EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

  Young drivers have more accidents than experienced drivers. Whether this is because they make mistakes through inexperience and lack of knowledge, or because young people choose to drive in a risky or adventurous way, probably because they feel it will impress others in their age group, is open to debate.

  If the explanation is just inexperience, there are good grounds for strengthening the way they learn to drive, although this has to take into account the practicalities (and costs) of a more intense system. If however it is because of deliberate poor behaviour, much more needs to be done to correct the attitude that driving is a way of showing off. This would require a rethink in how road safety messages are given to new drivers—and those soon to become new drivers—especially in school.

  Both possible explanations suggest that some ways of deterring car use by novice drivers (and especially young novice drivers) when carrying many passengers of the same age, and when driving in the early hours of the morning is needed. These situations have been shown to be particularly risky.

  Extensive research by the AA Foundation for Road Safety Research suggests that attitude is more a problem than lack of driving skills. Statistics show that changes to the driving test over the last 10 years have had little impact on novice driver safety. The AA Trust therefore believes that the attitudinal course needs to be followed.

  The other key question is whether all novice drivers are unsafe drivers, or just a minority. AA Foundation research suggests it is a significant minority dominated by young males. If this is the case, any proposed restrictions and changes need to take this into account, so that the safer majority are not penalised for the extreme behaviour of an unsafe minority.

  The AA Trust would suggest that the following measures would be the most effective in countering the young driver problem:

—  Ensuring that secondary school children receive road safety education directed at their future driving careers, and concentrating on attitudinal aspects.

—  Encourage new drivers to gain practice (ie accompanied by parents) as well as take instruction. While a total of 100 hours pre test driving is a laudable goal, this is not realistic for all learners, particularly those without access to people who can supervise practice, especially on grounds of cost.

—  New drivers should be subject to a code. This could be part of the Highway Code or be a document they sign when they get a full driving licence. This would tell them that they will lose their licence at 6 points, and could also say that they should not drive late at night, or carry passengers of their own age groups. Breaking this code should not be an offence in its own right, but breaching it should result in more serious treatment of any offence committed.

INTRODUCTION

  Novice drivers are the biggest problem facing road safety in Britain, and nearly every other country in the world. Although many have introduced more restrictive regulation than that introduced in the UK, few, if any would claim that they have solved the problem.

  Key to resolving the problem are two issues:

—  Whether the young drivers involved in accidents are driving as they have been taught, with an emphasis on safety, or whether they are driving in some other way, perhaps intended to impress friends, or to gain thrills through speed and risk taking.

—  Whether all young drivers are unsafe drivers, or whether bad driving is the domain of a few.

  Research carried out for the AA Foundation for Road Safety Research by the University of Southampton and published in 1991 showed that a significant proportion of young drivers (about 35%) could be considered to be unsafe drivers. This was not because they did not know how to drive safely, it was because they chose not to drive safely. This was usually because they felt that driving in that way impressed their peers.

  If this is still the same in 2006, and it is hard to show that it is not, it gives a clear direction for measures to improve young driver safety. It is not their skills which need to be improved, but their attitudes. It is attitude that makes a driver choose to drive in a way that he or she knows not to be safe.

  It also has to be accepted that there are few areas of life where the inexperienced do not make more errors than the experienced. There are many circumstances where novices make mistakes, but few where novices choose not to use the techniques in which they have been trained and examined. This is the particular problem that must be tackled to deal with the novice drivers issue.

  Since the University of Southampton report was published in 1991 there have been a number of changes made to the UK driving test, including the theory test in 1996, changes to the practical test in 1999, and the hazard awareness test which came fully on line in 2003. Passplus was introduced in 1995 to further train new drivers, and the revocation of licenses for new drivers who accumulate six penalty points in 1997.

  All but one of these changes affect the skills that a new driver takes onto the road. Yet it is hard to see any improvement in new driver safety as a result. The death rates per licensed driver (at Table A) suggest either a worsening of the driving performance of young, new drivers, or a huge increase in unlicensed driving—neither of which are desirable. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this table shows that still tighter or more stringent testing and training regimes are unlikely to have any effect.

  A second Southampton University report, which looked in greater depth at the best and worst drivers from their 1991 report, found strong links between new drivers who belong to the "car culture"—those who live, eat, drink and breathe cars—and accident rates. It may well be that a modern trend to take the driving test later (perhaps reflecting increased university attendance) means a higher proportion of young drivers are from this potentially risky "car culture".

  This basis leads us to believe that the way ahead in tackling the novice driver issue lies in changing attitudes, but that there is some room for measures aimed at reducing driving at times and under conditions which are known to pose danger. These views are expanded in response to the Committee's questions, below.

  *  3 year averages.

THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

To what extent novice drivers are more at risk of being involved in a collision than other drivers, and whether this is primarily a consequence of age, inexperience or both?

