Graduated driver licensing restrictions: awareness, compliance, and enforcement in North Carolina

PROBLEM: This study examined the extent to which critical restrictions in North Carolina's graduated driver licensing (GDL) system are known, adhered to, and enforced. METHOD: Teenagers and their parents were recruited as they applied for either an intermediate or full license at 1 of 23 licensing offices. Telephone interviews were conducted with 900 teenagers and their parents. RESULTS: Awareness of North Carolina's night and passenger restrictions was very high among both parents and teenagers. Ten percent of teenagers reported violating the night restriction without their parents' knowledge, and 15% had done so with their parents' approval. Only 4% of parents reported allowing their teenagers to drive with more than one teenage passenger, but 19% of teenagers reported that they were allowed to do this. Violations of the passenger restriction without parental knowledge were more common than violations of the night restriction (22% vs. 10%, respectively). Among teenagers who violated restrictions without their parents' knowledge, most reported doing so only once or a few times. Teenagers expressed little concern about detection, although a majority reported driving more carefully to avoid police notice. Neither parents nor teenagers knew much about police enforcement of GDL restrictions. To obtain a sense of the views of law enforcement officers, informal interviews were conducted with 20 officers from five diverse communities and the state highway patrol. These officers were highly supportive of GDL but unfamiliar with many of the specific provisions. Moreover, enforcement of GDL restrictions did not appear to be a high priority. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: There is a need to increase the belief among teens (and parents) that police are enforcing GDL restrictions in their community; law enforcement participation in well-publicized traffic safety enforcement efforts would likely produce this result.     

Enhancing the effectiveness of graduated driver licensing legislation

PROBLEM: Many states have enacted graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems in an effort to reduce the very high crash rates of young beginning drivers. This article addresses how to achieve the maximum benefit from GDL by ensuring compliance with protective restrictions. ENHANCING GDL THROUGH SYSTEM STRUCTURE: The major crash reductions due to GDL systems result from the protective restrictions during the initial two levels, which isolate novice drivers from the highest risk driving situations. Accordingly, GDL systems should include protective restrictions that adequately control the greatest dangers facing young drivers: multiple teen passengers and night driving before midnight. ENCOURAGING COMPLIANCE THROUGH SYSTEM STRUCTURE: Including protective restrictions that are supported by parents and teens will encourage compliance. Furthermore, linking a teen's advancement through GDL to demonstrated responsible driving will likely encourage compliance more than threatening punishment for violations. ENCOURAGING COMPLIANCE THROUGH ENFORCEMENT: Parents are in a prime position to enforce most GDL restrictions, but there is some evidence they do not enforce those restrictions that they consider too extreme. Little is currently known about the involvement of law enforcement in GDL systems, but there is potential for high visibility law enforcement activities to encourage compliance with restrictions. IMPACT ON RESEARCH, PRACTICE, AND POLICY: There is a need for better designed GDL systems in many states; more research is needed to examine compliance with restrictions and to evaluate enforcement efforts by parents and law enforcement.     

Views of Parents of Teenagers About Graduated Licensing After Experience with the Laws

Parents of 15 year-olds in Florida and Connecticut were first interviewed in 1996 about their views concerning new licensing requirements in their states. Connecticut had introduced a 6-month learner's permit requirement, effectively increasing the licensing age from 16 years to 16 years, 6 months (16 years, 4 months with driver education). Florida enacted a 6-month learner's permit period plus a night driving restriction for 16 and 17 year-olds. In 1996, parents were very supportive of the new requirements, particularly the minimum permit period and nighttime restrictions, even though they recognized they would be inconvenienced to some extent. The same parents were interviewed again in 1999, after most of their teenagers had obtained driver's licenses, and were even more supportive than before of the additional restrictions. Few parents reported that the laws inconvenienced them, and less than 20 percent said the laws had made it harder for their teenagers to get jobs. Furthermore, many were in favor of additional requirements, such as teenage passenger restrictions, not currently part of their states” laws. These findings should encourage other states to proceed with graduated licensing systems or to augment systems already in place.     

