Choice of teenagers' vehicles and views on vehicle safety: survey of parents of novice teenage drivers

Objective

To examine parental decisions about vehicles driven by teenagers and parental knowledge of vehicle safety.

Methods

About 300 parents were interviewed during spring 2006 in Minnesota, North Carolina, and Rhode Island while teenagers took their first on-road driving tests.

Results

Fewer than half of parents surveyed said teenagers would be the primary drivers of the chosen vehicles. Parents most often cited safety, existing family vehicle, and reliability when explaining the choices for their teenagers’ vehicles. About half of the vehicles intended for teenagers were small/mini/sports cars, pickups, or SUVs — vehicles considered less safe for teenagers than midsize/large cars or minivans. A large majority of vehicles were 2001 models or earlier. Vehicles purchased in anticipation of adding a new driver to the family were more likely to be the sizes/types considered less safe than vehicles already owned. Few parents insisted on side airbags or electronic stability control, despite strong evidence of their safety benefits. Even when asked to identify ideal vehicles for their teenagers to drive, about half of parents identified less safe vehicle sizes/types. Most parents knew that midsize/large vehicles are safer than small vehicles, and at least half of parents said SUVs and pickups are not safe for teenage drivers, citing instability.

Conclusions

The majority of parents understood some of the important criteria for choosing safe vehicles for their teenagers. However, parents actually selected many vehicles for teenagers that provide inferior crash protection.

Impact on industry

Vehicle safety varies substantially by vehicle size, type, and safety features. Many teenagers are driving inferior vehicles in terms of crashworthiness and crash avoidance.     

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.     

Passenger effects on teenage driving and opportunities for reducing the risks of such travel

OBJECTIVES: To review the research evidence concerning the effects of passengers on teenage driving and crash involvement, and to explore ways to reduce negative effects. METHODS: Review of the international literature on these topics. RESULTS: Passenger presence increases crash risk for teenage drivers, especially when the passengers are other teenagers and especially when they are male. Female passengers do not have the same effects. Teenagers are more susceptible to peer influences than adults. The combination of passenger-induced distraction and driving inexperience can disrupt driving behavior, and there is evidence that teenage driver risk taking increases in vehicles with multiple teenagers. Possible ways to reduce the resulting crash problem include altering the in-vehicle behavior of teenagers or influencing their selection of travel partners. Legal restrictions on passengers with teenage drivers have been found effective in reducing the crash problem. Parental monitoring of teenage driving behavior, and programs aimed at teenagers themselves, could be other options but their efficacy is unproven. It currently is unknown why female passengers have a different effect than males or if that might offer clues about future interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite passenger restrictions in the majority of states, 42% of 16- and 17-year-old drivers in fatal crashes in 2005 were transporting teenagers with no adults in the vehicle; 61% of teenage passenger deaths (1,222 in 2005) occurred in vehicles driven by other teenagers. Wider application of passenger restrictions is indicated. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: Ways to make passenger restrictions more effective are needed, and other techniques for reducing this major problem need development and testing.     

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.     

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.     

Naturalistic teenage driving study: Findings and lessons learned

IntroductionThis paper summarizes the findings on novice teenage driving outcomes (e.g., crashes and risky driving behaviors) from the Naturalistic Teenage Driving Study.MethodSurvey and driving data from a data acquisition system (global positioning system, accelerometers, cameras) were collected from 42 newly licensed teenage drivers and their parents during the first 18 months of teenage licensure; stress responsivity was also measured in teenagers.ResultOverall teenage crash and near-crash (CNC) rates declined over time, but were > 4 times higher among teenagers than adults. Contributing factors to teenage CNC rates included secondary task engagement (e.g., distraction), kinematic risky driving, low stress responsivity, and risky social norms.ConclusionsThe data support the contention that the high novice teenage CNC risk is due both to inexperience and risky driving behavior, particularly kinematic risky driving and secondary task engagement.Practical ApplicationsGraduated driver licensing policy and other prevention efforts should focus on kinematic risky driving, secondary task engagement, and risky social norms.     