  In answering this question it is important to distinguish between drivers making mistakes, and drivers driving in an unsafe manner. It is relatively easy to argue that "mistakes" are more likely among those without experience, but other factors come into play when considering driving for thrills or deliberate risky driving.

  The established wisdom is that experience holds the key to safe driving, but age doubtless has a role to play as well. There may be other factors at play. "Maturity" may be a better indicator than age, although it is impossible to define this in a way that is appropriate to road safety measures. Studies have, for example, shown that young drivers with mortgages, partners and children tend to be more responsible than those without. Similarly there are few who would argue that a 27 year old mother who had just passed her test would be likely to drink-drive, drug-drive or take risks to impress friends. Neither "chronological" age nor experience are perfect indicators.

  Experience in Northern Ireland, where drivers have to display an "R" plate and comply with a 45 mph speed limit during the first year of driving has not been conclusive. It may show that restrictions on younger drivers may serve only to delay their irresponsible driving "phase", as accidents for which the new driver is primarily responsible rise sharply in the second year, when there are no restrictions. The law is also not respected by all. Similarly it is hard to put together an argument that those countries which do not allow driving until 18 avoid any such "phase".

  In reality a wide range of factors affect the safety of novice drivers.

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

  Yes.

  To many youngsters the car is not just a method of transport. It is a mode of self expression, a device that can be used to show off to others, and to seek thrills. This is why these behaviours are exhibited so soon after passing a test. The desire to drive in this way is caused by attitude much more than not knowing how to drive safely. Drivers choose to drive in this way.

DRIVER EDUCATION AND TESTING

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

  The tests show that a driver is capable of driving safely in normal conditions, has the rudiments of hazard perception and has thoroughly studied the Highway Code. Unfortunately these tests cannot ensure that he or she will continue to use that which has been learned. Driving in a manner acceptable to an examiner may not reflect the way that the driver will drive once licensed.

Could changes to driver education and testing help to make novice drivers safer?

  Changes may reduce the number of occasions where drivers make mistakes or are unable to handle driving situations that they meet. They will not guarantee that drivers do not choose to drive in different manners to those they have been taught

  Research conducted by Reading University for the AA Foundation showed that many children of secondary school age—particularly boys—were showing the signs of developing undesirable attitudes to driving. This includes having the view that they already know how to drive, that learning to drive will be easy and will improve the popularity of the new driver. They are also developing an affinity for speed. Once these attitudes have been developed they are hard to dispel.

  To overcome this, resources need to be deployed developing the right attitudes, and this needs to be done in schools, in the early teens, or even earlier. Teaching children to be safe children is necessary, but they also need to be taught to become safe drivers when they reach their late teens and early 20s. Currently this is not being done.

Such Changes Might Include:

New pre test requirements, such as a minimum number of hours' or miles driving, or a minimum period between obtaining a provisional licence and taking the test

  In an ideal world new drivers would have something in the region of 100 hours driving practice before taking to the road alone. But it would be impossible to require this. Those that did not have access to voluntary supervisors (ie parents) would have great trouble in affording the practice that would cost thousands of pounds. Lower minimum totals could lead to the minimum becoming the norm among those drivers who can get supervised practice. Mileage seems an inappropriate measure. A final consideration would be how it could be proved that such driving has been carried out.

Compulsory professional tuition

  Currently we do not support compulsory professional tuition. All but a tiny minority of drivers avail themselves of professional tuition, so the question really is how much professional instruction would be required? We would argue that this is a vastly different amount for different people, and can depend on how much assistance is given—in terms of practice—from parents or other people. A requirement for so many hours of professional tuition could also easily become the norm—many parents would ask why they should go to the trouble of insuring their cars for learners, and then take time educating them if a set number of hours laid down by government will suffice.

  Some countries which have regimes requiring professional instruction have changed their systems to encourage drivers to get practice with other supervisors. It would be strange for the UK to head in the other direction.

  It is frequently suggested that learner drivers should be required to fill in logbooks showing that they have fully covered the syllabus for learning to drive, and have not just worked to be able to pass the test. The AA Trust has no problem with this. However, we do not believe that the signature of an Approved Driving Instructor should be required to prove this. When an "examiner" is also the person who benefits from someone failing the "examination" it is easy for the entire process to fall into disrepute, as has been, and to some extent still is the case with the "MOT" annual vehicle test.

Additional training for motorway driving or night driving

  It is hard to argue that novice drivers are more at risk on motorways than other roads. Research by the AA Trust in Scotland shows that 2.4% of accidents involving drivers between 17 and 25 happen on motorways as against 3% for all age groups. It therefore seems unnecessary to insist on special training. Some areas of the country do not have motorways, and it seems unnecessary to impose this additional burden on those areas. If motorway training becomes a post test requirement, and drivers were not allowed on motorways until it had been completed, there would be a risk that people would not take the additional training and would therefore drive on the less safe roads that parallel motorways.

