impulse control,language, memory, and others.During adolescence, the shifttowards control of all these functionsinto the frontal lobes is calledfrontalization. So, even though totalgray matter does decrease fromchildhood highs, performance ofcertain tasks becomes more focusedand efficient. (Think about thereflexes of young athletes or soldiersand also about how linear theirproblem-solving abilities are at thistime…turbo-charged yes, but alsolacking in adult experiences whichallow for cross-referencing a largerpool of synaptic pathway choices.)So, the adolescent brain is full ofundesignated neuronal connectionswhile at the same time, thoseconnections that are designated aremoving super fast and yet are verysubject to linear patterns due to lackof experience (Sowell, et al, 1999,2001; Paus, et al, 1999).

Further changes are occurringsuch as the decrease of gray matterin the parietal lobes, where sensoryinformation is processed. On theother hand, gray matter increases inthe occipital lobes, which are

dedicated to processing visualinformation, until the mid-twenties formost adults. Gray matter in thetemporal lobes, involved in memoryand visual and auditory processing,usually does not reach maximumuntil around 16-17 years of age.Sub-cortical changes, especially inthe corpus collosum, a bundle ofaxons which allow communicationbetween hemispheres in the brain,increase in size, whileneurotransmitters, the hormoneswhich regulate all neural activity, arein flux throughout adolescence.These substances such asdopamine, GABA, and serotonin,facilitate where and how informationis delivered in the brain and how thatinformation is processed andinterpreted (Sowell, et al, 2001).

To recapitulate, adolescentbehavior is not arbitrary. They reactand respond normally for their stageof development, which is a time ofgreat change to the actual physicalstructure of their brains as well ashow their brains process informationand make connections. Adolescentsbehave and think differently fromchildren or adults because of theirdevelopmental biology.

Adolescent BehaviorThere are behavioral

consequences to the developmentalchanges occurring within anadolescent’s brain. The source forthe following information is Bandura(2001).

The first and most dramaticchange will be the increased amountof time an adolescent spends withhis or her peers and the decreasedamount of time spent with parentsand family. This is a normaldevelopmental change and shouldnot be seen as dangerous orsuspect, although developmentalexperts agree that close monitoringand clear rules and consequencesbe applied when allowing an

Page 7



(from page 6)

reported "yes" to risks for teen drivingcompared to 77% or more for theothers. About 59% of C-schoolparents reported "yes" to when andwhere teens should practicecompared to 71% or more for theothers. For when and where teensshould drive when they get licensed,a greater percentage (82%) of AA-school parents reported "yes" thandid parents from other school ranks(63-69%). These included teenage drivercrash rates; driving with teenpassengers; distracted drivinghazards including cell phone use,radio use, and driving while tired;seat belt use; graduated drivinglicensing and privileges; driving inhazardous weather conditions suchas ice, snow, and hail; financial costsof teen driving including insurance;changing flat tires; driving a manualtransmission; driving safety relatedto darting hazards like deer, dogs,and pedestrians; road rage andpatient and courteous driving; andalternatives for driving experience.One parent also suggested havinga video on safe driving for studentsto take home and watch with theirparents or guardians.Discussion

Overall, the results from thisstudy indicate that parents are notcurrently very involved in theirteenagers’ driver educationprograms. Although over 75% ofparents reported knowing at leasthalf of what was going on related toinstruction and training in drivereducation, only about 42% ofparents reported getting regularupdates from their teens about theirprogress, and no other item wasdone "a lot" by more than 25% ofparents. In addition, only 5% ofparents reported getting regularupdates from instructors "a lot." Anydifferences in reports by school sizeindicated that parents in C-schoolwere less involved than were parentsfrom AA, A, or B schools. Therefore,rural areas may be differentiallyaffected by distance in terms of howmuch involvement is possible ordesired.On a positive note, about 95% of

parents reported that they wouldprovide their teenagers with morepractice driving than is provided bydriver education. About halfindicated that their teens would get20 or more hours. These items didnot differ by school size. Althoughpositive, Montana recently passed itsfirst graduated driver licensing (GDL)policy which requires parents toprovide 50 extra hours of practicedriving. Therefore, after July 2006,when GDL goes into effect, allparents should report that they willprovide their teens with at least 50hours of practice driving.