Rage against the machine? Google's self-driving cars versus human drivers

IntroductionAutomated driving represents both challenges and opportunities in highway safety. Google has been developing self-driving cars and testing them under employee supervision on public roads since 2009. These vehicles have been involved in several crashes, and it is of interest how this testing program compares to human drivers in terms of safety.MethodsGoogle car crashes were coded by type and severity based on narratives released by Google. Crash rates per million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were computed for crashes deemed severe enough to be reportable to police. These were compared with police-reported crash rates for human drivers. Crash types also were compared.ResultsGoogle cars had a much lower rate of police-reportable crashes per million VMT than human drivers in Mountain View, Calif., during 2009–2015 (2.19 vs 6.06), but the difference was not statistically significant. The most common type of collision involving Google cars was when they got rear-ended by another (human-driven) vehicle. Google cars shared responsibility for only one crash.ConclusionsThese results suggest Google self-driving cars, while a test program, are safer than conventional human-driven passenger vehicles; however, currently there is insufficient information to fully examine the extent to which disengagements affected these results.Practical applicationResults suggest that highly-automated vehicles can perform more safely than human drivers in certain conditions, but will continue to be involved in crashes with conventionally-driven vehicles.     

Characteristics of teens-with-teens fatal crashes in the United States, 2005–2010

BackgroundMore than 40% of fatal crashes of 16- and 17-year-old drivers occur when transporting teenagers. Characteristics of this predominant crash type and prevention possibilities are described, based on data from fatal crashes in the United States during 2005–2010.ResultsFifty-seven percent of 16- and 17-year old drivers in fatal crashes had at least one passenger. Most commonly, all passengers were ages 13–19 (42% of all drivers and 73% of those with passengers). Of fatal crashinvolved drivers with teenage passengers and no passengers of other ages, 56% had one passenger, 24% had two, and 20% had three or more. Most frequently, passengers were the same sex and within one year of the driver. Risk factors involving speeding, alcohol use, late-night driving, lack of a valid license, seat belt non-use, and crash responsibility were more prevalent with teenage passengers than when driving alone, and the prevalence of these factors increased with the number of teenage passengers. Many risk factors were most prevalent with passengers ages 20–29, although few crashes had this occupant configuration. Risk factors were least prevalent with a passenger 30 or older.DiscussionFatal crashes of 16- and 17-year-old drivers with teen passengers are a common crash scenario, despite passenger restrictions in 42 states and the District of Columbia during some or all of the study period. The proportion of these fatal crashes decreased slightly from 46% in 1995 (pre-GDL) to 43% in 2010 and showed no signs of decreasing during the six-year study period (range 41% to 43%).Practical applicationsExisting passenger restrictions are relatively weak and could be strengthened. Fatal crashes involving teen passengers, especially multiple passengers, are more likely to involve alcohol, late-night driving, driver error, and invalid licensure, so stepped-up enforcement of existing laws involving these behaviors might reduce the prevalence of such crashes.     

Temporal patterns of crashes of 16-to 17-year-old drivers in Fairfax County, Virginia

OBJECTIVE: To develop a better understanding of the frequency and characteristics of teenage driver crashes occurring during school commute times. METHOD: Data were obtained from police reports of crashes involving drivers ages 16-17 that occurred between September 2001 and August 2004 in Fairfax County, Virginia. Temporal patterns and other characteristics of crash involvement during the school year were examined, and crashes during school commute times were compared with those at other times. RESULTS: Teenage driver crash involvement spiked during weekday school commute times. Compared with other times, crashes during school commute times were significantly more likely to involve multiple vehicles but less likely to result in injuries or involve drivers who were male, made driving errors, or had been drinking alcohol. Crashes during school commute times were more likely to involve more than one teenage driver and occur close to schools. CONCLUSIONS: Crashes involving teenage drivers are prevalent during school commute times. Many of these crashes involve multiple teenage drivers and occur near schools. Schools and communities should consider programs and policies that reduce teenage driving to school and enhance the safety of teenagers that do drive.     