Talking with teens about traffic safety: Initial feasibility,acceptability, and efficacy of a parent-targeted intervention for primary care settings

IntroductionThe aims of the current pilot study were to evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the Talking with Teens about Traffic Safety Program. The program consists of a clinic-based health coaching session with parents of adolescents at their annual well-child visit to promote parent-teen communication about teen driver safety including: a Parent Handbook that is designed to serve as a primer on teen driver safety and facilitate parent-teen communication on a variety of teen driver topics; an interactive practice driving toolset; and an endorsement of the materials by the primary care provider.MethodFifty-four parent-teen dyads (n = 108 total) were recruited from a primary care practice. Dyads were randomized (1:1) into a treatment group or a usual care group. Implementation fidelity was assessed using checklists completed by health coaches and parent interviews. After 6 months, parents reported how often they talked with their teen about 12 safe driving topics (e.g., state graduated driver licensing laws).ResultsParents in the treatment group reported more frequent discussions than parents in the control group on 7 out of the 12 topics. Fidelity data indicate that 100% of sessions were implemented as designed and were acceptable to parents.ConclusionsThe program was feasible to administer and there was evidence for preliminary efficacy. Generally, effects were larger for more infrequently discussed topics, which is to be expected due to the potential for ceiling effects on more commonly discussed topics (e.g., distracted driving). A larger multi-site study is warranted.Practical applicationsThe results from this pilot study provide support for implementation fidelity and establish a proof-of-concept for the Talking with Teens about Traffic Safety Program. The results provide guidance for developing partnerships with pediatricians and parents to develop parent-teen communication interventions on injury prevention topics.     

Contribution of the components of graduated licensing to crash reductions

PROBLEM: It has been established that graduated licensing systems lead to crash reductions among beginning drivers. What is the contribution of the various components of graduated licensing to these reductions, and how can their effectiveness be increased? METHOD: Literature review and synthesis. RESULTS: Extended learner periods, nighttime restrictions, and passenger restrictions have contributed to crash reductions. Presently there is insufficient evidence concerning the contribution of seat belt or cell phone provisions, or contingent advancement penalties. DISCUSSION: There is more to learn about graduated licensing and its component features. However, there are ways to increase the contribution of all the components through stronger laws and greater compliance. With the right kind of community commitment and focus, substantial further reductions in young driver crashes are achievable. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The results can guide states in establishing graduated licensing systems that maximize crash reductions.     

How well do parents manage young driver crash risks?

Motor vehicle crashes are extremely high among young drivers during at least the first year of licensure. Crash risks decline with increased experience, but the more newly licensed teenagers drive, the greater their risk exposure. Hence, the dilemma facing policy makers and parents is how to provide young drivers with driving experience without unduly increasing their crash risk. Graduated driver licensing policies serve to delay licensure and then limit exposure to the highest risk conditions after licensure, allowing young drivers to gain experience only under less risky driving conditions. A similar strategy is needed to guide parents. Parents do not appear to appreciate just how risky driving is for novice drivers and tend to exert less control over their teenage children's driving than might be expected. Recent research has demonstrated that simple motivational strategies can persuade parents to adopt driving agreements and impose greater restrictions on early teen driving.     

Age of licensure and monitoring teenagers' driving: survey of parents of novice teenage drivers

OBJECTIVE: To assess parental decision making regarding the timing of teenagers initiating driving and monitoring teenagers' driving after licensure. METHODS: About 300 parents were interviewed during spring 2006 in Minnesota, North Carolina, and Rhode Island, states with varying licensing provisions, while teenagers took their first on-road driving tests. RESULTS: States' differences in ages of obtaining learner's permits and licenses reflected different licensing laws, but most teenagers obtained permits and took road tests within the first few months after they became eligible. Common reasons for delaying obtaining permits were fulfilling driver education requirements and lack of readiness/immaturity. Insufficient practice driving most often delayed licensure. Among the parents interviewed, 33-49% believed the minimum licensure age should be 17 or older. Almost all parents planned to supervise teenagers' driving after licensure, and most wanted to know about speeding or distractions. When asked about in-vehicle devices to monitor teenagers' driving, 37-59% of parents had heard of them. Parents were least interested in using video cameras and about equally interested in computer chips and cell-phone-based GPS systems. Disinterest in monitoring devices most often was attributed to trusting teenagers or respecting their privacy. CONCLUSIONS: Licensing laws influence ages of initiating driving. Although many parents support licensing at 17 or older - higher than in all but one state - most teenagers initiate driving soon after reaching the minimum age. Parents plan to supervise teenagers' driving, and many say they are open to using in-vehicle monitoring devices. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Many parents support a minimum licensing age of 17 or older and would consider in-vehicle devices to extend their supervision of teenager's driving.     