In addition, about 45% of parentsindicated that their teenagers’ drivereducation class "required" parentinvolvement. Unfortunately, parentswere not asked what exactly wasrequired of parents. The MontanaTraffic Education Program, whichregulates driver education in thestate, strongly encourages drivereducation to include parents in therole of "reinforcer" to strengthen skillstaught by driver educationinstructors, and outlines somestrategies for instructors to use toreach parents including the use ofparent conferences and phone calls,parent-teen-teacher checklists, andparent guidelines for practice drivingwith teenagers. In 2004, MontanaTraffic Education Program reportedthat 92 of the 145 school-baseddriver education programs includedparents in a "parent night" or "parentride along" (Montana Office of PublicInstruction, 2005). However, nostate-mandated parent involvementexists at this time.

Although parents may not bevery involved in driver educationcurrently, it may just reflect passivity(versus an active decision). Whenasked if parents should be requiredto be involved the majority (76%)said that they should (52% reported"yes, definitely" and 24% reported"yes, if convenient"). Most parentswould prefer being involved throughwritten materials sent home (66%),access to information on the Internet(65%), discussions in person withthe driver education instructor (59%),or access to the information by email(59%), and would least prefer

attending classes (19%) or attendingbehind-the-wheel instruction (33%).Preferences did not differ by schoolsize. In addition, over 70% ofparents would want information onall nine topics that we asked themabout and some additional topicsthat they volunteered. Someinformation topics differed by schoolsize with a smaller percentage of C-school parents reporting "yes."Although parents may not be takingthe initiative to find out informationon their own, they are more thanwilling to receive the information.And, who better to provide theinformation than experts in the field:driver education instructors.

The idea of having a parentcomponent to driver educationdelivered through email or internetis attractive. Web-based healthinformation has several advantagesbecause it has greater opportunityto be accessed on demand and tobe tailored to the needs of the user.Unlike generic materials, tailoredmessaging creates individualizedcommunication that has anincreased potential of providinghealth messages that are relevantand ultimately more persuasive fortarget audiences (Brownson, &Kreuter, 1997; Kreuter, Farrell,Olevitch, & Brennan, 1999; Kreuter,Strecher, & Glassman, 1999). Inaddition, web-based programs aremore amenable to being interactiveand combining a variety of media toaddress purposes of interventions orlearning styles of users, and to beupdated and maintained to reflectthe latest information. Finally, theInternet can help to reachpopulations who are hard to reachbased on time, distance, oravailability. This may be especiallytrue for rural populations.Technological infrastructure anddigital inclusion rates continue togrow such that the tools are availableand target audiences are able toaccess them (Atkinson & Gold,2002).

The latest national data onInternet access in Montanahouseholds indicated that 47.5% ofhouseholds had Internet access in

Page 6



lessons at home. Some indicatedthat doing so would probably makeparents better drivers. However, afew parents indicated that they didnot believe parents should berequired to be involved in drivereducation because they areresponsible or because parentsshould not interfere with expertdriver training. One parentsuggested that parents should have

their teenagers use student drivermagnets for the front and back ofthe car they drive during the permitperiod, and that these could be paidfor with a deposit and returnedupon graduation. Othersuggestions included using parentsto speak to driver educationclasses about the issues of teendriving that everyone faces and thatparents should be educated on the

responsibilities thatthey carry for havinga teen driver.

Figure 3 showsparent responses forthe topics that theywould want parentinformation on if it waspart of drivereducation. Over 70%of parents would wantinformation on each ofthe nine topics: waysto reinforce drivereducation material(76%), ways toreinforce drivinginstruction (83%),risks of teen driving(81%), ways to teach

teens to drive (82%), ways to increaseteen driver safety after license (91%),when and where teens should practicedriving (75%), when and where teensshould drive once licensed (73%),monitoring teen driving (81%), andteen drinking and driving (86%). Therewere differences in parent reports byschool rank. About 56% of C-schoolparents reported "yes" for informationabout ways to reinforce drivereducation material compared to 74%

-Figure 3-Parents also listed a range of other topics that they would want parent information on as

related to teen driver education.

or over forthe others.About 63%of C-s c h o o lp a r e n t sr e p o r t e d"yes" forways toreinforced r i v i n ginstructioncomparedto 77% ormore forthe others.About 59%of C-s c h o o lp a r e n t s

-Figure 2-When asked about other ways parents should or could be involved in driver

education, parents had a range of responses.

