praesentation walter funk icdbt 2011 paris

Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg

A New Scheme for Young Novice Drivers in Germany

Dr. Walter FunkInstitute for Empirical Sociology at the

Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany)

01/30

Wednesday 30 November 2011, 14 p.m., Salon Parisien,


Problem:• Highest crash risk as a car

driver is initially after licensing (in Germany up till now right from age 18 away as „full privileged“ driver)

• Substantial decrease of crash risk with increased driving experience (minus 50% during the first 9 months, minus 90% during the first 2.6 years of driving)

Highest crash risk of novice drivers

02/30

(cf. SCHADE 2001)

Years since licensure

Accidents (offences) in Central Register of Traffic Offenders

Rat

e pe

r milli

on k

ilom

etre

s

females

males


Solution:Extending the relatively short formal driver education in professional “driving schools”by a period in which the novice is only allowed to drive while being accompanied by an experienced driver.

Tackling young novice driver risk: Extended learning period through „Accompanied Driving“

03/30

(cf. WILLMES-LENZ 2008: 137)

Extended learning periodthrough “Accompanied Driving from 17”

Begleitetes Fahrenonly accompanied driving

age 17

driver training/driving test

learning period up to 18 month

learning period 3 to 6 month

solo driving allowed

age 16 age 18

driver trainingdriving test

Learning period: up to 18 months

Learning period: 3 to 6 months

Process evaluation


• From the age of 16 ½: Start of the mandatory pre-licence training and education for licences Class B / BE with a professional driving instructor in a so-called “driving school”;

• Passing through the professional “driving school” curriculum;• Successful passing of the theoretical and the practical

licensing tests;i.e.: Participants in the model pass exactly the sameformal training and tests as regular licence acquirers;

• From 17th birthday: Handing over of a certificate, allowing to drive a car in Germany (licences Class B / BE);

Only one constraint: Driving is only allowed when accompanied by an experienced adult;

• Age of 18: Replacement of the certificate by regular drivers licence (full driving privileges);

Pre-conditions to participate in the model

04/30


The attendant (supervising driver):• must be at least 30 years old,

• must have held a valid driver’s licence Class B for at least five years,

• must not have more than three demerit points in Germany’s Central Register of Traffic Offenders (“traffic-sinner file”) and

• must – at the start of the accompanied trip – have a BAC lower than 0.05 gm/100 ml, and must not be affected by intoxicants (illegal drugs);

Qualifications of the experienced attendants(supervising drivers)

05/30


Chronology of surveys in the panel

Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 2-2) 6/30

Participant’s questionnaire

Closurequestionnaire

Attendant’s (Supervising

driver’s)questionnaire

Panel Wave 1

Feb. 30, 2007

Panel Wave 2

March 01, 2008

Panel Wave 3

April 30, 2008

Panel Wave 4

July 04, 2008

(n = 3,780;60.9 %)

(n = 3,088;81.7 %)

(n = 1,652;85.1 %)

(n = 1,118;93.0 %)

(n = 1,735;45.9 %)




Closure questionnaire




Novice drivers in the sample of the process evaluation (n = 3,780):• sex: 48.5 % male, 51.5 % female;• education: 66.8 % pupils, 31.6 % apprentices

Most frequent attendants (supervising drivers)(according to the youth):• female,• 40-49 years old,• living in the same household with the novice driver;

= own mother

Young novice drivers and most frequent attendants(supervising drivers)

Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, sections 3.3 and 4.4) 7/30


Impulse for participating in the accompanied driving model (as stated by the novice driver)

Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-7) 8/30

10.9

1.4

8,46.5

55.8

85.7

35.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Myself My parents Peers Otherrelatives

Other non-relatives

Col-leagues

Othermotivation

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

Multiple responses possible(n = 3,047 respondents)


Difficulties in finding an attendant (supervising driver)?(as stated by the novice driver)

Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-16); 9/30

0,75,2 0,9

10,7

84,8

5,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

None Youngerthan age 30

Holdingdriver's

licence lessthan three

years

Too manydemeritpoints

Other reason No parentalassent

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

Multiple responses possible(n = 3.680 respondents)


• Time management problems (didn’t manage it earlier, started driver training later becauseof lack of time or training lasted longer than planned)

• Financial problems(started driver training later or training lasted longer becauseof lack of money)

• Change of mind concerning participation in the model(own change of mind or convinced by parents)

• Lack of support(Convincing parents or finding another attendant)

• „Rest category“(other reasons, ignorance about accompanied driving, still got enough time to drive until my 18th birthday)

Youth: Reasons for delayed driving licence acquisition

Multiple responses: 5,892 answers from 2,938 respondents;Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-3) 10/30


• Wish to drive a car (instrumental motive)[explaining 15.3 % of the variance](probation time will end sooner; to sit behind the wheel as soonas possible; driving moped without accompaniment; licensure for certain at 18th birthday; more favourable car insurance tariff)

• Safety motive [explaining 13.9 % of the variance](to drive more safely as solo driver later; to feel safer at the start as novice driver; to show parents that I will later drive safe as solo driver)

• Role model / Temporal equalisation of potential stressors[explaining 10.2 % of the variance](older siblings / friends already participated; driving test otherwise parallel to much stress in school / vocational training)

Youth: Reasons for participating in the model



• Help and support for their children [explaining 14.6 % of the variance](to help the youth; to let her/him participate in my experience as car driver)

• Practical reasons [explaining 14.6 % of the variance](probation time will end sooner; more favourable car insurance tariff; equalisation of potential stressors in school / vocational training)

• Safety concerns [explaining 14.1 % of the variance](less worries, when youth drives solo later on; to assure themselves, that youth will drive safe and cautious)

• Popularity motive and role model [ 11.6 % of the variance](good experiences of relatives and friends; family member already participated in the model)

Parents: Reasons for participating in the model



Mean daily mileage of all model participants


13,2 13,1 13,013,313,213,813,4

12,212,413,5

12,111,6

14,9 14,515,6

12,8

10,49,77,98,1

10,59,38,58,69,39,39,6

10,78,68,3

10,09,3

0

5

10

15

20

(n=3.221)Male (n

=1.558)

Female (n

=1.664)

Pupil (n=2.142

)

Trainee (n=1.033)

Till O-le

vel (n=1.598)

> O-le

vel (n

=1.348)

Old Fed. S

tates (n=2.642

)

New Fed. S

tates (n

=579)

Agglomeratio

n (n=1.225)

Urbanize

d (n=1.2

69)Rural

(n=727)

1-3 Months (

n=703)

4-6 Months (

n=725)

7-9 Months (

n=1.032)

10-12 M

onths (n=760)

Mea

n da

ily m

ileag

e in

km

Mean Median

Sex

Previous length of model

participation

Region of

origin

Regionaltype

Educa-tionalstatus

School-leaving

qualificationof parents

Total

All model participants (including immobile ones);Questioned at all four panel waves;

Significant difference


Mean daily mileage of mobile model participants


31,3 31,3 32,1 30,134,1 33,031,732,4 28,5

33,731,2 32,1

34,136,5

35,037,6

26,125,023,021,025,124,323,3

27,323,324,624,326,2

23,022,526,324,0

0

10

20

30

40

(n=3.0

79)

Male (n

=1.50

4)

Female

(n=1

.575)

Pupil (

n=2.0

46)

Train

ee (n

=983

)Til

l O-le

vel (n

=1.53

6)

> O-le

vel (n

=1.28

9)Old

Fed. S

tates

(n=2

.541)

New Fe

d. Stat

es (n

=538

)Agg

lomera

tion (n

=1.16

5)

Urban

ized (

n=1.20

7)Rur

al (n=

707)

1-3 M

onth

s (n=

640)

4-6 M

onth

s (n=

685)

7-9 M

onth

s (n=

1.003

)