  It is undoubted that more accidents to young drivers do happen at night. However, this has to be related to road usage. As is the case in so many areas of the novice driver debate, it has to be asked whether the bad accident rate is because novice drivers are unaware of how to drive at night, or whether this accident rate reflects their desire to show off. As most social driving by the young takes place at night it is likely that most of the bad driving is deliberate and is done to show off and to impress those of the same age.

Graduated licensing

Graduated licensing schemes involve the phasing in of driving privileges. Typically a graduated licensing scheme imposes additional restrictions on new drivers either for a fixed period of time after passing their test, or until a second test is passed. Restrictions in a graduated licensing programme might include:

  Any of the forms of graduated licensing listed below will require specific enforcement. Many organisations, ourselves included, are concerned about the low level of police enforcement applied at present, and would question the value of introducing new rules that need enforcement unless it could be showed that there are existing enforcement areas that could be discontinued. The AA Trust believes that the road policing effort would be better deployed seeking bad drivers, and drunk and drugged drivers, than in ensuring that graduated driving regulations had not been broken.

  We have concerns about any new laws being applied to new drivers unless there is a considerable level of enforcement applied to them. Otherwise new drivers will lose respect for the law.

A lower speed limit

  In addition to requiring extra enforcement such a change may well create frustration among other drivers, especially on single carriageway rural roads.

A lower blood alcohol limit

  Enforcement will be complicated by having to establish a driver's age at the roadside. There will also be a risk that such a change would imply that drinking to the legal limit was acceptable. Why else would the limit change for more experienced drivers?

Restrictions on the number of passengers who may be carried

  While understanding the value of such a measure, we have concerns about how this will be enforced, and whether it is fair on those young drivers who behave responsibly. Additionally the law may have to include a wide number of exemptions to cover "normal" vehicle use—especially by families with young parents.

  There would be a risk that this would lead to several cars making the same journey to avoid breaking the law. This could heighten the risk of racing on the road.

  An alternative is discussed under different treatment of offenders, below

Restriction on night driving

  While understanding the value of such a measure, we have concerns about how this will be enforced, and whether it is fair on those young drivers who behave responsibly. It would seriously affect those young people who work late at night—particularly in pubs, clubs and other areas of the entertainment business.

  The AA Trust's research in Scotland shows that 27.9% of young driver fatal and serious accidents happen between 1900 and 2359 (five hours) as opposed to 18.6% between 0000 and 0659 (seven hours). The early hours of the morning are dangerous to young drivers in terms of accidents per mile driven, but less so in terms of total accidents.

  An alternative is discussed under different treatment of offenders, below

CHANGES TO THE DRIVING AGE

Would there be any benefit in changing the minimum age at which a provisional or full licence may be obtained

  No. It is hard to show that countries with older minimum driving ages produce safer drivers.

  A delay between acquiring a provisional licence and taking the test has attractions, particularly because it will stop drivers rushing to their tests and may ensure that more driving has been done before the test is taken. However it has to be borne in mind that in reality people would apply on their 17th birthday, meaning they could take their tests on their 18th birthday, regardless of when they started driving. It would be foolish not to do this, and to take the risk of being unable to take the test because of the time restriction. Accordingly it would only affect the youngest drivers. Although one year has been suggested for this delay, we would argue that six months is more appropriate.

  While such a delay may mean that learners will get more practice, some will not be able to do so—they will not be able to afford it from a professional and may not have access to someone prepared to supervise practice.

DIFFERENT TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS

Novice drivers face disqualification and re-testing if they acquire six penalty points during the first two years after taking the test. Could further, similar provisions for the different treatment of novice drivers who offend be introduced?

  The AA Trust has advocated a system on the lines below, which is intended to deter new drivers from driving late at night and with many passengers without actually banning them from doing so. It is felt that this arrangement will be less onerous on those who want to drive safely, and will also avoid the need for a law with many exemptions. It will also mean that no additional enforcement effort will be needed, although it may result in more cases having to be heard in court.

—  Either a probationary drivers code should be introduced, or paragraphs specific to young drivers should be included in the body of the Highway Code. This should tell young drivers not to drive between, say, midnight and 0600 hours, and not to carry more than one passenger. It could also impose other restrictions if these were felt necessary. We would prefer a specific code for probationary drivers (ie first two years). This could be included in their driving licence and require a signature before the whole licence was valid.

—  Breaching this code would not be an offence in its own right. However, if other offences were committed it would be treated as an aggravating factor—a telling off would become a fixed penalty, a fixed penalty a court appearance, and a court may impose a heavier penalty. Courts would also be able to listen to the events surrounding the case and decide how to treat individual cases where a breach of the code might have been unavoidable, or not have contributed to the offence (ie delayed in traffic, passengers were siblings, etc).

  This approach would give a clear message to young drivers that late night driving and carrying of passengers was not desirable. At the same time it would allow those who drive safely, especially to and from work, to continue to do so. The police, meanwhile, would only have to enforce the law against bad drivers.

18 December 2006