6. Interventions for promoting young driver safety

6.1 Introduction

This chapter presents specific interventions for promoting young driver safety which were identified in the debate, or in existing literature and reports or from brainstorming within the study team. A brief summary describing the ‘source’ for each intervention is described below.

The options presented here do not represent an exhaustive list but are intended to represent the range of different types of approaches discussed in the debate. An initial assessment has been undertaken to ensure that the options presented here are implementable and would seek to tackle the causal factors and break the causal chain for common young driver accidents.

A brief summary describing the ‘rationale’ for each intervention is described below, indicating how the intervention would address the causal factors identified in Chapter 2, where appropriate. In addition, each option has been categorised in terms of whether or not it seeks to:

improve driver competency and ensure young people gain the knowledge and experience that make experienced drivers safer (‘driver competency’)
influence attitudes and behaviour regarding safe driving, speeding, drink and drug driving, seat belt wearing, over confidence and peer pressure, etc. (‘attitude/behaviour’)
prevent injury accidents by minimising or removing risks (‘preventative’), and/or
encourage safe driving by focusing on broader issues such as eco-driving, the purpose of car insurance, the role of safety-related car technology, etc. (‘broader driving issues’).

The interventions have also been subject to a more detailed assessment, against a range of criteria relating to evidence of effectiveness, acceptability, affordability, and broader impacts on young people.

The range of options presented here are targeted at different stages of the learning to drive process, including the pre-driving phase, during the learning period, and post-test. Some interventions are already being implemented but could be delivered on a larger or more intense scale, while others would represent new approaches within Scotland. Any intervention taken forward will need to be subject to further research and a full evaluation of impacts. Some interventions will require public bodies, and in some cases non-public bodies, to work in partnership to deliver them.

Table 6.1 – Intervention Type A - Education and training options for younger children and pre-drivers

A	Description	Driving competency	Attitude/ Behaviour	Preventative	Broader driving issues
A1	Increase the amount of road safety education provided to school children, as part of the Curriculum for Excellence. Source: Common theme within stakeholder interviews. Rationale: Seeks to raise awareness and influence attitudes from an early age.		•		•
A2	Increase the amount of pre-driver training offered by schools, technical colleges, employers, and local authorities (including qualifications such as SQA’s Safe Road User Award and Fife’s BTEC in Driving Science). Source: Common theme within stakeholder interviews. Rationale: Seeks to influence attitudes and behaviours, and influence how and when young people learn to drive.		•		•
A3	More use of innovative approaches, including use of social networking and mobile phone downloads by providers of road safety interventions. Source: Identified in study brief. Rationale: These types of media are commonly used by young people, on a regular basis. They could provide an effective means of getting road safety messages across to young people alongside more traditional approaches such as TV and cinema adverts and classroom-based education interventions.		•		•
A4	*Published young driver ‘accident maps’ showing the location of car occupant casualties involving at least one young driver. (New intervention)* Source: Used in Wales. Rationale: Designed to highlight high risk routes to young people, to help target enforcement and identify need for engineering-based solutions.		•

An additional intervention proposed by some survey respondents was the use of role models (e.g. a Scottish Premier League footballer) to promote road safety issues and to help launch new interventions. However, this approach has proven to be problematic in the past (particularly when celebrities have subsequently been caught speeding), and Road Safety Scotland now have a policy not to use high profile celebrities in this type of role. This suggestion has therefore been excluded from the above list.

Table 6.2 – Intervention Type B – Education, training and testing for learner and novice drivers