Vehicles driven by teenagers in their first year of licensure

OBJECTIVE: to determine access to vehicles, vehicle ownership and its correlates, and types of vehicles driven by teenagers during their first year of licensure. METHODS: About 3,500 Connecticut teenagers and their parents recruited at DMV offices participated in a study aimed at persuading parents to impose and maintain driving restrictions on their sons and daughters. Telephone interviews with teens and parents, which included questions on vehicles driven, were conducted upon licensure and at intervals throughout the year. RESULTS: The majority of both male and female teens owned vehicles immediately upon licensure. Family income and number of vehicles in the family were associated with early ownership. A year later 74% owned vehicles. Small cars, which provide inferior crash protection, were the most popular vehicle; the percent driving small cars increased from 36% to 42% over the year. About 25% were driving SUVs, pickups, or sports cars, which may increase crash risk for young beginners. One year after licensure, only 35% of teens were driving midsize or large passenger cars, the types of vehicles recommended for them, and about one-third of these vehicles were 10 or more years old. Owners were more likely than non-owners to drive older and smaller vehicles, to drive more miles, do more risky driving, and to have more traffic violations and crashes. DISCUSSION: Many teenagers in Connecticut were driving vehicles that rank low in crash protection or may increase crash risk. Attention to the young driver problem has been focused primarily on managing driving risks through graduated licensing systems. More attention needs to be given to the vehicles teens drive, and how decisions about vehicle type and ownership are made. Parents exert control over what vehicles their sons and daughters drive, and may benefit from information on how to make choices that better balance cost, safety, and other factors that go into these decisions.     

Parental perceptions of teen driving: Restrictions,worry and influence

IntroductionParents play a critical role in preventing crashes among teens. Research of parental perceptions and concerns regarding teen driving safety is limited. We examined results from the 2013 Summer ConsumerStyles survey that queried parents about restrictions placed on their teen drivers, their perceived level of “worry” about their teen driver’s safety, and influence of parental restrictions regarding their teen’s driving.MethodsWe produced frequency distributions for the number of restrictions imposed, parental “worry,” and influence of rules regarding their teen’s driving, reported by teen’s driving license status (learning to drive or obtained a driver’s license). Response categories were dichotomized because of small cell sizes, and we ran separate log-linear regression models to explore whether imposing all four restrictions on teen drivers was associated with either worry intensity (“a lot” versus “somewhat, not very much or not at all”) or perceived influence of parental rules (“a lot” versus “somewhat, not very much or not at all”).ResultsAmong the 456 parent respondents, 80% reported having restrictions for their teen driver regarding use of safety belts, drinking and driving, cell phones, and text messaging while driving. However, among the 188 parents of licensed teens, only 9% reported having a written parent-teen driving agreement, either currently or in the past. Worrying “a lot” was reported less frequently by parents of newly licensed teens (36%) compared with parents of learning teens (61%).Conclusions and Practical ApplicationsParents report having rules and restrictions for their teen drivers, but only a small percentage formalize the rules and restrictions in a written parent-teen driving agreement. Parents worry less about their teen driver’s safety during the newly licensed phase, when crash risk is high as compared to the learning phase. Further research is needed into how to effectively support parents in supervising and monitoring their teen driver.     

The genesis of GDL

This paper discusses the early research that lead to graduated driver licensing, some of the educational principals on which it is based, obstacles to its acceptance, and some of the early efforts in the U.S. and elsewhere. EARLY RESEARCH: The research underlying the concept of graduated driver licensing was a 1971 North Carolina study that identified the overrepresentation of young drivers in crashes at night and when another young person was the right front passenger. EDUCATIONAL PRINCIPALS: Efforts to reduce the risk to young novice drivers applied what was known about learning. The concepts included distributed learning (i.e., over time) and progressing from simple to complex skills. A PROPOSAL: The proposed graduated licensing system based on learning principals included (a) initial experience under low risk conditions, (b) extended supervised practice, (c) gradual move to more complex conditions, and (d) harsher penalties for deliberate risk-taking. OBSTACLES: There were several most common objections raised against graduated licensing. Raising the licensing age decreased mobility. Some young drivers were "good" drivers. Enforcement is difficult. Fear of parental objections. Parents are not driver educators and some young people do not have an available parent. Administrative costs are too high. ACCEPTANCE: Driver educators were the first to see the benefits of a graduated system in the 1970s and 1980s. Toronto nearly adopted a graduated system in 1976. New Zealand was the first to adopt a graduated licensing system in 1984. Michigan in 1997 was the first state to require parental certification of extended supervised driving practice.     

