1.  SUMMARY

Key points

—  The introduction of a Graduated Driving Licence (GDL) system is needed and long overdue. While other countries have adopted GDL and benefited, our children still leap from the cocooned safety of accompanied driving to being allowed to drive at night and with friends, despite extensive research showing these to be high risk activities for novice drivers.

—  Further changes to the driving test and formal education system are unlikely to reduce the risk posed by novice drivers. The driving test is not an accurate predictor of collision involvement and professional driving tuition has not been shown to be effective.

—  Driving experience, rather than driver education, needs to be promoted with parents much more involved in ensuring their children get plenty of driving practice (at least 50 hours but the more the better).

—  With a recommended 12 month minimum learning period, the driving age would be raised to 18. We are in favour of increasing the driving age for environmental reasons as well. We believe the government when it says climate change is the biggest problem facing our world and we must take measures to reduce motorised travel, including, but not limited to, raising the driving age.

—  This problem needs to be kept in proper perspective. Young drivers (17-19) are over-represented in collisions but still only account for one in six fatal crashes. In London, one in 6,500 young drivers (17-25) is involved in a fatal crash (TfL, 2006). Novice driver related safety measures were estimated to reduce the number of killed and seriously injured (K/SI) by less than 2%. The potential casualty savings from a crackdown on novice drivers has been misreported.

—  Wider policy changes are needed so that all drivers, and not just novice drivers, are aware and held accountable for the risk they pose to others, especially those walking and cycling. Other countries, including the US, have relied on black boxes to improve driver accountability and safety, especially among the young.

—  All measures should be evaluated with policy based on evidence rather than popularity. Driver education interventions should be evaluated to the same rigour as enforcement and engineering measures, and not promoted prematurely.

  As the national charity for road crash victims, RoadPeace represents the losers of road users, ie those who have suffered death, bereavement, injury or those whose lives involve caring for the injured, and those who are intimidated by road danger.

  Our response is dedicated to Andrew Jagroop, a 21 year old only son, who was killed by a 17 year old driver in 2006. Andrew was sitting on a wall at a bus stop near his home when an unlicensed driver lost control and ran off the road. The car flipped and crashed into the wall, killing Andrew. The CPS has decided this only constitutes "driving without due care or attention" and not "dangerous driving". The coroner calls it an accident. This is the wider reality that must be tackled if road danger, including that posed by novice drivers, is to be reduced.

2.  BACKGROUND

"Despite decades of research indicating driver education does not reduce crash involvement among beginning drivers, it still has tremendous appeal as a means to improve driver safety."

Williams and Ferguson (2004)

  RoadPeace is an independent charity and has no vested economic interest in this enquiry. We do not receive any income from driver education or any other novice driver related programme. Our response is based on a review of the evidence, including that by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety in the US whose researchers we quote above.

  We would like to begin by putting the problem into its proper context. The majority of fatal and serious injury crashes do not involve a novice driver. Young drivers (under age 26) were involved in 38% of K/SI crashes in 2005 (ABI, 2005, DfT, 2006). This age group accounts for over 75% of all novice drivers but it also includes many drivers with more than two years driving experience. Teenage drivers (17-19 years), were involved in 15% of K/SI crashes (DfT, 2006). Much is made of how one in five young drivers has a collision in their first six months of driving but DfT funded research reports that "many of these are slow speed manoeuvring accidents or involve only a bump or scrape" (DfT, 2005).

  The government's 40% K/SI casualty reduction target is based on research estimating the contributions from various interventions. Measures to reduce crashes by novice drivers were estimated to reduce total K/SI casualties by less than 2%, much less than improving secondary safety in cars (8.6%) or road safety engineering (7.7%) (Broughton, 2000). Nor did the 2003 Motorist Forum review of the Road Safety Strategy identify novice or young driver related measures as a key issue (Ward et al, 2003).

  EuroRAP has argued for a shift in road safety emphasis as most people, particularly in the UK, wrongly believe that investing in safer drivers, rather than the road environment or vehicle design, is the most cost effective road safety intervention (Care on the Road, 2006a). The press has not helped by reporting that 1,000 lives could be saved by tackling the young driver problem. This is inaccurate and unfair to other interventions, including those less popular but more effective, such as speed cameras or humps.

3.  NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

3.1  Are novice drivers more at risk and is this due to age, inexperience or combination?

  The evidence is quite clear on showing novice drivers are more at risk and that this is due to a combination of factors. It is not a new problem nor is it unique to the UK. Research undertaken by Norwich Union, DfT and the ABI found young drivers to be 10 times more likely to crash at night and 14 times more likely to crash on a weekend night than other drivers (Care on the Road, 2006).

3.2  Do young people's attitudes to driving have a significant impact on the collision rates of young and novice drivers?

  Yes. This can be seen by the increased risk of being involved in a crash with increased number of passengers. RoSPA has reported a young driver is 85% more likely to have a collision if there are two passengers in the car than when driving alone.

