Evaluation of a Program to Enhance Young Driver Safety in Irael Tomer Toledo* Technion Irael Intitute of Technology, Haifa, Irael Tippy Lotan Or Yarok, Hod Haharon, Irael Orit Taubman - Ben-Ari Bar-Ilan Univerity, Ramat Gan, Irael Einat Grimberg Or Yarok, Hod Haharon, Irael Publihed in Accident Analyi and Prevention 45, pp. 705-710, 2012 * Correponding author, Tranportation Reearch Intitute, Technion Irael Intitute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Irael. Fax: 972-4-8295708, Email: toledo@technion.ac.il
ABSTRACT Young driver in Irael, a in other part of the world, are involved in car crahe more than any other age group. The graduated driver licening ytem in Irael require that all new driver be accompanied by an experienced driver whenever they drive for the firt three month after obtaining a driving licene. In an effort to make the accompanied driving phae more effective, a novel program which target both young driver and their parent wa initiated in 2005. The program adminiter a peronal meeting with the young driver and the accompanying parent cheduled for the beginning of the accompanied driving phae. In thi meeting guidance i given regarding bet practice for undertaking the accompanied driving, a well a tip for dealing with in-vehicle parent-teen dynamic. Through 2008, almot 130,000 familie of young driver have participated in the program. In order to evaluate the effectivene of the program, injury crah record of the young driver who participated in the program were compared with thoe of all other young driver that were licened at the ame time period. The reult obtained indicate tatitically ignificant lower crah record for young driver that participated in the program. Limitation of the evaluation related to elf-election biae are dicued, and practical implication are uggeted. 2
Evaluation of a Program to Enhance Young Driver Safety in Irael 1. INTRODUCTION Young driver worldwide are involved in car crahe more than any other age group, even after controlling for number of driver, mile traveled and population ize (e.g., Lotan and Toledo, 2007; William, 2003). Reearch how that the firt year of licenure i the mot riky, with the initial month of independent driving recording highly elevated crah rate. Thee rate rapidly decline after approximately ix month, and continue to decline more lowly during the following year (Simon-Morton, 2007). Several author relate thee tatitic to the lower driving competence of young novice driver, who are till in the learning proce, and whoe expoure to variou road condition i relatively low (e.g., Mayhew et al., 2003; Simon- Morton, 2007). Thi phenomenon ha received ignificant media and political attention and prompted variou regulatory change that affected the driver licening ytem. Many juridiction have implemented Graduated Driver Licening (GDL) ytem, in which young driver undergo everal tage of learning, gaining experience, and being gradually expoed to more riky driving environment. Mot GDL program conit of three phae: learner permit, proviional licene, and full licene. The learner permit allow holder to drive only when accompanied by an experienced driver. The proviional licene et certain retriction on the novice driver. It often retrict or prohibit nighttime driving and limit the number of paenger allowed in the vehicle. In addition, during thi phae the tolerance to traffic violation, in particular peeding and alcohol and drug abue, i lower and the aociated penaltie higher (Hedlund, 2007; Hedlund et al., 2006; William and Shult, 2007). 3
Several evaluation tudie of variou GDL ytem attet to it effectivene. For example, Shope (2007) ummarized reult of 27 tudie, concluding that they conitently how that GDL program reduce overall crah rate of novice young driver by 20-40%. Similarly, comparing GDL ytem in variou American tate, Baker et al. (2007) found that the fatal crah rate of 16-year-old driver were 38% lower and the injury crah rate were 40% lower in the tate with the mot retrictive GDL program compared to tate that did not implement GDL at all. Vanlaar et al. (2009) conducted meta-analyi of the GDL program in 58 American and Canadian juridiction to evaluate the impact of the variou component of thee program. Overall, they found compelling evidence in upport of GDL, with emphaize on nighttime driving and paenger retriction, and on driver education and training. The