Legislative Liason

Rich Hanson, is a Long Time Traffic Safety Advocate and 2006 ADTSEA National Teacher of the Year.

In July 2008 NHTSA sent a report to congress which stated NHTSA's position on the causes of teen fatal crashes and a cursory analysis of interventions to prevent those crashes. This paper is the Oregon Traffic Safety Education Association (OTSEA) Board of Director's response to that report and our recommendations for Driver Education in the future.

In the report, NHTSA authors summarize data we have seen repeatedly. Those data point to the fact that 16 year olds have a higher crash and fatality rate than any other age group. They said "...literature has documented that teen drivers, due to a combination of immaturity and inexperience, have a higher propensity for risk-taking behaviors than do older and more experienced drivers." From the literature they found that "...teen drivers are less likely to buckle up and more likely to speed, or drive too fast for prevailing conditions." They also stated that teen's exposure to risk is greater because "They are involved in more late night crashes, driving while impaired by alcohol and driving in the presence of other teen passengers." These are all statements we can fully agree with. The reasons for teen crashes and fatalities have not changed since the introduction of the automobile and teens started driving. It is the nature of the novice teen driver to engage in risky driving behavior more frequently than other more experienced drivers.

The report goes on to address three common interventions in place to reduce teen fatal crashes. They are "Laws and Sanctions," "Graduated Driver Licensing," and "Driver Education." With each of the interventions there is a description of the intervention, a summary of its effectiveness and a prescription for its continuation or not. It is the position of OTSEA's Board that the report is accurate in its description and prescription for the first two points. We know that Laws and Sanctions against drunk driving, distracted driving, and seat belt usage work to reduce injury and fatal crashes. We also believe and have seen data demonstrating that the Graduated Driver Licensing which progressively introduces novice teen drivers to more complex driving situations in a three stage licensing strategy is one of the best decisions state legislatures and state departments of licensing did to reduce teen serious and fatal crashes. The most recent data from Oregon supports that finding with a 48% reduction in teen serious injury and fatal crashes since the introduction of Oregon's GDL. We don't, however, agree with the conclusions regarding driver education for the following reasons:

? NHTSA's description of driver education is inaccurate and antiquated. Their comments about "Traditional pre-licensing driver education for novice driver typically entails 30 hours of classroom instruction (theory, rules of the road, safe/defensive driving techniques, risk assessment) and 6-10 hours of in-vehicle training (vehicle control)..." does not accurately describe current practices in progressive driver education programs that focus on teaching and reinforcing behaviors to help the novice driver recognize and manage risk.

? "Teens don't get into crashes because they are uninformed about the basic rules of the road or safe driving practices; rather, studies show they are involved in crashes as a result of inexperience and risk-taking." While this is most likely true it misses the point that driver education is gradually changing to focus more on helping students understand the risk they are exposed to and what steps they need to take to manage that risk. Driver education needs to be focused less on the concepts that NHTSA perpetuates in its perennial reports to congress which say that driver education doesn't work, and more on the concepts and risk management skills that properly taught and reinforced lead to crash reduction and teen fatalities.

? The report makes reference to partnering with ADTSEA to produce driver education program standards on curricula, delivery and outcomes. While partnering with the national driver education association makes perfect sense it doesn't make sense if that same organization continues to utilize outdated videos, delivery methods and curricula that has demonstrated to be ineffective in their first incarnation.

? The report makes little if any mention of teacher training, the standards and programs available and the monitoring in place designed to meet teaching and delivery standards.

? Only toward the end of the report do the authors mention that no study has been done to show that driver education works in conjunction with a GDL program. However, they have dismissed out of hand the Oregon study that demonstrated the effectiveness in reducing crash severity and frequency, and citation frequency and severity for students who had taken driver education. Selection bias was cited as the reason for ignoring data that clearly demonstrates that students benefited from taking driver education.

On page six of the study, in the last paragraph, NHTSA clearly identifies why this report is premature and incomplete with the following statement. "Given the lack of definitive research and evaluation on many of these issues, it is possible the panel will not be able to clearly identify one best approach. In this case, NHTSA will assess the feasibility of moving forward with research to test alternative approaches to driver education to see if one approach produces safer novice drivers." We welcome this study and it is about time. The studies that have preceded this are so out of touch from what is currently being done that they only serve to perpetuate the myth that DE doesn't work. We also believe that Oregon needs to be a part of this study. Oregon has been at the forefront of positive and effective change in driver education.

"NHTSA also is exploring the development of consensus national guidelines for driver education program content, delivery and quality control." We can say without equivocating that we fully support this goal. We would add that we would also like to see consensus on national standards for teacher preparation and certification.

This rebuttal is nearly as long as the report but we believe as an association that we must focus on the students and the increased risks and challenges they will face in the absence of a quality driver education programs. We don't want reports that rely upon old data, old concepts of driver education, and assumptions that are based upon old ideas of what driver education is and how it is conducted in America. We support quality driver education with standards and curricula, with proven best practice for delivery and assessment and accountability for all teachers and programs. We also believe that none of this can happen without on going assessment and quality research with a willingness to make changes when research and evidence indicates that the change is necessary.