  The role of attitude is clearly seen in the difference between males and females with males having a much higher collision involvement risk. As highlighted in a recent publication by the Social Issues Research Centre, WHO is calling for recognition of the fundamental differences between men and women drivers and the development of gender differentiated policies in relevant areas.

  The government must lead in a change of attitude towards bad driving. For instance, too often it seems to be the government departments that call for a change in attitude by others, persist in using the term "accident" for all crashes, no matter the extent of criminality involved.

"The first step in changing human behaviour must be to stop thinking in terms of accidents and to talk exclusively of crashes."

Nicholas Faith, Crash (1997)

4.  DRIVER EDUCATION AND TESTING

4.1  How effective are the existing practical and theory driving tests at identifying safe driving skills and behaviour? Has the hazard perception test achieved its objectives?

  The driving test may be able to filter out those who are not a competent driver but it is not a good predictor of collision risk. Younger learner drivers pass more quickly than do older learner drivers, yet the latter have a lower post-licence collision risk. The same is true for male and female drivers. Attitude cannot be measured in a driving test.

  The issue is of more effective enforcement. We would argue that part of the problem lies with not applying the same standards used with the driving test with everyday driving. We have previously recommended that the standards the Driving Standards Agency use to determine whether a fault is a serious (automatic failure) or minor offence (failure only after numerous minor faults) should also be used by the CPS to differentiate between careless and dangerous driving.

  We would also argue the driver education and testing system does not put enough emphasis on the dangers of speed. Failure to make progress, ie going too slowly, is a leading reason why drivers fail the test yet speeding is a leading contributory factor to novice driver crashes. We have previously called, along with other Safer Street Coalition partners, for the Highway Code to stress much more the importance of appropriate speed. But this also needs to be enforced. The current Highway Code advises drivers to stay below the speed limit when road or weather conditions are poor or vulnerable road users are around. Yet the police and CPS do not enforce this as seen by the Rhyl cyclist fatal crash which involved icy roads, a bend and vulnerable road users (some of whom were children). The driver was prosecuted for vehicle offences only and not driving without due care and attention, if not dangerous driving.

4.2  Could changes to driver education and testing help to make novice drivers safer, including such changes as pre-test driving or time requirement, compulsory professional tuition, or additional training for motorway driving or night driving?

  Research has shown that extending the driving test would result in more failure of drivers who are not yet competent. However as mentioned above, driving test pass rates on their own are an accurate predictor of collision risk. A recent TRL report concluded "Changing the driving test should not be seen as the only, or necessarily the best, way of improving novice driver safety" (Baughan et al, 2005).

  Nor do we believe further changes to the driver education will help novice drivers. In 2002, both the Transport Select Committee and the government agreed that compulsory driver education was not the answer. We know of no evidence that suggests this situation has changed and have provided below indication that our understanding is shared by many road safety research organisations.

Driver training concerns

"To date, formal training has not proven to be highly effective in reducing accident risk."

OECD, Young Drivers: The Road to Safety (2006)

"Research has (also) shown that no compelling evidence exists for driver education being associated with reductions in collisions; therefore reducing the length of time in the GDL program for successfully completing a driver education course is questionable at best... the typical six to 10 hours of driving with a professional instructor should not be used as a substitute for supervised practice over a longer period of time and under diverse driving conditions and circumstances."

AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, Reducing the Crash Risk for Young Drivers, 2006.

"The safest thing you can do is to encourage young people to train for longer. In many respects training that involves having parents sitting in the car or an older sibling or somebody who is a very experienced driver is just as effective as having a driving instructor in the car."

Joint OECD/ECMT Transport Research Centre, International Policy Forum 2005, At Risk on the Road-Young and Novice Drivers, 2005.

"Successful completion of driver education and training should not be recognised through a `time discount', because this practice has been shown to have negative safety consequences." Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Best Practices for Graduated Driver Licensing in Canada, (2005).

Should driver education be required? "Traditional driver education has not reduced crashes, although it can be a superior way to learn basic driving skills... In jurisdictions that do not already require driver education, the graduated system need not include any such provisions." Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and Traffic Injury Research Foundation, Graduated Licensing: A Blueprint for North America, (2004)

"Two GLS initiatives that were found to be counterproductive, that is, research has shown increased crash risk associated with the following:

    —  Education initiatives that encourage early licensure.

    —  Extensive professional instruction in the absence of sufficient private supervised driving experience."

Monash University Accident Research Centre, Graduated Driver Licensing: Effectiveness of Systems & Individual Components, 2003

"There is little research evidence that increased formal driver training improves safety."

TRL, Graduated Driver Licensing—A Review of Some Current Systems, 2002.

"Formal driver education may be a good way to learn basic driving skills, but it does not produce drivers less likely than those without formal training to be in motor vehicle crashes, and it can have a an unintended negative effect through encouraging earlier licensure and increasing exposure."