GDL effectivene in reducing the involvement of young and novice driver in car crahe i mainly attributed to their ability to enable young driver to gain ignificant practical driving experience, and, imultaneouly, protect them to a large degree from the inherently high crah rik attendant to novice driver tatu (ECMT, 2006; Fo, 2007). Two group of factor are generally accepted a the underlying caue: Firt, GDL reduce the level of expoure to rik, by retricting nighttime driving and the number of paenger; Second, it encourage improved driving knowledge, experience and hazard perception kill through prolonged and more controlled licenure procedure (Hedlund et al., 2003, 2006; Hedlund and Compton, 2004; McKnight and Peck, 2002; Vanlaar et al., 2009). In Irael, teenager can begin taking driving leon (given by profeional intructor on pecially equipped vehicle) at the age of 16.5, and are permitted to drive only during thee leon. A driving licene i iued upon paing a written theory tet and an on-road driving tet. The on-road tet cannot be taken until the learner ha turned 17, paed the theory tet 4
and completed a minimum of 28 on-road driving leon. All new driver, regardle of age, are required to be accompanied by an experienced driver, omeone over the age of 24 who ha held a valid driving licene for a minimum of five year, for the firt three month after licenure. In addition, for a period of two year after licenure, new driver are alo retricted to carrying up to two paenger, unle accompanied by an experienced driver. There are no retriction on nighttime driving. The tranition from the accompanied driving phae (ADP) i defined olely by the paage of time from licenure (Lotan and Toledo, 2007). There are no minimum requirement regarding the number of driving hour during thi period. It i alo important to note that from a legal point of view, the young driver already poee a valid driving licene during the ADP and o the reponibility lie with the young driver and not the accompanying peron. Thi tatu i imilar to the German ytem and unlike other European ytem that allow layman accompanied driving (Hendrix, 2006). The injury crah involvement of young Iraeli driver (age 17 to 24) in the year 2005-2008 that followed the implementation of the current GDL program, a a function of the month of driving experience they have gained i hown in Figure 1. The figure how that their involvement in injury crahe during the ADP i very low. However, immediately after the end of the ADP, crah involvement increae dramatically. Thi high crah involvement then gradually decreae. A noted above, imilar trend were alo oberved elewhere in the world (e.g. Mayhew, 2003; VicRoad, 2005). It ha been hown (e.g. McCartt et al., 2003; Mayhew, 2003; McKnight and Peck, 2002) that the driving experience that young driver gain in the ADP ha a tempering effect on the high crah involvement in the period that follow it. However, an important hortcoming of the current GDL ytem in Irael in thi repect i the lack of guidance on the deirable extent and content of accompanied driving. Moreover, although the role of parent ha been identified a an important factor affecting the behavior 5
of young driver (e.g., Simon-Morton, 2007; Taubman Ben-Ari, 2010; in pre), there had been no program promoting parental involvement in youth driving in Irael. Thee hortcoming motivated Or Yarok (Green Light), the larget non-government organization in Irael dealing with road afety, to deign a program titled Green Light for Life (GLL) that aim to improve the quantity and quality of driving that young driver undertake during the ADP. The GLL program mainly conit of a 45-minute meeting between a repreentative of Or Yarok, the young driver and hi or her parent. The meeting take place at the family' home a cloe a poible to the beginning of the ADP. The meeting goal are to explain the objective and importance of the ADP, bridge gap between parent and young driver regarding their expectation from the ADP, and enhance parent willingne and ability to hare their experience and hazard perception kill with the young driver. The program i publicized through media campaign, the internet, lecture in chool and a bringa-friend mechanim. Teenager are alo contacted by phone during their learning phae, informed about GLL and are offered to chedule a meeting. For more detail on the program, ee Taubman Ben-Ari and Lotan (2011). The GLL program wa launched a a pilot in January 2004, and ha been implemented ince January 2005 nationwide. Table 1 preent level of participation in the program from 2005 to 2008. Although participation in the program i voluntary, it achieved high penetration rate of over 40%. Almot 130,000 young driver participated in the program in thee four year. To date, only one tudy (Taubman Ben-Ari and Lotan, 2011) ha evaluated the effectivene of thi program, by comparing between a ample of 362 young driver who participated in the program and 376 young driver who did not participate in it. The tudy utilized quantitative 6