B	Description	Driving competency	Attitude/ Behaviour	Preventative	Broader driving issues
B1	A regulated learning environment e.g. a minimum period of learning and supervised practice/training, requirements for learners to log their learning experience and provide a record of their experience in driving in different conditions for discussion during the practical test, additional practical assessments during the learning process, etc. (New intervention) Source: DSA’s Learning to Drive Consultation (DSA, 2008), IAM Motoring Trust (2008), stakeholder interviews. General agreement from road safety community, young people, and parents/carers that the current test does not prepare drivers sufficiently. Rationale: Seeks to improve driver competency by encouraging more supervised practice in a wider range of conditions and encouraging reflective learning. Seeks to addresses the following causal factors: inexperience and poor judgement in more difficult driving conditions, and inadequate control of the car, and likely to increase average ‘survival time’ if it delays the age for independent driving (see Chapter 2).	•
B2	*Strengthen the practical driving test so that it tests driving in a wider range of conditions. (New intervention)* Source: Stakeholder interviews, focus group participants and survey respondents. General agreement from road safety community, young people, and parents/carers that the current test does not prepare drivers sufficiently. Rationale: Seeks to addresses the following causal factors: inexperience and poor judgement in more difficult driving conditions. General agreement from the road safety community that the current test does not prepare drivers sufficiently. Requirements may encourage more pre-licence practice, with positive benefits.	•
B3	*Mandatory attitude and awareness interventions as part of the learning process (pre or post-test). (New intervention)* Source: Stakeholder interviews. Similar requirements exist in other European countries, including Switzerland and Austria (see Appendix A). Rationale: Addresses gap in the current driver training/testing process. Seeks to addresses the following causal factors: over confidence; a lack of understanding and attitude that make experienced drivers safer; incomplete training and a practical test that focuses too heavily on vehicle control.		•		•
B4	Increase participation in post-test driver training options, e.g. Pass Plus, IAM’s Momentum driver training initiative, and a2om’s e-learning package. Source: Qualitative Research undertaken for the Scottish Government in 2008 (ODS, 2008), stakeholder interviews, focus group participants and survey respondents. General agreement from road safety community, young people, and parents/carers that the current test does not prepare drivers sufficiently. Rationale: Seeks to addresses the following causal factors: inexperience and poor judgement in more difficult driving conditions; inadequate control of the car; a lack of knowledge, understanding and attitude that make experienced drivers safer. General agreement from the road safety community that the current test does not prepare drivers sufficiently.	•	•		•
B5	*Continuous Professional Development (CPD) training for Approved Driving Instructors, and information to help learners select Approved Driving Instructors. (New intervention)* Source: Scottish Government response to the DSA’s Learning to Drive Consultation (DSA, 2008). EU-funded HERMES project (DGTREN, 2010)²⁰ undertaken to address identified need for CPD training. Rationale: Young people report that the quality of instruction varies between ADIs; that ADIs vary in terms of the range of driving conditions (including weather conditions and urban/rural driving) that they are willing to expose their pupils to; and the level of information and advice provided on gaining further training. Intervention seeks to raise the standard and consistency of training provided across all instructors so that young drivers are more prepared for driving on Scotland’s roads.	•	•		•

Table 6.3 – Intervention Type C – Graduated driver licensing and licence restrictions

C	Description	Driving competency	Attitude/ Behaviour	Preventative	Broader driving issues
C1	*A GDL approach for all newly qualified young drivers involving restrictions and minimum age, training, practice or safe driving period requirements. (New intervention)* Source: Study brief, stakeholder interviews, various international examples. Rationale: Seeks to minimise or remove exposure to risks, particularly those relating to lifestyle issues (e.g. peer pressure, passenger distraction, social driving at night), driving in difficult conditions (e.g. night driving), and inadequate control of high performance vehicles.			•
C2	*As C1 but with reduced restrictions for young drivers who have undertaken approved post-test driver training. (New intervention)* Source: Variation of C1, various international examples. Rationale: Provides an incentive for post-test training (see B4).	•	•	•	•
C3	*As C1 but for offenders only. (New intervention)* Source: Variation of C1. Rationale: Seeks to minimise or remove exposure to risks for those drivers which are most likely to be at risk. Provides an incentive for non-offenders to drive safely.	•	•	•	•
C4	*Mandatory carrying of P (Probationary) Plates or similar. Could be combined with Options C1 to C3 to help enforce any form of graduated licensing initiative. (New intervention)* Source: Used in Northern Ireland, in conjunction with a 45 mph speed limit for newly qualified drivers. Rationale: To indicate to other road users that the vehicle is being driven by a newly qualified driver and to encourage other drivers to give novice drivers more time and consideration. It could also act as a reminder for novice drivers to drive safely, particularly if the plates were additionally displayed in the vehicle.		•	•
C5	*A requirement to undertake post-test training, practice and/or assessment after passing the current practical test within a given time limit or licence revoked. (New intervention)* Source: Stakeholder interviews. International examples e.g. Austria’s ‘multiphase education approach. Rationale: Reflects views from some stakeholders that training and education initiatives would provide a better and more effective approach than GDL. In addition, young drivers recognised the importance of gaining experience in a the range of driving conditions covered in Pass Plus, but indicated that strong incentives would be required to encourage most to participate voluntarily.	•	•	•	•
C6	*Introduce a lower drink drive limit for all drivers. (New intervention)* Source: Study brief. Considered in the North Review. The Transport Select Committee proposed a 20 mg/100 ml limit for new drivers (DfT, 2008). International examples e.g. Canada, Australia, Austria (see Chapter 4). Rationale: DfT has identified drink driving as one of five key factors associated with collisions involving younger and older drivers (see Chapter 2).			•

