Young Driver Problem Versus the Young Problem Driver - A Review and Crash Data Analysis

Federal Office of Road Safety - Contract Report 151

Full report in .pdf format [3.3MB]

Abstract:

The concept of a young problem driver sub-group, that is, a sub-group who operate at a (substantially) higher than average crash risk and therefore contribute disproportionately to young driver crashes is often proposed. This report presents a literature review and mass crash data analyses and proposes a conceptual framework comprising crash risk, crash frequencies, crash countermeasures and countermeasure priorities to assist (policy) discussion of this issue. On the basis of information presented, it was concluded that action designed to focus specific attention on young problem drivers should be accorded low priority relative to the development and implementation of other young driver safety initiatives.

Executive Summary

The concept of a young problem driver sub-group, that is, a sub-group of young drivers who operate at a (substantially) higher than average level of crash risk and therefore contribute disproportionately to young driver crashes is often proposed in the context of young driver crash countermeasure development. Historically, this has proven to be an attractive proposition and has attracted significant research effort, primarily in the investigation of demographic, lifestyle and motivational factors.

This report has presented both a literature review and selected mass crash data analyses and proposed a conceptual framework to assist the (policy) discussion process. This framework comprises crash risk, crash frequency, crash countermeasures and countermeasure priorities.

On the basis of the literature reviewed, it is difficult to determine whether the 'Young Driver Problem' or 'Young Problem Driver' syndrome is the more credible or accurate. Part of the problem is that some of the more promising theories and ideas within each of these syndromes do not consider aspects from the other. For example, Problem Behaviour Theory provides a good account of problem driving as an aspect of overall problem behaviour, but does not consider skill as an added contributor to problem driving. As long as theories remain 'self-contained' in this manner, they will always struggle to account for a majority of the variance in crash involvement.

While finding a particular problem group within the young driver population, as defined by biographical and personality characteristics, would be a convenient outcome for the purposes of directing road safety campaigns, it seems to be a somewhat unrealistic proposal. The focus of the 'problem driver' research has been to define a subgroup over represented in the crash statistics, who can be recognised by a certain collection of personal variables. The problem thus far is that so many different variables, in many different combinations, have been found to be related to crash involvement at some time. It seems just as likely that this outcome is a reflection of different types of individuals having a 'crash involved' period at some time in their lives.

On the basis of information presented, it was concluded:

• on first principles, a young problem driver sub-group (as defined above) does exist. The crash risk heterogeneity of the young driver population is acknowledged and the very concept of an average young driver crash risk means that a proportion of this population will operate at levels above the average Oust as a proportion will operate at lower than average levels of crash risk). It is reasonable to suggest that membership of these groups is relatively consistent over time.
• the existence of such a sub-group does not, in itself, justify specific countermeasure development attention.
• if multiple crash involvement are considered to represent the majority of young problem drivers, crash data analyses indicate that this sub-group contributes a very small proportion of total young driver crash involvements. Further, there was no indication of proportional over-involvement of selected variables in the (young) MCI group. The analysis approach, however, was not (and could not be) definitive.
• if it is assumed or contended that the young problem driver sub-group warrants specific attention due to their frequency of crashing, two further problems remain:
  • there is no agreed definition of a young problem driver and even very good, current identification procedures using crash, violation and demographic information are very inefficient. While managing to successfully identify some problem drivers, they only do so with a large false alarm rate (that is, substantial numbers of non-problem drivers are falsely included as problem drivers).
  • currently, there is very limited ability to actually treat identified "problem" drivers through driver improvement programs and the like which are designed to reduce their risk of crash involvement. Even if effective programs could be developed, they would be unlikely to be cost-beneficial due to a combination of small treatment effect sizes and the application of such programs to drivers who do not warrant inclusion in the treatment program (the "false alarm" drivers).
• on this basis, action designed to focus specific attention on young problem drivers should be accorded low priority relative to the development and implementation of other young driver safety initiatives.