Other high-risk factors for young drivers--how graduated licensing does,doesn't,or could address them

PROBLEM: Young drivers, particularly those who are newly licensed, have a very high crash risk. This paper examines the risk factors underlying their high crash rates and assesses the extent to which existing graduated licensing programs address these risks and whether improvements to these programs should be considered. METHOD: Review and synthesis of the literature. RESULTS: The elevated risk among young drivers of being in an injury crash is the result of a number of factors found alone or in combination, such as risky driving, alcohol use, seat belt nonuse, driver distraction, fatigue, and vehicle choice. Nighttime and passenger restrictions, adopted widely in the United States, work by keeping drivers out of hazardous situations rather than by addressing risk factors directly. However, the risk factors remain in play in driving situations not specifically restricted by law. Although other graduated licensing components adopted around the world-more stringent exit tests (i.e., you need to pass a test to move to the next stage), hazard perception tests, and restrictions on speed, vehicle power, and roadway access-make sense based on the identified risk factors, they are not yet supported by research. Should research findings warrant it, consideration should be given to providing guidance to parents about how to keep their beginning drivers safe, including information on vehicle choice. IMPACT ON RESEARCH, PRACTICE, AND POLICY: Researchers should continue to monitor and to evaluate innovative approaches to reduce the crash risk of young drivers. The effectiveness of new approaches should be established before adoption on a wider scale takes place.     

Child passenger injury risk in motor vehicle crashes: a comparison of nighttime and daytime driving by teenage and adult drivers

INTRODUCTION: To examine the association between child passenger injury risk, restraint use, and crash time (day vs. night) for children in crashes of vehicles driven by teenage versus adult drivers. METHODS: Cross-sectional study involving telephone interviews with insured drivers in a probability sample of 6,184 crashes involving 10,028 children. RESULTS: Child passengers in teen nighttime crashes had an increased injury risk and an increased risk of restraint nonuse compared with those in teen daytime crashes. This increased injury risk can be explained by differences in the age of child passengers, collision type, and child passenger's restraint status associated with time of day. CONCLUSIONS: In order to limit the risk of injury to child passengers driven by teens, Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) laws should include provisions restricting nighttime driving, as well as mandates for age-appropriate restraint for child passengers. Consideration should also be given for education in child passenger safety for novice teen drivers as part of the licensing process. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Results of this study can be used to support advocacy efforts by the automotive industry and others to promote nighttime driving restrictions on novice drivers. In addition, given that both driver groups were more likely to be involved in a single-vehicle collision during the night, technologies such as electronic stability control may offer opportunities for protection. Further reseach on specific circumstances of teen nighttime crashes is needed to inform industry efforts to improve visibility or vehicle operation under poor lighting conditions.     

Parental supervision of teenage drivers in a graduated licensing system

OBJECTIVES: Most states now have lengthy learner periods for young, beginning drivers as part of their graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems. Although parents play a vital role during the learner stage of GDL by supervising driving practice, virtually nothing is known about the nature and quality of parental supervision. The objectives of this study were to investigate parents' supervisory behavior and parent-teen relationships during the learner stage of graduated licensing and to evaluate two approaches for assisting parents in supervising their teenager's early driving experience. METHODS: Families of teenagers applying for a learner permit received either a booklet describing highly structured practice sessions for beginning drivers, a series of "tip sheets" offering more generalized guidance, or no special materials. Questionnaires were sent separately to parents and teenagers three to six months after teenagers obtained their permit. RESULTS: Of 1,190 participating families, 653 parents (55%) and 609 teenagers (51%) responded. Both parents and teenagers perceived parents as supportive and helpful during driving sessions. Parents often demonstrated positive behaviors, such as complimenting their teenager and pointing out possible hazards; they also exhibited less desirable behaviors, such as raising their voice, but these were less frequent. A majority of parents (71%) and teenagers (52%) reported that they enjoyed spending this time together. About four months after obtaining a permit, most parents believed their teenager did not yet have enough experience and was not ready to drive unsupervised. Although the reported behaviors are encouraging, within-family agreement was low on most items. Finally, efforts to assist parents proved unsuccessful. Although parents thought the booklet and tip sheets were helpful, most used these materials only in a general way. CONCLUSIONS: The extended learning experience required by GDL programs is a positive experience for many families. However, finding a method for helping parents achieve maximum benefits during this process will be challenging. The results also suggest that current requirements in the learner phase of most state GDL systems (six months; 30-50 hours) may be inadequate to ensure that teenagers obtain a sufficient amount of experience to begin driving safely on their own.     