Table 6.4 – Intervention Type D – Enforcement and restorative justice

D	Description	Driving competency	Attitude/ Behaviour	Preventative	Broader driving issues
D1	*Option for young offenders to attend a driver awareness course as an alternative to a fine and penalty points for specific motoring offences. (New intervention)* Source: Stakeholder interviews. Increasingly popular in England. Rationale: Provides an incentive for taking part in additional education interventions. Could be used to target offences relating to speeding, and other offences relating to careless and inconsiderate driving.		•	•
D2	Post-court educational interventions for young drivers committing serious traffic offences. Source: Stakeholder interviews, literature review. Rationale: Provides an incentive for those most at risk to take part in additional education interventions. Targets serious offences relating to speeding; careless and inconsiderate driving; ignoring traffic signs; and using a special road contrary to scheme or regulation.		•	•
D3	More strategic and targeted (risk-based) enforcement by police e.g. visiting employers after collisions while driving for work, use of more night patrols, building relationships with ‘cruisers’ etc. Source: Stakeholder interviews, IAM Motoring Trust ( IAM 2008). Rationale: Seeks to influence the behaviour of those most at risk.		•	•
D4	Encourage on and off-duty police officers, and other responsible groups, to report young drivers observed breaking the law (e.g. speeding, mobile phone use) so that a warning letter can be issued. Source: Stakeholder interviews. Trialled by some Scottish Police authorities. Rationale: Seeks to identify and influence the behaviour of those most at risk.		•	•
D5	Amendment to existing legislation to make not wearing a seat-belt an endorsable offence which could result in penalty points on a driver’s licence²¹. (New intervention – Not just a young driver intervention) Source: Stakeholder interviews. Northern Ireland example. Rationale: DfT has identified lack of seat belt wearing as one of five key factors associated with collisions involving younger and older drivers (Department for Transport (2008a). Non-use of seatbelts is a contributory factor in collisions related to social driving at night and weekends, particularly in the context of passengers travelling in the rear seats (IAM, 2008).			•

Table 6.5 – Intervention Type E – Use of technology

E	Description	Driving competency	Attitude/ Behaviour	Preventative	Broader driving issues
E1	*Mandatory use of technology such as event or continuous data recorders, Intelligent Speed Adaptation devices, and alcolocks for young driver offenders. (New intervention)* Source: Literature review, stakeholder interviews, IAM (2008). Rationale: Seeks to regulate driving or encourage better driving, and minimise exposure to risk.			•
E2	Raise awareness of the role of new and existing technologies (including data recorders, alcolocks, sat-navs, anti-lock braking systems, air-bags, etc.) amongst young drivers, employers, and parents. Source: Literature review, stakeholder interviews, IAM (2008), international example (e.g. Safety Halls in Sweden – see Appendix A). Rationale: Interventions which encourage young drivers to drive ‘safer’ should reduce the number and severity of collisions. In-car safety features have contributed to reduced casualties in recent years.			•

Table 6.6 – Intervention Type F – Encouragement and leadership, including incentives and working with the private sector