meaure through elf-report quetionnaire attained by a telephone urvey. Meaure included attitude toward the ADP, driving experience gained in the ADP, driving without an accompanying driver during the ADP, rik evaluation, frequency of committing traffic violation, and involvement in car crahe. The reult howed no difference between the two group in the amount of driving practice during the ADP and in the reported reckle driving. However, GLL participant howed more poitive view regarding the ADP and were le involved in car crahe. Though thi evaluation tudy wa comprehenive and conited on a large ample, it neverthele relied on elf-report meaure of attitude, perception, and behavior of the novice driver, rather than on actual afety outcome obervation. In order to trengthen the validity of the reult, the preent tudy ought to evaluate the effectivene of the GLL program by comparing the nation-wide tatitic of injury crah involvement in the initial two year after licening of the population of young driver who participated in the program with thoe of the driver that did not participate. 2. METHODS 2.1. Data The data on the injury crah involvement of the GLL participant and non-participant population wa derived from three eparate databae: (1) Record of all participant in the GLL program in the period from January 2005 to January 2007, (2) Record of all young new driver in Irael for the ame period, and (3) Record of all driver who were involved in injury crahe that were reported to the police from January 2005 to December 2008. It hould alo be noted that two group in the Iraeli population, Ultra-Orthodox Jew and Arab, do not generally participate in the GLL program. Together they make up over 20% of the young 7
driver population. Thee group have different cultural, ocio-demographic and crah involvement characteritic and o pecific program are tailored to young driver in thee group. The reult reported in thi paper do not include novice driver in thee group. The record in the three databae were matched uing the driver unique national identification number. However, due to privacy regulation, licenure and crah record of individual driver could not be obtained and o only aggregate tatitic baed on the month of licenure were calculated. Thee tatitic were calculated for two group in the population: participant in the GLL project (77% of which were matched in the licenure record) and young driver that were eligible to participate in the project but did not. 2.2. Statitical analye Firt, the overall difference in injury crah involvement among GLL participant and nonparticipant were evaluated uing a erie of t-tet for the continuou crah rate variable during the period covered in the data. Thee tet are built on the aumption that the number of injury crahe for a group of driver i a binomial random variable. Next, in order to quantify the impact of the GLL, taking into account the dependency on the GDL tage and the month of driving experience that the novice young driver have accumulated, a model that predict the number of injury crahe in each month for group of driver (baed on the month they received their licene and whether or not they participated in the GLL program) wa developed. The following Poion regreion form wa ued: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ln IC = ln 10000 + ln N + ln D + X β+ ε (1) itn in t itn it 8