Impact of the Graduated Driver Licensing Program in Nova Scotia

A comprehensive evaluation of the Nova Scotia graduated licensing program was conducted. This program was implemented on October 1, 1994 and applies to all novice drivers, regardless of age. It spans 2 1/2 years in two stages: a 6-month learner phase, followed by a 24-month newly licensed driver phase. During both phases several driving restrictions apply, most notably a requirement for adult supervision at all times in the learner phase and a night driving restriction from midnight to 5 a.m. in the newly licensed driver phase. The evaluation of this program used a series of increasingly refined analyses that controlled for the influence of other explanatory variables. All the analyses showed that the graduated licensing program in Nova Scotia was associated with a significant reduction in crashes. For drivers age 16, there was a 24 percent decrease in total crashes during the first full year of the program and a 37 percent reduction during the first 3 years of the program. Comparable decreases occurred in injury crashes. Improvements also were observed for all novice drivers, not just those who are young - there was a 19 percent decrease in the crash rate for all novice drivers. Comparisons with results from other graduated licensing programs indicate the Nova Scotia program has been more effective than others in reducing crashes.     

Improving graduated driver licensing systems: a conceptual approach and its implications

Graduated driver licensing (GDL) is a concept for how to transform non-drivers into reasonably safe drivers while minimizing the risks as they learn. Several state GDL programs can be improved by moving their structures closer to an adequate implementation of that concept. The learner stage of a GDL system needs to be long enough for beginners to obtain a thorough introduction to the vagaries of driving. The second or intermediate stage needs to effectively limit exposure to known high risk conditions as novices adapt to being fully in charge of the vehicle. The benefits of GDL to date are due almost entirely to the risk-reducing conditions it implements. To improve the functioning of GDL will probably require a better understanding of teen driving than we presently have. The likelihood of further gains will be enhanced by efforts to learn more about the actual causes of teen crashes, the nature and type of teen driver exposures, and what parents do with their teens during the supervised driving stage of GDL. Without a better understanding of these, and other, phenomena it will be difficult to further reduce crashes among young beginning drivers, whether through GDL enhancements or with other approaches.     

Tennessee's Novice Driver Safety Project: a program to increase parental involvement

Graduated licensing has been implemented in many U.S. states to reduce teenage driver crash involvement. The goal is to introduce teenagers gradually to driving before allowing full, unrestricted licensure. Tennessee, one of the states that introduced graduated licensing, implemented a program to influence both driving by teenagers during the learner stage and restrictions imposed by parents after licensure. In addition to a standard welcome letter, booklets and reminder cards were mailed to parents of teenagers who had just obtained their learner's permits. The booklets and cards were designed to assist parents in becoming more actively involved in their children's driving experiences. The effects of three different approaches (welcome letter only, letter plus booklet, and letter plus booklet plus reminder cards) on parental involvement, teenage crashes, and teenage citations were assessed based on telephone interviews with parents. Although the parents said the booklets and reminder cards were helpful and should continue to be sent to other parents, there were no discernible effects on teenage practice driving and reported parental involvement during the learner stage. Nor was there any measurable influence on restrictions imposed by parents after licensure. It is unknown whether the standard welcome letter affected parental involvement, but overall supervised driving exceeded the state requirements by a substantial margin.     

Pediatrician attitudes, knowledge, and practice behavior regarding teen driving safety

Problem

Each year about 4,000 teens ages 16-19 die on U.S. roads. Injury prevention counseling is recommended as a valuable and cost-effective part of routine health supervision. This study describes pediatrician knowledge and practice regarding teen driving safety.

Methods

A 31-item self-administered survey was mailed to pediatricians.

Results

160 of 392 pediatricians (41%) completed the survey. During a health supervision visit 93% of pediatricians reported discussing seat belt use, 89% impaired driving, 54% teen licensing laws, and 16% parent teen contract. Half reported having a teen in their practice killed in a crash.

Conclusions

A majority surveyed report discussing and counseling teens on first wave teen driver safety issues (seat belts, alcohol use), but most do not discuss graduated driver licensing laws or related issues. Impact on Industry: Broadly adopted, this inexpensive counseling approach, could lead to reductions in teen motorvehicle crash injuries.     