Teens' distracted driving behavior: Prevalence and predictors

IntroductionTeen drivers' over-involvement in crashes has been attributed to a variety of factors, including distracted driving. With the rapid development of in-vehicle systems and portable electronic devices, the burden associated with distracted driving is expected to increase. The current study identifies predictors of secondary task engagement among teenage drivers and provides basis for interventions to reduce distracted driving behavior. We described the prevalence of secondary tasks by type and driving conditions and evaluated the associations between the prevalence of secondary task engagement, driving conditions, and selected psychosocial factors.MethodsThe private vehicles of 83 newly-licensed teenage drivers were equipped with Data Acquisition Systems (DAS), which documented driving performance measures, including secondary task engagement and driving environment characteristics. Surveys administered at licensure provided psychosocial measures.ResultsOverall, teens engaged in a potentially distracting secondary task in 58% of sampled road clips. The most prevalent types of secondary tasks were interaction with a passenger, talking/singing (no passenger), external distraction, and texting/dialing the cell phone. Secondary task engagement was more prevalent among those with primary vehicle access and when driving alone. Social norms, friends' risky driving behaviors, and parental limitations were significantly associated with secondary task prevalence. In contrast, environmental attributes, including lighting and road surface conditions, were not associated with teens' engagement in secondary tasks.ConclusionsOur findings indicated that teens engaged in secondary tasks frequently and poorly regulate their driving behavior relative to environmental conditions. Practical applications: Peer and parent influences on secondary task engagement provide valuable objectives for countermeasures to reduce distracted driving among teenage drivers.     

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.     

Efficacy of side airbags in reducing driver deaths in driver-side car and SUV collisions

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the efficacy of side airbags in preventing driver deaths in passenger vehicles struck on the driver side. METHODS: Risk ratios for driver deaths per driver-side collision were computed for side airbag-equipped cars and SUVs, relative to vehicles without side airbags. Driver fatality ratios also were calculated for the same vehicles in front and rear impacts, and these were used to adjust the side crash risk ratios for differences in fatality risk unrelated to side airbags. Risk ratios were calculated separately for side airbags providing torso-only protection and side airbags with head protection; almost all head protecting airbags also had airbags protecting the torso. RESULTS: Car driver death risk in driver-side crashes was reduced by 37 percent for head protecting airbags and 26 percent for torso-only side airbags. Car driver death risk was reduced for older and younger drivers, males and females, and drivers of small and midsize cars, and when the striking vehicle was an SUV/pickup or a car/minivan. Death risk for drivers of SUVs was reduced by 52 percent with head protecting side airbags and by 30 percent with torso-only airbags. The effectiveness of side airbags could not be assessed for pickups and minivans due to the small number of these vehicles with airbags involved in crashes. CONCLUSION: Side airbags substantially reduce the risk of car and SUV driver death in driver-side collisions. Making side airbags with head protection available to drivers and right front passengers in all passenger vehicles could reduce the number of fatalities in motor vehicle crashes in the United States by about 2,000 each year.     

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.     

Teen drivers' awareness of vehicle instrumentation in naturalistic research

IntroductionNaturalistic driving methods require the installation of instruments and cameras in vehicles to record driving behavior. A critical, yet unexamined issue in naturalistic driving research is the extent to which the vehicle instruments and cameras used for naturalistic methods change human behavior. We sought to describe the degree to which teenage participants' self-reported awareness of vehicle instrumentation changes over time, and whether that awareness was associated with driving behaviors.MethodForty-two newly-licensed teenage drivers participated in an 18-month naturalistic driving study. Data on driving behaviors including crash/near-crashes and elevated gravitational force (g-force) events rates were collected over the study period. At the end of the study, participants were asked to rate the extent to which they were aware of instruments in the vehicle at four time points. They were also asked to describe their own and their passengers' perceptions of the instrumentation in the vehicle during an in-depth interview. The number of critical event button presses was used as a secondary measure of camera awareness. The association between self-reported awareness of the instrumentation and objectively measured driving behaviors was tested using correlations and linear mixed models.ResultsMost participants' reported that their awareness of vehicle instrumentation declined across the duration of the 18-month study. Their awareness increased in response to their passengers' concerns about the cameras or if they were involved in a crash. The number of the critical event button presses was initially high and declined rapidly. There was no correlation between driver's awareness of instrumentation and their crash and near-crash rate or elevated g-force events rate.ConclusionAwareness was not associated with crash and near-crash rates or elevated g-force event rates, consistent with having no effect on this measure of driving performance.Practical applicationsNaturalistic driving studies are likely to yield valid measurements of driving behavior.     