Where IC itn i the number of injury crahe during month t for driver in group n (two group are defined: GLL participant or non-participant) that received their licene during month i. X itn i a vector of explanatory variable, β i the correponding vector of parameter. ε it i an error term. N in and D t are the number of driver in group n that were licened during month i and the number of day in month t, repectively. Thee value, together with the contant 10,000 are ued a offet to normalize the number of accident per 10,000 driver per day. The data for etimation of thi model include 1200 obervation (GLL participant and nonparticipant, 25 licening month cohort, 24 obervation month). The number of driver in thee group range from 744 to 5535. 3. RESULTS 3.1. Difference between GLL participant and non-participant Table 2 ummarize the involvement in injury crahe of GLL participant and nonparticipant. Overall the crah rate of GLL participant are lower compared to nonparticipant by 12.7%. The difference in crah rate are tatitically ignificant at the 95% confidence level or better for the full dataet and for egment defined by the licening year. Etimation reult for the injury crah participation model are preented in Table 3. All variable in the model are ignificant at 95% or better confidence level. The variable of interet for the evaluation of the GLL program i the participation dummy. Thi variable take the value 1 for the participant group and 0 for non-participant. The parameter value of thi variable i negative in the model. Thi value implie that participant in the GLL program have a lower crah involvement rate compared to non-participant in the firt 24 month after licenure by 11.2%. Another variable that capture the additional impact of the participation in the GLL program in the initial two month after licenure i alo ued. The coefficient of 9
thi variable i poitive indicating that in thee month, the injury crah involvement of GLL participant i higher by 31.3% than that of non-participant. It hould be noted that, a other variable in the model will indicate, injury crah rate in thee two month are very low in any cae, and o the magnitude of thi increae in term of expected crah rate i mall. The ADP dummy variable take a value 1 during the three month of the ADP and 0 after the ADP i completed. The parameter value i large and negative, which indicate that injury crah rate are ignificantly lower during ADP. The lat group of variable in the model relate to the level of experience driver have gained. Thee variable take the value 1 for driver that have a pecific level of experience and 0 otherwie. Their parameter etimate indicate that crah rik are highet immediately after the completion of the ADP, in month 3-6 after licenure, and decreae gradually after that. The combined effect of the ADP and the experience level on the injury crah rate i demontrated in Figure 2, which how predicted crah rate for GLL participant and for non-participant. Finally, we note that eaonality effect and the impact of the licenure month i and the accident month t were teted but did not have ignificant impact and o were omitted from the final model. Several interaction variable that were teted were alo not ignificant in the model. Thee variable included allowing for the impact of experience to differ between GLL participant and non-participant, for difference between GLL participant in the pilot tage of the project and the nationwide coverage period, and for difference in the injury crah rate of young driver that experienced two or three month ADP. 3.2. Addreing potential election bia The reult preented above indicate that young driver that participated in the GLL program are over 10% le likely to be involved in injury crahe compared to thoe that did not. 10
However, a mentioned above, participation in the program i voluntary. Therefore, the reult may be ubject to election bia if the young driver that chooe to participate in the program have different characteritic compared to thoe that do not. We attempt to addre thi iue in two way: firt, we repeat reult reported by Taubman Ben-Ari and Lotan (2011) who ued a ample of elf-report to evaluate difference in attitude and behavior between the two group. Secondly, we evaluate difference in ocio-demographic characteritic, namely age and gender, between the two group, a potential indicator to underlying election biae. In a related tudy that wa decribed above, Taubman Ben Ari and Lotan (2011) conducted analyi of elf-report of a ample of 738 GLL participant and non-participant. Their reult are reproduced in Table 4. The table how only mall and tatitically inignificant difference between the two group in the fraction of driver that violated the accompanied driving regulation and in three meaure related to riky