Page 5


(more on next page)

reported knowing "all of it," 32%more than half, 33% half, 14% lessthan half, and 6% "none of it."Parent knowledge about classroomcurriculum did not differ by schoolrank, but parents from A-schoolsreporting knowing more aboutbehind-the-wheel-instruction thandid all others.

Most (95%) of parents reportedthat their teenagers would get moresupervised practice driving duringthe permit period than the 6 hoursprovided by driver education; 50%reported teenagers would get 20 ormore extra hours, and over 90% ofparents reported that they wouldsupervise it. Extra practice drivingand supervisors did not differ byschool rank. About 44% of parentsreported that their teenager’s drivereducation course "required" parentinvolvement and required parentalinvolved did not differ by schoolrank.

Figure 1 shows parent reportsabout how often they had done anyof nine aspects of being involved indriver education. About 42% orparents reported that they gotregular progress reports from theirteenagers "a lot," and only 5-25%reported doing any of the otherparent involvement pieces "a lot."Only 5% said that they got regularprogress reports from instructors "a

lot," and 54% reported that they didso "a little." Overall, for the otherparent involvement items, mostparents reported doing somewherebetween "a lot" and "a little." Around57-65% of parents reported someamount of finding ways to reinforcedriver education materials, findingways to reinforce driving instruction,learning about the risks of teendriving, learning about ways to teachteens to drive, learning about waysto increase teen driver safety afterlicense, learning about when andwhere teenagers should practicedriving, and learning about when andwhere teenagers should drive afterobtaining a license.

Parent responses for how muchthey did some of the items differedby school size. For example, parentresponses differed for getting regularupdates from teenagers and forfinding information to reinforce drivereducation material with a greaterpercentage of AA-school parentsreporting doing them more often andC-school parents reporting them leastoften. A greater percentage of A- andB-school parents reported gettingregular updates from instructors, anda greater percentage of A-schoolparents reported learning about whenand where teenagers should driveonce licensed than did the others.

When asked if parents should beinvolved in driver education, 52%

responded "yes, definitely," 24%responded "yes, if convenient," 19%responded "maybe, not sure," and4% reported "no they should not."Figure 2 shows parent responses forwhich ways they would want to beinvolved in driver education ifrequired by the state. About 65%preferred having written materialssent home and having access to theinformation over the internet; about60% preferred having discussions inperson with the instructor and havingaccess to the information throughemail; and about half preferredhaving discussion over thetelephone. Far fewer preferredattending class (19%) or riding alongduring behind-the-wheel instruction(33%). Preferences did not differ byschool rank. When asked abouthome internet and email access,87% reporting having home internetand email access; 30% reported itsquality as less than average, 35%average, and 36% better thanaverage; and 82-86% of parentsreported using email or internet atleast once a week. There were many responses thatparents and teens should log hoursof practice driving together. Manyresponded that parents should besent information about what theirteenagers are learning so that theycan follow along, track theirprogress, and reinforce these

-Figure 1-Parent Willingness to be Involved in Driver Education

(from page 4)

Page 4


(more on page 5)

(from page 3)(AA, A, B, C) of parents of teenagerscurrently enrolled in driver educationcourses across Montana wastargeted for this study (see Table 1).Of the 247 parents who completedwritten surveys, 37% were from AAschools, 27% were from A schools,25% from B schools, and 10% fromC schools; these percentages arerepresentative of the number offamilies taking driver education byschool size. Of the parents, 71%were mothers and 25% were fathers;91% were white, 3% were NativeAmerican, and 2% were Hispanic;and 62% were 35-44 years old and35% were 45 or older. Of theirteenagers, 54% were female and46% were male; and 80% were in 9thgrade. Of the families, most had one(15%), two (69%), or three (12%)adults, and had one (27%), two(41%), or three (20%) children in thehousehold. In additions, mostfamilies had two (30%), three (35%),or four (19%) vehicles and a familyyearly income of $20,000-40,000(29%), $40,001-60,000 (28%), or$60,001-80,000 (15%).

information for their parents.Information included an introductionto the study, a parent consent form,a parent written survey, and anenvelope in which to return studymaterials. Families were told thatthe state is considering adding aparent component to drivereducation and would be gatheringinformation about ways to increaseparental involvement in youngdriver safety. Participation wasvoluntary and parents had toprovide written consent.Participating parents completed awritten survey that tookapproximately 15 minutes, andreceived $10 for participating.Study information, includingconsent forms and written surveys,were returned to driver educationinstructors in sealed envelopeswithin 10 school days. Drivereducation instructors were given a$20 incentive for distributing studymaterials. Study procedures wereapproved by the InstitutionalReview Board of UNC Charlotte.Measures

Current parent involvement in

their teenagers would receive beyondthat in driver education and by whom(you, spouse, family member, friend,other); (d) if the driver educationcourse required parent involvement("yes" or "no"); and (e) how often theywere involved in nine aspects (seeFigure 1 for list) of driver education(5-point scale from "a little" to "a lot").

