A number of prior driver improvement research studies are reviewed. The evidence indicates that traffic violations are reduced, at least temporarily, by a variety of driver improvement techniques. The evidence for accident reduction is more equivocal, although a few relatively well-designed studies have reported statistically significant accident reduction. It is argued that the statistical and psychological aspects of accidents prohibit high correlations and large treatment effects. The methodological shortcomings of past driver improvement research are discussed, and the research design characteristics of an optimum evaluation system are outlined. An evaluation system currently under construction in California fulfills most of these optimum characteristics, such as built-in experimental replication, randomized treatment assignment, timely on-line computer-generated effectiveness measures, high statistical power, and cost benefit modeling. One of the major methodological issues in past evaluation efforts is the handling of drivers who do not show up for, or who do not complete, the treatment. The need for considering the entire treatment program (shows and no-shows combined) as the primary unit of evaluation is stressed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArbousA. G.KerrickJ. E.Accident statistics and the concept of accident pronenessBiometrics, 1951, 7, 340–432
2.
BrezinaE. H.Traffic accidents and offenses: An observational study of the Ontario driver populationAccident Analysis and Prevention, 1969, 1, 373–397
3.
BurgA.Vision test scores and driving record: Additional findings.Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, Report No. 68–27, 1968.
4.
BurgA.Traffic violations in relation to driver characteristics and accident frequency.Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, (California 1A Agreement 13600), Report No. 74–55, 1975.
5.
California Department of Motor Vehicles. Post licensing control reporting and evaluation system.Sacramento: Author, Progress Report to the Legislature, November, 1973 and April, 1974
6.
CampbellB. J.Driver improvement: The point system.Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina. Institute on Government, 1958.
7.
CobbP. W.The limit of usefulness of accident rate as a measure of accident pronenessJournal of Applied Psychology, 1940, 24, 154–159
8.
CohenJ.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.New York: Academic Press,1969.
9.
CoppinR. S.MarshW. C.PeckR. C.A reevaluation of group driver improvement meetings.Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, Report No. 17, 1965.
10.
CoppinR. S.PeckR. CLewA.MarshW. C.The effectiveness of short individual driver improvement sessions.Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, Report No. 22, 1965.
11.
FinkelsteinR.McGuireJ.An optimum system for traffic enforcement/driver control.Mountain View, California: GTE-Sylvania, Inc., Final Report, 1971.
12.
ForbesT. W.The normal automobile driver as a traffic problemJournal of General Psychology, 1939, 20, 471–474
13.
GoldsteinLeon.Driver improvement: A review of research literature.Sacramento: California Traffic Safety Education Task Force, Department of Education, 1973.
14.
HaranoR. M.PeckR. C.The effectiveness of a uniform traffic school curriculum for negligent drivers.Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, Report No. 37, 1971.
15.
HaranoR.HubertD.An evaluation of California's “good driver” incentive program.Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, Report No. 46, 1974.
16.
HaranoR. M.PeckR. C.McBrideR. S.The prediction of accident liability through biographical data and psychometric testsJournal of Safety Research, 1975, 7, 16–49
17.
HarringtonD.The young driver follow-up study: An evaluation of the role of human factors in the first four years of driving.Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, Report No. 38, 1971.
18.
HendersonH. J.KoleT.New Jersey driver improvement clinics: An evaluation studyTraffic Safety Research Review, 1967, 11, 98, 100–105
19.
JokschH. C.A critical appraisal of the applicability of benefit-cost analysis to highway traffic safetyAccident Analysis and Prevention, 1975, 7, 133–154
20.
KaestnerN.Research in driver improvement—The state of the artTraffic Quarterly, 1968, 22, 497–520
21.
KaestnerN.SyringE. M.Accident and violation reduction through brief driver improvement interviewsTraffic Safety Research Review, 1967, 11, 99, 121–124
22.
KaestnerN.SpeightL.Oregon study of driver license suspensions.Salem: Oregon Department of Transportation, 1974.
23.
KaestnerN.WarmothE. J.SyringE. M.Oregon study of advisory letters: The effectiveness of warning letters in driver improvementTraffic Safety Research Review, 1967, 11, 67–72
24.
KastelleC. G.LeSueurC. M.An evaluation of the Pierce county pilot program in driver improvement utilizing the group method.Olympia: Washington State Department of Motor Vehicles, 1965.
25.
MarshW. C.Modifying negligent driving behavior: Evaluation of selected driver improvement techniques.Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, Report No. 36, 1971.
26.
MarshW. C.Modifying negligent driving behavior: Evaluation of selected driver improvement techniques—A second year follow-up.Sacramento: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1973.
27.
McBrideR. S.PeckR. C.Modifying negligent driving behavior through warning lettersAccident Analysis and Prevention, 1970, 2, 141–174
28.
OwensC. N.Report on a three-year controlled study of the effectiveness of the Anaheim-Fullerton municipal court driver improvement schoolMunicipal Court Review, 1967, 7, 7–14
29.
PeckR. C.McBrideR. S.CoppinR. S.The distribution and prediction of driver accident frequenciesAccident Analysis and Prevention, 1971, 2, 243–299
30.
PeckR. C.HaranoR. M.State driver improvement analysis: Driver improvement literature review (Task I).Sunnyvale, California: Public Systems Incorporated, Contract No. DOT-HS-4–00967, 1975.
31.
SchusterD. H.GuilfordJ. P.The psychometric prediction of problem driversHuman Factors, 1964, 6, 393–421
32.
WallaceJ. E.Problem drivers: An evaluation of four treatment programs and the use of questionnaire material for predicting success.Olympia: Washington State Department of Motor Vehicles, Report No. 26, 1969.