behavior: own frequency of undertaking variou behavior (e.g. running red light, not topping at top ign), popularity of thee behavior among friend, and the perception of the rik aociated with them. Thi imilarity in rik attitude and behavior doe not eem to upport the exitence of ubtantial election bia related to thee characteritic. Similar to the reult reported here, GLL participant alo reported to be le involved in car crahe than non-participant. There wa no tatitically ignificant difference in the amount of driving experience the driver in the two group have gained during the ADP, However, GLL participant perceived the ADP a more effective compared to non-participant. Thee reult eem to ugget that at leat in the perception of the young driver, the activitie of the ADP are a contributing factor to improved afety.. 11
In order to further ae the potential bia, we alo examined the GLL participant and nonparticipant population on two characteritic that have been hown to affect car crah rate: gender and age at licenure. For that purpoe, the two group of driver (GLL participant and non-participant) were tratified baed on age and gender. Table 4 how the fraction of driver and their injury crah rate in each of thee trata for the two group. The crah rate are normalized by the crah rate of 17 year-old male in the non-participant group, who have the highet crah rate. Therefore, the normalized crah rate take value between 0 and 1. Table 4 how that there are difference between the two group that may be contributing to the difference in injury crah rate. Acro all age, 55.4% of non-participant are male, wherea only 53.2% of GLL participant are male. The crah rate for male driver are roughly double thoe of female driver, and o the light under-repreentation of male in the GLL program may be biaing the crah rate of thi group downward. In contrat, GLL participant tend to be younger compared to non-participant (84.6% of participant but only 66.7% of non-participant are 17 or 18 year old). Thi difference i expected given that ome of the GLL recruitment effort take place in chool and related activitie. Injury crah rate are highet for driver that are licened at the age of 17. They then decreae with the licenure age, but increae again for driver that are licened at age 22-24 (however, thee driver contitute a very mall fraction of new young driver). Therefore, the different age ditribution of GLL participant may be biaing crah rate of thi group upward compared to non-participant. A correction factor to the crah rate wa etimated in order to evaluate the magnitude of the bia caued by the difference in ocio-demographic characteritic between the two group. The correction factor i calculated a the ratio of expected crah rate for the non-participant 12
group under the gender and licenure age ditribution of GLL participant to their oberved crah rate: CF = f f CR P NP CR NP NP (2) Where CF i the correction factor. P f and NP f are the fraction of driver in trata (defined by gender and licenure age) in the GLL participant and non-participant group, repectively. NP CR i the normalized crah rate for non-participant driver in trata. The correction value calculated for the joint ditribution of gender and licenure age i 1.053. Thi value implie that the difference in crah rate between the two group would be even higher than predicted by the model (11.8% intead of 11.2%) if the ocio-demographic characteritic of GLL participant were imilar to thoe of non-participant. If only the difference in the gender ditribution, which favor the GLL participant group, i accounted for, the etimated correction factor i 0.987. In thi cae, the crah rate for GLL participant i 11.0% lower compared to non-participant. Thu, even after accounting for gender and licenure age characteritic of the two group, GLL participant are le likely to be involved in injury crahe compared to non-participant. 4. CONCLUSION The current tudy preent reult regarding the difference between participant and nonparticipant in the GLL program with repect to crah rate among young new driver. In contrat to common aement of intervention, finding are not baed on convenience or even repreentative ample, but on injury crah record of the population of Iraeli young 13