Parent willingness to be involvedin driver education was assessed byseveral questions. Parents reported(a) whether parents should berequired to be involved in drivereducation ("yes, definitely," "yes ifconvenient," "maybe, not sure," or"no they should not"); (b) if required,in which of seven ways (see Figure2 for list) would they want to beinvolved ("yes," "maybe," or "no");and (c) if parent information was partof driver education, which of ninetopics (see Figure 3 for list) wouldthey want information ("yes,""maybe," or "no"). In addition,parents reported if they had homeinternet and email access ("yes" or"no"), the quality and speed of theirinternet access ("poor," "fair,""average," "above average," or "first-rate"), and how many days per weekthey used the internet and email (0-7). Parents also responded to open-ended questions about other waysparents should or could be involvedin driver education and other topicsthat parents would want informationon as part of driver education.Analysis

Frequencies were generated todetermine parent responses to itemsrelated to current parent involvementin driver education and parentwillingness to be involved in drivereducation. Chi-squares were usedto determine any differences inparent responses by school rank.Results/Current Parent Involvementin Driver Education

When parents were asked abouthow much they knew about theclassroom curriculum of theirteenagers’ driver education courses,about 10% reported knowing "all ofit", 28% more than half, 40% half,14% less than half, and 8% "none ofit." When asked about how muchthey knew about the behind-the-wheel-instruction, about 15%

Table 1Stratified sample: Parents of teenagers taking

driver education by school sizeDriver Education School Ranka Total

AA A B CEnrollment n 854 552 391 181 1978

% 43 28 20 9 100Schools n 5 17 21 12 56Schools in study n 2 2 4 3 11Parents in study n 92 67 63 25 247

% 37 27 26 10 100

a School ranks: AA = 900+ students; A = 370-899 students; B = 130-369students; C = 1-129 students

ProceduresFrom Fall 2004 driver education

enrollment data by school size, 43%of students were in "AA" schools,28% in "A" schools, 20% in "B"schools, and 9% in "C" schools.Therefore, we targeted similarpercentages from 11 schoolsstratified by school size: AA, A, B, C(see Table 1). During classes, drivereducation instructors informedstudents about the study and senthome with students packets of

driver education was assessed byseveral questions. Parentsreported (a) how much they knewabout the classroom curriculum intheir teenager’s driver educationcourse (5-point scale from "none"to "all of it"); (b) how much theyknew about the behind-the-wheelinstruction in their teenager’s drivereducation course (5-point scalefrom "none" to "all of it"); (c) howmany more practice hours (0, 1-5,6-10, 11-20, or over 20) of driving

Page 3


(continued on page 4 )

To What Extent are Rural Parents Willing to be Involved in Driver Education?Jessica Hartos, PhD, Assistant Professor, Dept of Health Behavior & Administration, UNC Charlotte

and David C. Huff, MS, Director, Traffic Education Programs, Office of Public Instruction

With few exceptions, the UnitedStates is the only country that allowspersons ages 15 and 16 years todrive legally, and most eligibleteenagers of that age do. Obtaininga driver's license is a "rite ofpassage" for U. S. teenagers;however, driving is particularlydangerous for them. Motor vehiclecrashes are the leading cause ofdeath and injury among teenagersaged 15 to 19 across the country(National Center for InjuryPrevention and Control, 2005). Highcrash rates among young drivers arelargely attributable to their youngage, lack of driving experience, andrisky driving behaviors (see review,Williams & Ferguson, 2002).Because driving skill and soundjudgment are largely products ofincreasing age and drivingexperience, risk reduction isdependent upon driving experience;however, the more teens drive, thegreater their exposure and, thus,their risk for crashes. Increasing thesafety of teenage drivers is a nationalpriority and promoting parentalinvolvement in early teen drivingexperiences is an increasinglysupported countermeasure to teencrashes.