10-12

Mon

ths (n

=751

)M

ean

daily

mile

age

in k

m Mean Median

Only actual mobile model participants;Questioned at all four panel waves;


Sex

Previous length of model

participation

Region of

origin

Regionaltype

Educa-tionalstatus

School-leaving

qualificationof parents

Total


Mean monthly mileage of all model participants


333,7

293,7293,8311,0294,5320,1

301,6316,0320,1324,0335,0

318,5 303,2

372,7 357,3 333,7

0

75

150

225

300

375

(n=3.1

07)

Male (n

=1.49

6)

Female

(n=1

.611)

Pupil (

n=2.0

85)

Train

ee (n

=984

)Til

l O-le

vel (n

=1.54

6)

> O-le

vel (n

=1.29

8)

Old Fed

. Stat

es (n

=2.54

2)

New Fe

d. Stat

es (n

=564

)

Agglom

eratio

n (n=1

.179)

Urban

ized(n

=1.22

5)Rur

al (n=

703)

1-3 M

onth

s (n=

659)

4-6 M

onth

s (n=

680)

7-9 M

onth

s (n=

1.007

)

10-12

Mon

ths (n

=759

)Mea

n m

onth

ly m

ileag

e in

km

SexPreviouslength ofmodel

participation

Regionof

originRegional

type

Educa-tionalstatus

School-leaving

qualification of parents

Total

All model participants;Questioned at all four panel waves;



Extrapolation of the mean monthly mileageto the mean total mileage in the model scheme


3.383,6

257,3514,6

835,5

1.139,71.479,6

1.752,5

2.060,4

2.395,0

2.723,4

3.057,8

3.766,7

0

500

1.000

1.500

2.000

2.500

3.000

3.500

4.000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Duration of attendance in months

Mea

n m

ileag

e in

km

Mean duration of attendance: 8 months;Mean mileage during this time: 2,400 km;


Categories of driving time of the mobile model participants – reference week of the 1st panel wave


38,1 40,3

33,0 32,033,4 33,8

29,228,0

15,3 14,4 13,6

14,616,1

8,7

10,39,9

37,241,8

35,8 31,928,5

32,4

12,7 11,5

8,17,77,3 7,0

2,32,4 2,4

3,24,1

2,6 2,72,9

3,9

2,6 2,7 2,9 3,47,9 9,5

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Monday Tuesday Wednes-day

Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Longer than 1 hour 30minutes

Up to 1 hour 30 minutes

Up to 1 hour 15 minutes

Up to 1 hour

Up to 45minutes

Up to 30minutes

Up to 15minutes

1,81,9

2,12,0

2,12,1

(n = 1,267) (n = 1,274) (n = 1,491) (n = 1,142)(n = 1,264) (n = 1,236) (n = 1,400) Weekday

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

Exposuretime


Most frequent destinations of the model participants in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible)

42,840,9

9,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Monday - Sunday Monday - Friday Saturday - Sunday

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents

School, vocational training, workHousehold choresPrivate tripsLeisure trips

(n=2,833) (n=1,911)(n=2,594)




59,7

52,6

35,1

42,840,9

9,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents


(n=2,833) (n=1,911)(n=2,594)


Shopping,bank,public authorities,doctoretc.



59,7

52,6

35,1

64,3

46,2

61,9

42,840,9

9,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents


(n=2,833) (n=1,911)(n=2,594)


Family,visiting friendsetc.



59,7

52,6

35,1

64,3

46,2

61,9

42,0

36,6

28,3

42,840,9

9,4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents


(n=2,833) (n=1,911)(n=2,594)

Sport,Hobbyetc.