driver who participated in the program in comparion to all new young driver that were licened at the ame period and did not participate in the program. Decriptive tatitic comparing injury crah record of thoe who participated in the GLL program to thoe who did not reveal a ignificant difference in favor of thoe who participated. Analyi baed on a Poion regreion model indicate that participation in the program i aociated with over 10% lower rate of involvement in injury crahe of young driver in the firt 24 month after licenure. Thee lower crah rate are tatitically ignificant and maintained even after correcting for potential elf-election bia that may reult from the different characteritic of young driver that chooe to participate in the program compared to thoe that do not. It i important to note that thee correction may not fully account for the potential for election bia due to difference in attitude toward driving and afety between the two group. In a follow up tudy we are collecting data on the behavior and crah record at the individual level, which may ait in further addreing election bia. The current reult are in line with thoe of a previou tudy, baed on a ample of GLL participant and non-participant, which imilarly howed elf-reported crah involvement to be lower among participant (Taubman Ben-Ari and Lotan, 2011). Importantly, thi previou tudy may provide a hint to help interpret current reult. Specifically, it howed that participant were imilar to non-participant in report on driving experience gained in the ADP, driving without an accompanying driver during the ADP, rik evaluation, and frequency of committing traffic violation. However, difference between the two group were found in regard to attitude toward the ADP and involvement in car crahe - GLL participant howed more poitive view regarding the ADP and were le involved in car crahe. Taken together with the preent finding, it might be uggeted that the GLL increae awarene and recognition in the importance of the ADP, which might augment the 14
utility of thi period in reducing involvement in crahe. In thi tage of the invetigation, thi hould be taken with a degree of caution a no caual pattern ha been proved. Beyond the reult on the difference between the crah rate of the two group, the current finding alo attet to two important iue. Firtly, analyi of injury crah data of young driver during the firt month after licenure reveal a clear pattern of low crah involvement during the ADP, a harp peak of crahe immediately after the end of the ADP and the beginning of the olo driving, and a gradual decreae afterward. Hence the ADP hould be regarded a an vital opportunity to help and motivate young driver to become better and afer driver. Secondly, the role of parent in the afety meaure of young driver cannot be underetimated. Joining a hot of previou tudie (e.g., Simon-Morton, 2007; Taubman Ben-Ari, 2010; in pre), the current tudy indicate that program which are baed on communal effort of young driver and their parent, may lead the way to a change in the driving culture of our ociety. 15
REFERENCES Baker S.P., Chen L-H., Li G. 2007. National Review of Graduated Driver Licening, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety. ECMT 2006. Young driver The Road to Safety, European Conference of Miniter of Tranport, OECD publication. Fo R.D. 2007. Improving Graduated Driver Licening Sytem: A Conceptual Approach and It Implication, Journal of Safety Reearch 38, 185-192. Hedlund J. 2007. Novice teen driving: GDL and beyond, Journal of Safety Reearch 38, 259-266. Hedlund J., Compton R. 2004. Graduated Driver Licening Reearch in 2003 and Beyond, Journal of Safety reearch 35, 5-11. Hedlund J., Shult R.A., Compton R. 2003. What We Know, What We Don t Know, and What We Need to Know about Graduated Driver Licening, Journal of Safety Reearch, 34, 107-115. Hedlund J., Shult R.A, Compton R. 2006. Graduated Driver Licening and Teenage Driver Reearch in 2006, Journal of Safety reearch 37, 107-121. Hendrix M. 2006. A Survey of Accompanied Driving, Preentation at VdTUV-CIECA Workhop on the Role of Accompanied Driving, Berlin, available at: http://www.cieca.be/accdrivwrkhop_en.pp Lotan T., Toledo T. 2007. Driving Pattern of Young Driver within a Graduated Driver Licening Sytem. Preprint of the 86th Annual Meeting of the Tranportation Reearch Board, Wahington, D.C. Mayhew D.R. 2003. The Lerner' Permit, Journal of Safety Reearch 34, 35-43. 16