A national evaluation of the nighttime and passenger restriction components of graduated driver licensing

Introduction

The high crash rate of youthful novice drivers has been recognized for half a century. Over the last decade, graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems, which extend the period of supervised driving and limit the novice's exposure to higher-risk conditions (such as nighttime driving), have effectively reduced crash involvements of novice drivers.

Method

This study used data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the implementation dates of GDL laws in a state-by-year panel study to evaluate the effectiveness of two key elements of GDL laws: nighttime restrictions and passenger limitations.

Results

Nighttime restrictions were found to reduce 16- and 17-year-old driver involvements in nighttime fatal crashes by an estimated 10% and 16- and 17-year-old drinking drivers in nighttime fatal crashes by 13%. Passenger restrictions were found to reduce 16- and 17-year-old driver involvements in fatal crashes with teen passengers by an estimated 9%.

Conclusions

These results confirm the effectiveness of these provisions in GDL systems. Impact on Public Health. States without the nighttime or passenger restrictions in their GDL law should strongly consider adopting them.

Impact on Industry

The results of this study indicate that nighttime restrictions and passenger limitations are very important components of any GDL law.     

Graduated driver licensing (GDL) in the United States in 2016: A literature review and commentary

This is the sixth in a series of reviews of research on graduated driver licensing (GDL) published in the Journal of Safety Research, the present review covering the period mid-2012 through 2016. In the two decades since GDL programs began to be introduced on a widespread basis in the United States, a vast amount of research has been published. The current review discusses recent research and the present state of knowledge on the following topics: characteristics of the novice driver population; effects of GDL on crashes for ages 16–19; the learner and intermediate periods; night and passenger restrictions; cellphone laws; GDL for older novices; enforcement of GDL rules; and programs attempting to influence GDL compliance and safe driving practices in general. GDL stands out as a successful policy for reducing teen driver crashes and is worth building on to extend its benefits. Strengthening existing GDL programs has the most potential for producing further crash reductions.     

Advanced driver assistance systems for teen drivers: A national survey of teen and parent perceptions

Abstract

Objective: Recently developed advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) have the potential to compensate for teen driving errors and reduce overall crash risk. To date, very limited research has been conducted on the suitability of ADAS for teen drivers—the population most likely to benefit from such systems. The opportunity for ADAS to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes involving teen drivers is hindered when there is a lack of trust, acceptance, and use of those technologies. Therefore, there is a need to study teen and parent perceptions of ADAS to help identify and overcome any potential barriers to ADAS use.

Methods: A U.S. national survey was developed based on themes from previously conducted teen and parent ADAS focus groups. Survey topics included trust in ADAS, effect of ADAS on teen driver safety and driving behavior, effect of ADAS on skill development, data privacy, and cybersecurity. Responses included 5-point Likert scales and open-ended questions. The survey was managed through an online respondent panel by ResearchNow. Eligibility criteria included licensed teens (16–19 years) and parents of licensed teens. Teen and parent responses were compared using chi-square statistics in SAS 9.4.

Results: Two thousand and three (teens?=?1,000; parents?=?1,003) respondents qualified for and completed the survey between September 1 and September 20, 2017. Overall, teens (72%) and parents (61%) felt that ADAS would have a positive impact on transportation. However, teens were more likely to exhibit a positive outlook on ADAS, whereas parents were more likely to have a negative outlook (P?<?.01). Teens felt that ADAS would be useful during bad weather or drowsy driving but were less concerned than parents about ADAS intervention during their own risky driving (P?<?.01). The majority of teens (65%) and parents (71%) agreed that teens should learn to drive on vehicles without ADAS, with parents being more likely to agree than teens (P?<?.01). Parents (55%) were more likely than teens (47%) to be concerned about insurance companies keeping track of teen driving data (P?<?.01). Most respondents exhibited some concern of ADAS being susceptible to hacking (57%).

Conclusions: This study represents the first effort to quantify ADAS perceptions among teen drivers and their parents at the U.S. national level. These data highlight potential barriers to ADAS use among teen drivers, including a relative disinterest among teens for ADAS intervention during risky driving as well as concerns among both teens and parents that ADAS will inhibit skill development. These survey findings will help inform educational programs to accelerate fleet turnover and provide the foundation for ADAS optimization and evaluation studies among sociodemographic groups.