Most efforts to include parentalinvolvement in teen driving focus onhow to teach teens to drive orawareness of teen drinking anddriving (Beck, Hartos, & Simons-Morton, 2002; Simons-Morton &Hartos, 2003). For example, manyresources related to parents as"driving instructor" are available frompublic agencies, private groups, andinsurance companies. Few havebeen evaluated and none areembedded in what might beconsidered a comprehensive,planned, educational program. Inaddition, many high schools andspecial interest groups such asSADD/MADD disseminateinformation to parents about teenalcohol and other substance use anddriving. However, most of these

programs involve only a smallnumber of highly-interested parents(Beck et al., 2002).

Currently, graduated driverlicensing (GDL) programs in multiplestates require parents to provide 20-60 hours of supervised practicedriving for their teenagers during thepermit of phase of licensing (seeInsurance Institute for HighwaySafety, 2005, for a list by state). Forexample, 13 states, includingCalifornia, Colorado, Idaho, Montana(starting in July 2006), Oregon, andWashington, require 50 hours ofpractice driving before teenagers areeligible for a restricted license. Mostof the research shows that parentssupport increased practice driving inGDL programs (Beck, Shattuck,Raleigh, & Hartos, 2003; see review,Mayhew 2003).

Despite national support forincreased parental involvement inteen driving, few intervention effortsfocus on the parent role as"gatekeeper," a supervisory rolesuch as that of GDL. GDL policiesdelay the eligible ages for permits,provisional licenses, andunrestricted licenses; increasesupervised driving; place restrictionson driving at night and with teenpassengers; and require youngdrivers to be "violation free" for anallotted amount of time beforeobtaining an unrestricted license(Insurance Institute, 2005). Parentscan do each of these—determinewhen teenagers get a permit andlicense; require extra practice drivingprior to independent driving; restrictwhen, where, and under whatconditions teenagers drive; andimpose consequences for violationsof rules or restrictions. Our researchindicates that parent behaviors arerelated to teen driving outcomes; thatuse of persuasive communicationscan positively impact parents'attitudes and behaviors towardregulating teen driving; and thatpromoting parental management ofteen independent driving is most

effective when it begins before teensbegin unsupervised driving (Simons-Morton, Hartos, & Beck, 2004;Simons-Morton, Hartos, Leaf, &Preusser, in press).

Programmatic efforts to increaseparental management of teen drivingcould be integrated into drivereducation to increase parentalinvolvement in young driver safety,including determining when, where,and under which conditionsteenagers can drive (Simons-Morton, & Hartos, 2003). This maybe even more important in ruralareas. Western rural states,including Montana, have teen andoverall crash rates that are higherthan the national average becausea greater percentage of milestraveled are rural. Most of Montana'sroadways are rural and in 2003, ofall crashes and 89.5% of fatalcrashes occurred in rural locations(Montana Department ofTransportation, 2004). The higherspeeds involved in rural crashescontribute to higher rates of fatalitiesand serious injuries when comparedto urban crashes (MontanaDepartment of Transportation,2004). Therefore, promoting parentmanagement of teen independentdriving in rural areas may beimportant in reducing teen driver risk.

However, the extent to whichparents would support mandatoryparent involvement in drivereducation is unknown. Althoughmost parents support state policiesthat restrict teen driving (Mayhew,2003), parents have busy schedulesand little time to attend formalprograms. In addition, access toprograms may be even more difficultfor parents in rural areas. Therefore,the purpose of this study was todetermine the extent to whichparents in Montana (1) are involvedcurrently in driver education and (2)would be willing to be included indriver education.Methods/Participants

A stratified sample by school size

Page 2


Allen Robinson

(Robbie continued on page 11)

Dr. Allen Robinson, CEO

John W. Palmer

Editor’s Notes

Jim Gibb, President

Jim Gibb

In this issue of the Chronicle, you did not receivethe News and Viewssection of general drivereducation information.This was a decision Irecommended to theExecutive Committee. Thework required to do theChronicle and News andViews is enormous.

The ExecutiveCommittee would like tohave your views on thetype of publication to beprepared for your use.Therefore, a survey will soon be sent to you askingfor your input on this critical ADTSEA publication. Iurge you to carefully consider the questions and replyas requested.

Speaking of surveys, it was recommended by theNorthwest Region that a survey of ADTSEAmembership be undertaken to help focus the directionof the association. David Huff of Montana volunteeredto do this, but had pressing work related needs whichforced him to seek help. Dr. Dale Ritzel of SouthernIllinois University agreed to develop this survey toprovide input from our members. This information isneeded to guide the Board of Directors and the IUPmanagement team in providing necessary servicesto the members.