Mayhew D.R., Simpon H.M., Pak A. 2003. Change in Colliion Rate among Novice Driver During the Firt Month of Driving, Accident Analyi and Prevention 35, 683-691. McCartt A.T., Shabanova V.I., Leaf W.A. 2003. Driving Experience, Crahe and Traffic Citation of Teenage Beginning Driver, Accident Analyi and Prevention 35, 311-320. McKnight A.J., Peck R.C. 2002. Graduated Driver Licening: What Work?, Injury Prevention 8, 32-38. Shope J.T. 2007. Graduated Driver Licening: Review of Evaluation Reult Since 2002, Journal of Safety Reearch 38, 165-175. Simon-Morton B. 2007. Parent Involvement in Novice Teen Driving: Rationale, Evidence of Effect, and Potential for Enhancing Graduated Driver Licening Effectivene, Journal of Safety Reearch 38, 193-202. Taubman - Ben-Ari O. 2010. Attitude Toward Accompanied Driving: The View of Teen and their Parent, Tranportation Reearch Part F: Traffic Pychology and Behaviour 13, 269-276. Taubman - Ben-Ari O. in pre. Attitude Toward Accompanied Driving and Perceived Parental and Familial Characteritic Among Young Driver, Accident Analyi and Prevention. Taubman - Ben-Ari O., Lotan T. 2011. The contribution of a novel intervention to enhance afe driving among young driver in Irael, Accident Analyi and Prevention 43, 352-359. Vanlaar W., Mayhewa D., Marcouxa K., Wet, G., Brij, T., Shope J. 2009. Evaluation of graduated driver licening program in North America uing a meta-analytic approach, Accident Analyi and Prevention 41, 1104 1111. VicRoad 2005. Young Driver Safety and Graduated Licening, dicuion paper, available at: http://www.arrivealive.vic.gov.au/c_younggls_1.html 17
William A.F. 2003. Teenage Driver: Pattern of Rik, Journal of Safety Reearch 34, 5-15. William A.F., Shult R.A. 2010. Graduated Driver Licening Reearch, 2007 Preent: A Review and Commentary, Journal of Safety Reearch 41, 77-84. 18
Table 1: Participation in the GLL program by licening year Year Number of eligible Number of Market penetration young driver participating familie (%) 2005 82,796 22,759 27.5 2006 78,929 33,443 42.4 2007 76,114 41,331 54.3 2008 84,111 32,259 38.4 Total 321,950 129,972 40.4 19
Table 2: Injury crah tatitic for GLL participant and for non-participant Period Statitic Participant Non-participant 2005 Sample ize 17,087 46,945 Injury car crahe 443 1,363 Injury crah rate ( per 10,000 driver) 259.3 290.3 Difference -31.1 (-10.7%) p-value 0.031 2006 + January 2007 Sample ize 27,367 39,166 Injury car crahe 650 1,063 Injury crah rate ( per 10,000 driver) 237.5 271.4 Difference -33.9 (-12.5%) p-value 0.006 Total Sample ize 44,454 86,111 Injury car crahe 1,093 2,426 Injury crah rate ( per 10,000 driver) 245.9 281.7 Difference -35.9 (-12.7%) p-value <0.001 20
Table 3: Etimation reult for the injury crah involvement model Variable Parameter t-tatitic p-value Value Contant -1.155-36.0 <0.001 GLL participation dummy -0.119-3.06 0.002 GLL participation, 1-2 month experience 0.391 2.04 0.041 ADP dummy -0.995-10.8 <0.001 3-6 Month experience dummy 0.738 15.2 <0.001 7-13 Month experience dummy 0.402 9.2 <0.001 21
Table 4: Mean, tandard deviation and p-value for participant and non-participant in the ample (Source: Taubman - Ben-Ari and Lotan, 2011) Participant Non-participant p-value Mean STD Mean STD Driving experience during ADP 5.75 5.20 5.90 4.94 0.69 Perception of ADP a effective 4.06 0.71 3.85 0.87 <0.001 Percieved popularity of riky driving among friend 1.64 0.45 1.61 0.50 0.54 Rikine evaluation of traffic violation 3.39 0.42 3.40 0.49 0.68 Reported frequency of riky driving 1.46 0.45 1.44 0.49 0.44 Driving without an accompanying peron 21% 20% 0.59 22
Table 5: Fraction of driver and injury crah rate by gender and age at licenure Strata Participant Non-participant Gender Age at Fraction Normalized injury Fraction Normalized injury licenure ( P f ) crah rate ( CR ) P ( NP f ) crah rate ( CR ) NP 17 0.362 0.415 0.282 1.0 18 0.112 0.379 0.121 0.812 19 0.024 0.431 0.045 0.816 Male 20 0.011 0.384 0.027 0.637 21 0.008 0.455 0.026 0.623 22 0.009 0.547 0.028 0.642 23 0.006 0.398 0.020 0.705 24 0.001 0.558 0.003 0.745 17 0.246 0.233 0.158 0.580 18 0.126 0.150 0.106 0.440 19 0.033 0.192 0.047 0.353 Female 20 0.023 0.283 0.041 0.375 21 0.021 0.165 0.040 0.330 22 0.012 0.132 0.029 0.356 23 0.007 0.268 0.021 0.419 24 0.001 0.0 0.004 0.436 23
Figure 1: Injury crah involvement of young driver in Irael by driving experience 24
Figure 2: Predicted injury crah involvement rate for GLL participant and non-participant 25