Subjective indicators of building driving experience:During the last four weeks felt unsure …

Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 6-19a) 22/30

3 4 ,0

12 ,2

19 ,0

2 5,7

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

Wa v e 1 Wa v e 2 Wa v e 3 Wa v e 4

… while rapidly respo nding to unfo reseen situat io ns

Perc

enta

ge o

f uns

afe

no

vice

driv

ers

Wave 1Wave 2Wave 3Wave 4

(n = 2,254) (n = 913) (n = 507)(n = 1,346)


Subjective indicators of building driving experience:During the last four weeks felt unsure …

Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 6-19a) 23/30

2 7.1

10 .3

17.8

2 3 .8

0

10

2 0

3 0

4 0

Wa v e 1 Wa v e 2 Wa v e 3 Wa v e 4

… while co rrect ly reco gnising the intent io ns o f o ther ro ad users

Perc

enta

ge o

f

unsa

fe n

ovic

e dr

iver

s Wave 1Wave 2Wave 3Wave 4

(n = 3,037) (n = 1,140) (n =611)(n = 1,776)


Subjective indicators of building driving experience –as seen by the youth


15,9

30,6

41,6

27,7

16,9

30,8

6,112,8 8,6 9,1

29,8

6,3

6,2

25,7

22,143,362,1 55,761,3 57,3

1,3

33,0

2,5

0,6 1,6 1,6 1,51,4

67,9

11,80,70,5 0,7 0,7 4,2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

ents Doesn't

apply at all

Rather doesn't applyPartly applies

Rather applies

Totally applies

I control the car better

I ever more often look

ahead while driving

I become more and more re-

laxed while driving

I sometimes drive a bit faster than

allowed

I become more and

more confi-dent while

driving

Another indicator

I find it difficult to make out any

progress in driving

(n=2.984) (n=2.978) (n=2.982) (n=2.980) (n=2.973) (n=365) (n=2.650)

All model participants, 2nd panel wave


• Impetus for participating in the accompanied driving model scheme:- largely from the youth themselves (85.7 %)- also by more than half of the parents (55.8 %)

• More than four out of five youth didn’t have difficulties in finding an attendant (supervising driver)

• Handing over of the driving test certificate: On average 5.1 months after the 17th birthday

main reason for the delay: problems with timemanagement

Summary (1 of 4)

25/30


• Reasons of the youth to participate in the model scheme:- request to drive a car (instrumental motive);- safety concerns; and - practical aspects

• Reasons of the parents (attendants) to participate in the model scheme as supervising drivers:- offering help and support to their children;- safety considerations;- making use of the practical aspects of the accompanied

(supervised) driving model [reasons all equally prevalent]

Summary (2 of 4)

26/30


• Mileage in the model:- Per day: Ø 9.3 km (all), Ø 24.0 km (mobile youth)- Per week: Ø 65.0 km (all), Ø 71.7 km (mobile youth)- Per month: Ø 318.5 km

Sample: approx. 2,400 km during 8 months;Extrapolation to 12 months duration of attendance (supervised driving): Potential of approx. 3,800 km

• Driving time (exposure duration): - Mostly rather short (up to approx. 30 minutes)- At weekend increase of longer trips

• Destinations:- Mon – Fri: School, vocational training / work,

household chores- Sat – Sun: Private trips (Family, visiting friends)

Summary (3 of 4)

27/30


• Subjective perception of the youth:Strong indicators for building driving experience

Furthermore (as surveyed on the level of the Federal States (the German „Länder“)):

• Crash data gathered by the police: Prevalence of crashes while participating in the model = very low

extremely high safety during implementation of themodel scheme

• Federal Motor Transport Authority: Only few violations of the requirement to be accompanied (supervised)

no abuse of the accompanied driving model

Summary (4 of 4)

28/30


The accompanied driving model can be characterized by:

• easy accessRecommendation:To encourage youth – interested in obtaining a full privileged driver’s licence at age 18 – to startaccompanied driving closer to their 17th birthday;

• good practicabilityRecommendation:To encourage the participants to drive more, togetherwith an attendant (supervising driver);

• safe implementation

Conclusion

29/30


Thank you very much for your attention!

For more information and list of cited literature please contact:

Tel.: ++49 – 911 – 23 565 [email protected]

30/30

praesentation walter funk icdbt 2011 paris

Documents