I know all of you are busy and wonder why youshould take the time to complete these surveys. Iassure you it will be time well spent. If the servicesdon’t meet all of your concerns, I encourage you toemail me at [email protected] or call 1-800-896-7703.I sincerely want to know what you are thinking andhow we can all work together to meet our needs.

The results of our recent election are in thispublication. The candidates for each office wereexcellent representatives of our Association. It is

The winners of the recently completed election are : Gary Scott President Elect, Fred NagaoTreasure, Judy Ode NW Board Member and the constitutional amendments. Teacher of the Yearnominations are being taken until June 9, 2006. For more information check the ADTSEA web siteor email Terry Kline at [email protected] As I prepared this issue of”The Chronicle” without it’straditional companion “News & Views” available it became necessary to condense items of interestto titles and either a web address or bibliographic information. Hopefully you will be able determineyour interest in the item and find the details you seek by using the web addresses or bibliographiccitation. Information on cell phones and fuelingat http://www.pei.org. Tires and Passenger VehicleFuel Economy: Informing Consumers, Improving Performance http://trb.org/news/blurbdetail.asp?id=5973 New Improved, Comprehensive, and Automated Driver’s License Test and

Vision Screening System http://trb.org/news/blurb detail.asp?id=5874 Driver Cell Phone Use in 2005 http://trb.org/news/blurb detail.asp?id=5821 A great web site on Fuel Economy http://www.fueleconomy.com Learningto Teach in Driver’s Ed. by Robert Barsanti “Education Week” Jan. 18, 2006 Vol. 25, Issue 19, Page 36.

Page 1


The ChronicleThe ChronicleThe ChronicleThe ChronicleThe Chronicle of the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Publication Guidelines

Articles submitted for The Chronicle aresubject to peer review and should conformto the American Psychological Associationstyle. The basic reference for style is 1983Publication Manual of the American

Psychological Association (3rd ed.).Authors are responsible for adherence tostyle. A Word for Mac 6.0 or RTF file isrequired for peer review. Articles may bereprinted with credits to the author and TheChronicle of ADTSEA.

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

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Chronicle Editorial DeadlinesWinter ‘06 Issue Dec. 1, 2006Spring ‘06 Issue Mar. 1, 2006Summer ‘06 Issue June 1, 2006Fall ‘06 Issue Sept. 1, 2006

Printing Information

This publication is prepared usingPageMaker 6.5.2 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 ContentsSpring 2006

Volume 54 Number 2............................. 2

Allen Robinson,Ph.D., ADTSEA Cheif Executive Officer

..................................................... 2James Gibb,President ADTSEA

To What Extent are Rural Parents Willing to beInvolved in Driver Education?

Jessica Hartos, PhD, Assistant Professor, Dept of HealthBehavior & Administration, UNC Charlotte andDavid C. Huff, MS, Director, Traffic Education Programs,Office of Public Instruction.......................................................... 3

Brain Development and Risk-Taking inAdolescent Drivers

Erin Floyd-Bann, Ed.D. and William Van Tassel, Ph.D.1

1AAA National Office..........................................................................8

Car Sharing Programs: Operational and SafetyAspects

W.E. Van Tassel, Ph.D.1 and E.E. Floyd-Bann, Ed.D.1AAA National Office ............................................................10

Re-Thinking Traffic Safety: The Global Situation,Under-Utilized Resources, Strategies forImprovementBob Green, Instructor/Trainer/survivethedrive...........................14

John L. Harvey, Program Manager Driver Education

Recent Articles of Interest.....................................................13

Publishing Information

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

John Palmer, Ph.D832 Halliday Road

St. Cloud, MN [email protected]

Advertising InformationCamera-ready advertisement may be

submitted to:Allen Robinson, Ph.D.

Executive Director, ADTSEAIUP Highway Safety Center

Indiana, PA 15705-1092724-357-4051

The Chronicle of the American Driver

and Traffic Safety Education Association

is published quarterly in cooperation with

the Indiana University of Pennsylvania

Highway Safety Center.

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

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

Date post:	02-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Spring 06 Chronicle · 2020-07-28 · Page 13 Spring 2006 The Chronicle of ADTSEA safety policies,...

Documents