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, "Graduated licensing comes to the United States", Injury Prevention, 1999

  We do not mean to belabour this point but we are concerned about the continued reliance on driver training, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Unproven interventions such as Pass Plus, National Driver Improvement Scheme, and Speed Awareness Courses should be properly evaluated before they are rolled out nationwide and sponsored. Many of the questions in this enquiry were also asked several years ago when GDL had already proven to be effective. We also raised our concerns about the approach taken when we spoke at the IAM's 50th conference in March 2006 and also with the DSA later that year.

  A second and separate reason why we do not believe introducing compulsory professional tuition will reduce novice driver risk is because it is already regularly sought by learner drivers. Research has shown that virtually all (98%) of all UK learner drivers already take professional tuition, with successful candidates taking an average of 38 hours of professional tuition (DTLR, 2002). Some road safety organisations have called for a requirement of six to 10 hours of professional tuition, much less than what is currently done on a voluntary basis. This implies that a few lessons will make a driver safer—if only it was that easy and that quick.

  It has also been reported that a combination of professional and informal tuition produces safer drivers. This has not been proven. This combination has been shown to result in learner drivers passing their driving tests more quickly, but as explained above, this is not the same as producing a safer driver.

  Any school lesson should promote the use of sustainable transport modes rather than driving and should highlight the negative consequences of driving. Lessons should not focus on how to obtain your licence or pay less for insurance, but on the duty of care owed other road users by motor vehicle drivers as well as the impact of climate change from motor vehicles.

  In response to the specific suggestions:

(a)  Minimum number of hours/miles driving. There is much evidence showing the need for driving experience and we do support a requirement for a minimum of 50 hours driving but 100 hours should be considered. This should be supervised but not necessarily by a driving instructor. The importance of extensive driving practice needs to be widely publicised. In Sweden, an increase in the average number of driving hours from 48 to 118 reduced the crash risk of young drivers by 40% (15% reduction after adjusting for confounding factors) (OECD and ECMT, 2006).

(b)  Minimum learning period. Almost five years ago, the government reported that the introduction of a 12 month minimum learning period would save some 800-1,000 deaths and serious injuries while a six month minimum learning period would prevent only 120 deaths and serious injuries (DTLR, 2002). We are in favour of the 12 month minimum learning period, especially as the majority of learner drivers already take six months or more to obtain their license.

(c)  Compulsory professional tuition. See the comments above to understand why we do not believe professional tuition is a panacea.

(d)  Additional training for motorway driving or night driving. Yes—night-time training especially should be required.

5.  GRADUATED LICENSING

"Driving experience, not training, is key to becoming a safer driver."

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Status Report (1997)

  The introduction of a GDL system is long overdue in the UK. We are missing an intermediate phase where learner drivers are allowed to drive unaccompanied, but not at night-time or with teenage passengers as both of these have been to be high risk. We would support exemptions for employment or school related night-time driving. The aim is to reduce high risk recreational driving. Maximum blood alcohol limits of zero or 0.2 g/l are also recommended for young novice drivers (OECD and ECMT, 2006).

  We do not believe enforcement will be a problem as it will be self-enforced by parents, providing proper publicity is provided to them on the risks of novice drivers, the benefits of GDL, and the implications of GDL violation, including loss of insurance coverage. We are aware of the problems caused by the lack of requirement to carry a driving license and marvel at the extent that costly ID cards can be debated while driving licenses do not even have to be carried.

6.  CHANGES TO THE DRIVING AGE

  With the recommended 12 month minimum learning period, the driving age would be raised to 18. We are in favour of increasing the driving age for environmental reasons as well. We believe the government when it says climate change is the biggest problem facing our world and we must take measures to reduce motorised travel, including, but not limited to, raising the driving age. While many US states and Sweden have lower learner driving ages, many Australian states do not issue a full driving license until the age of 21.

7.  DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS

  We would support increasing the penalties for driving offences by novice drivers. Novice drivers fear the loss of their license or extension of their probationary period and longer driving bans could be considered. We would also like to see the confiscation of vehicles now being used with uninsured vehicles, to be extended to other driving offences, including driving without a proper license, speeding or drink driving.

8.  CONCLUSION

"In the case of pre-license education, there is a major discrepancy between public beliefs and scientific knowledge. There is wide public support for programmes that, in fact, do not produce safer drivers and can have unintended negative consequences. Of considerable concern is that scarce resources continue to be spent in the name of safety on programmes that have no benefit or may even make things worse. In such a case, the wisest course would be to blunt the harmful effects of driver education and redirect it in ways that take advantage of what it can do (that is, teach basic driving skills). Many new approaches are being tried or are under development, but they should not be widely applied unless rigorous assessments indicate they are effective in reducing crash risk."

Williams and Ferguson, "Driver Education Renaissance?" Injury Prevention (2004)

  RoadPeace is acutely aware of the limited resources allocated to road safety and the need to ensure best use is made of them. Too much of what has been included in this response has been known for years. The real question is why has it taken the UK so long to adopt an evidence based approach to novice driver safety. Consideration should be given to the need for an independent panel in order to ensure good practice is adopted.

22 January 2007