A COMPREHENSIVE STUDY of young drivers and the reasons they crash has revealed that law enforcement could play a greater role than education in saving newly-licensed drivers.
Over 20,000 young NSW-based drivers took part in the study, conducted by the George Institute for International Health.
The 17 to 24 year-old respondents indicated that, regardless of how well or how little they understood the dangers, they would have the same elevated risk of being involved in a crash.
Participants were asked questions about how often they engaged in risk-taking behaviour behind the wheel, such as speeding, tailgating, or burnouts.
Also analysed were attitudes towards lower-risk dangers, such as listening to loud music, carrying two or more passengers and using mobile phones.
“If they engaged in any one of this range of risky driving behaviour they had a 50 percent increased risk of a crash,” said Dr Rebecca Ivers, Associate Professor at The George Institute.
Dr Ivers said that results from the study indicated that the risk of fines or punishment was a greater deterrent than simply educating new drivers about the risks they faced on the roads.
“It really confirms why we have stronger and stronger graduated licensing systems for young drivers … and it’s why no one has been able to demonstrate any really good safety benefits in driver education, in giving people information about risk,” she said.
Common behaviours reported by the study included that 47 percent of P-platers drove with two or more passengers, 42 Percent drove while listening to loud music and 20 percent had travelled at 70km/h in a 60km/h zone.
Dr Ivers also commented that the kinds of bad driving behaviour that new drivers were often singled out for, may not occur as commonly as first thought.
Four percent of male respondents and two percent of women said they would regularly make ‘rude gestures’ when behind the wheel.
Five percent of young men and four percent of young women would ‘tailgate’ a slower driver in front of them, while 7.2 percent of young males also engaged in ‘thrill-speeding’. Three percent of young males admitted taking part in street racing - around double the amount compared to females.
“Most young driver crashes are the result of inexperience - a failure to recognise risk so their risky driver behaviour may not be intentional. It really comes back to saying enforcement, and putting in place (law or regulation-based) interventions that change people’s behaviour, is the best thing to do.”Dr. Ivers said.
Additional results of the study, surrounding factors such as socio-economic factors for young drivers, pre-licensing driving experience, training and education, mental health, and sleep habits will be released later in 2009 and 2010.
Loading ...
Comments
Click here to jump to Add Comment box
How do you get a picture next to your name?
Get a Gravatar. Click here to find out more.
And yet we let them drive relatively powerful rear wheel drive cars.
A power to weight limit should be imposed. Maximum of 4 cylinders with no turbos or superchargers and nothing above 2 litres until 21.
That will teach them good road craft. It’s not about driving like a old man but instead gaining experience so you can anticipate danger and other road users behaviour.
My first car in the UK was a crappy town car worth a fe hundred pounds. Yeah I drove like a fool but it wasn’t very fast or powerful and if I dinged it, I could knock out the panel. I learned how to drive properly then upgraded to a BMW when I was 21.
The other impediment was the high cost of insurance. It cost twice as much to insure than the car was worth.
Doesn’t their finding that most young driver crashes are the result of inexperience contradict their conclusion that peanalties rather than driver education?
Therefore shouldn’t manditory driver training courses that alow drivers to experience dangerous scenarios under controled conditions?
Everyone has the ocasional lapse in sanity, young or old, no amount of peanalties or legislation will ever change that. Young drivers are less experienced and therefore less likley to survive because they have less experience.
Things like propor breaking techniques, recovering from skids and emergency evasive manovers aren’t particularly dificult, they’re just things that you need to have been shown how to do and practiced under controled circomstances. A couple days of driver training and education may not magically cure the road toal but it would improve the odds of young drivers.
There’s the age old argument that driver training makes drivers more confident amd makes them take more risks. But only one piece of research (done back in the 60’s if I’m not mistaken) has ever concluded that this is the case and it is generaly reguarded as poor science based largely on anicdotal evidence.
I don’t understand the attitude, or the data….
If you take bikes as an example, after introducing the compulsory rider training required here in NSW, bike registrations have never been higher and fatalities have never been lower….
It obviously helps.
There was / is and mentality of some folks that think providing advanced driver training is only going to encourage dangerous acts because the young may be overconfident in their skills.
Newsflash…. they’re going to do it anyway, so why not arm with with some skills in the hope that fewer will be hurt or killed.
Like Gidge said; It won’t cure the road toll, but may improve the odds.
Sigh..
I bet there was no survey, and that it was made up. Like almost everything to do with ‘hoons’ etc..
Agree totally with “more driver training”. Maybe the ‘hoons’ will still drive like idiots, but for the rest of the L and P platers on the road, real driver training and not just copying what mum/dad do will certainly open their eyes.
At the defensive driver training I did, half the people on it were young girls on their Ps in their little 80s/90s econoboxes who’d never had to do an emergency stop. I don’t think they’ll forget what it was like locking their wheels/ABS kicking in any time soon.
i disagree with mobile phones being a lower risk..
I wonder if the NSW government followed Victoria’s lead, and sponsors “road safety studies” that come to the same conclusion that supports the government’s policies.
That is despite contradicting themselves, as above, or following any kind of basic logic or understanding of the teenage mindset.
Teens, especially those growing into adulthood, aside from being prone to taking risks also naturally rebel. Telling them not do so something in an authoritarian way, or treating them like the toddlers they don’t consider themselves to be anymore, is the best way of inspiring them to doing the opposite.
This is total bullcrap.
Just another lame excuse that the government wants more $$$.
I’ll keep it short since most people have covered the point.
How do drivers gain skills or experience by being on a stricter law?
Practical skills is what is needed.
I wonder who paided who to get those results…
The diagnosis is inexperience, but the prescription is enforcement! Unbelievable. Increasing supervised on road experience is the PROVEN way to reduce young driver crashes. In Sweden increasing supervised on road experience to (on average) 120 hours on road experience reduced young driver crashes by 35%. Enforcement cannot improve driving experience, only parents driving instructors or other supervising drivers can provide that time.
I also disgree the way they ban turbo/supercharged cars.
More of these turbo.superchargers are fitted to small engines to give better fuel efficiency. Like a VW golf 1.4L TSI engine. Is that fast? NO.
A V6 is more powerful then a 1.4l engine with turbo and supercharge.
So basically the vehicle ban in NSW is stupid too