Effects of in-vehicle monitoring on the driving behavior of teenagers

Objectives

The objective was to determine if teenage driving behavior improves when a monitoring and feedback device is installed in the teen's vehicle.

Methods

Vehicles of 85 teenage drivers were fit with a device that detected all instances of sudden braking/acceleration, speeding, and nonuse of seat belts. Drivers were assigned randomly to one of four research groups, differing in whether or not an alert sounded in the vehicle and whether or not parents were given access to websites containing notification records. Time trends in event rates per mile traveled were compared using Poisson regression.

Results

Seat belt use improved when violations were reported to the parent websites, and improved even more when in-vehicle alerts were activated. Consistent reductions in speeding were achieved only when teenagers received alerts about their speeding behavior, believed their speeding behavior would not be reported to parents if corrected, and when parents were being notified of such behavior by report cards.

Conclusions

Electronic monitoring of teenage drivers can reduce the incidence of risky behavior, especially seat belt nonuse. More complicated behavior is more difficult to change, however.

Impact on Industry

Parent participation is key to successful behavioral modification, but it is yet to be determined how best to encourage such participation.     

Factors related to seat belt use among fatally injured teenage drivers

PROBLEM: In the United States, teenage drivers have a higher crash risk and lower observed seat belt use than other age groups. METHOD: Seat belt use was examined for teenage (16-19 years) drivers who were fatally injured in traffic crashes occurring in the United States during the years 1995-2000. Vehicle, driver, and crash factors potentially related to belt use were examined. State differences in belt use rates among fatally injured teenage drivers were related to states' observed belt use rates for all ages and other state-level variables. RESULTS: During 1995-2000, mean belt use was 36% among fatally injured teenage drivers and 23% among fatally injured teenage passengers. One of the strongest predictors of higher belt use for both drivers and passengers was whether the crash occurred in a state with a primary seat belt law. Belt use rates for 1995-2000 for fatally injured teenage drivers ranged from 20% or less in six states to more than 60% in two states. States with the highest use rates were those with strong primary belt use laws and those with high rates of observed belt use for all ages. Lower belt use among fatally injured teenage drivers was associated with increasing age; male drivers; drivers of SUVs, vans, or pickup trucks rather than cars; older vehicles; crashes occurring late at night; crashes occurring on rural roadways; single vehicle crashes; and drivers with BACs of 0.10 or higher. Teenage driver belt use declined as the number of teenage passengers increased, but increased in the presence of at least one passenger 30 years or older. IMPACT ON TRAFFIC SAFETY: It is suggested that to increase teenage belt use, states should enact strong primary belt use laws and mount highly publicized efforts to enforce these laws. Graduated driver licensing systems should incorporate strong provisions that require seat belt use by teenage drivers and passengers.     

Teenage driver crash incidence and factors influencing crash injury by rurality

BackgroundPrevious research has identified teenage drivers as having an increased risk for motor-vehicle crash injury compared with older drivers, and rural roads as having increased crash severity compared with urban roads. Few studies have examined incidence and characteristics of teen driver-involved crashes on rural and urban roads.MethodsAll crashes involving a driver aged 10 through 18 were identified from the Iowa Department of Transportation crash data from 2002 through 2008. Rates of overall crashes and fatal or severe injury crashes were calculated for urban, suburban, rural, and remote rural areas. The distribution of driver and crash characteristics were compared between rural and urban crashes. Logistic regression was used to identify driver and crash characteristics associated with increased odds of fatal or severe injury among urban and rural crashes.ResultsFor younger teen drivers (age 10 through 15), overall crash rates were higher for more rural areas, although for older teen drivers (age 16 through 18) the overall crash rates were lower for rural areas. Rural teen crashes were nearly five times more likely to lead to a fatal or severe injury crash than urban teen crashes. Rural crashes were more likely to involve single vehicles, be late at night, involve a failure to yield the right-of-way and crossing the center divider.ConclusionsIntervention programs to increase safe teen driving in rural areas need to address specific risk factors associated with rural roadways.Impact on IndustryTeen crashes cause lost work time for teen workers as well as their parents. Industries such as safety, health care, and insurance have a vested interest in enhanced vehicle safety, and these efforts should address risks and injury differentials in urban and rural roadways.     

Tracking progress in teenage driver crash risk in the United States since the advent of graduated driver licensing programs

IntroductionThis study examined U.S. teenagers' crash rates since 1996, when the first graduated driver licensing (GDL) program in the United State was implemented.MethodsPassenger vehicle driver crash involvement rates for 16–19 and 30–59 (middle-aged) year-olds were examined, using data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System, Census Bureau, and National Household Travel Surveys.ResultsPer capita fatal and police-reported crash rates in 2012 were lower for 16 year-olds than for middle-aged drivers but older teenagers' rates were higher. Mileage-based fatal and police-reported crash rates in 2008 were higher for teenagers than for middle-aged drivers and higher for 16–17 year-olds than for older teenagers. In 1996–2012, teenagers' per capita fatal and police-reported crash rates declined sharply, especially for 16–17 year-olds, and more so than for middle-aged drivers. Substantial declines also occurred in teenagers' mileage-based fatal and police-reported crash rates from 1995–96 to 2008, generally more so than for middle-aged drivers. Regarding factors in fatal crashes in 1996 and 2012, proportions of young teenagers' crashes occurring at night and with multiple teenage passengers declined, more so than among older teenagers and middle-aged drivers. The proportion of fatally injured drivers who had been drinking declined for teenagers but changed little for middle-aged drivers. Improvements were not apparent in rates of driver errors or speeding among teenage drivers in fatal crashes.ConclusionsTeenage drivers' crash risk dropped during the period of implementation of GDL laws, especially fatal crash types targeted by GDL. However, teenagers' crash risk remains high, and important crash factors remain unaddressed by GDL.Practical applicationsAlthough this study was not designed to examine the role of GDL, the results are consistent with the increased presence of such laws. More gains are achievable if states strengthen their laws.     

Characteristics of vehicles driven by teens and adults killed in crashes, 2013–2017

Introduction: Teen drivers experience higher crash risk than their experienced adult counterparts. Legislative and community outreach methods have attempted to reduce this risk; results have been mixed. The increasing presence of vehicle safety features across the fleet has driven fatality numbers down in the past decades, but the disparity between young drivers and others remains. Method: We merged Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data on fatal crashes with vehicle characteristic data from the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI). The analysis compared the vehicle type, size, age, and the presence of select safety features in vehicles driven by teens (ages 15–17 years) and adult drivers (ages 35–50 years) who were killed in crashes from 2013 to 2017. Results were compared with a similar analysis conducted on data from 2007 to 2012. Results: Teen drivers were more likely than their adult counterparts to be killed while driving older, smaller vehicles that were less likely to have the option to be equipped with side airbags. Discussion: Teenage drivers remain more likely to be killed while driving older, smaller vehicles than adult drivers. Parents and guardians are mainly responsible for teen vehicle choice, and should keep vehicle size, weight, and safety features in mind when placing their teen in a vehicle. Practical Application: These findings can help guide safer vehicle choice for new teen drivers.