F	Description	Driving competency	Attitude/ Behaviour	Preventative	Broader driving issues
F1	Require all tenderers for Government contracts to have a Managing Occupational Road Risk (MORR) policy in place, with a focus on young drivers, where appropriate. (New intervention) Source: Stakeholder interviews. Also proposed in Scotland’s Road Safety Framework. Rationale: Between 25% and 33% of road traffic accidents in Great Britain involve somebody who was using the road for work purposes²². Intervention seeks to ensure that young drivers are adequately prepared to drive at work. Ensures working practices do not encourage unsafe driving practices.				•
F2	*Strengthened Health and Safety at Work legislation, mandating specific risk assessment for young people. (New intervention)* Source: Stakeholder interviews. On a related issue, RoSPA has been campaigning to have the driving seat recognised by the Health and Safety Executive as a place of work, and a number of organisations including BRAKE, RoSPA and the TUC have called for all road accidents involving a driver who was working at the time to be reported under RIDDOR²³ in order to get more accurate road injury statistics and help raise the profile of young driver safety amongst employers²⁴. Rationale: Between 25% and 33% of road traffic accidents in Great Britain involve somebody who was using the road for work purposes²⁵. Intervention seeks to ensure that young drivers are adequately prepared to drive at work. Ensures working practices do not encourage unsafe driving practices.	•		•
F3	More information about insurance products that are tailored to young drivers. This option could be combined with other education and awareness options (Type A). Source: Stakeholder interviews. Rationale: Seeks to raise awareness about insurance-based incentives offered to young drivers who are able to demonstrate that they have taken actions to ensure safe driving behaviour.				•
F4	More information for young drivers about the makes models and features that help reduce insurance premiums. This option could be combined with other education and awareness options (Type B). Source: Stakeholder interviews. Rationale: Seeks to encourage young drivers to purchase vehicles which have been shown to be associated with low collision rates.				•
F5	More information for employers regarding their role in young driver safety and guidance on how they can best perform this role, drawing on RoSPA’s Young Driver at Work project, benefits of eco-driving, and the use of data recorders in vehicles used to drive for work. Source: Literature review (e.g. RoSPA, 2009), stakeholder interviews. Rationale: Between 25% and 33% of road traffic accidents in Great Britain involve somebody who was using the road for work purposes²⁶. Intervention seeks to ensure that young drivers are adequately prepared to drive at work.	•	•		•
F6	*Encourage employers to recognise additional driver training qualifications. (New intervention)* Source: Study brief. RoSPA has been particularly proactive in encouraging employers to consider the safety of young drivers at work, through its Young Driver at Work Project (see Appendix A). Rationale: Between 25% and 33% of road traffic accidents in Great Britain involve somebody who was using the road for work purposes²⁷. Intervention seeks to ensure that young drivers are adequately prepared to drive at work. Ensures working practices do not encourage unsafe driving practices.	•	•		•
F7	More information for parents regarding their role in young driver safety and guidance on how they can best perform this role (including advice on parent-young person agreements). Source: Scotland’s Road Safety Framework (Scottish Government (2009a). literature review (parent-young person agreements), stakeholder interviews. Rationale: Parents have a significant impact on young drivers from an early age, in terms of influencing behaviour and attitudes, providing support and advice, influencing how and when a young person learns to drive, providing financial support for professional driving lessons, and allowing the family car to be used for supervised practice (or purchasing a car for the learner).	•	•		•
F8	Further measures to improve public transport availability at night, in conjunction with ‘reduce mileage/don’t travel’ messages. This option could be combined with other education and awareness options (Type B). Source: Study brief. Rationale: Trains and buses are safe modes in comparison to travel by car, and greater use of these options by young people will lead to both safety and environmental benefits. McKenna (2010b) suggests that major interventions (e.g. free bus passes) to stimulate public transport use by older age groups are quite common and could be extended to young people in order to reduce the habit of car driving before it has started.			•	•
F9	Much greater coverage of eco-driving techniques into education and awareness courses for learner or new drivers or employers, highlighting the financial benefits of such an approach. This option could be combined with other education and awareness options (Type B). Source: Literature review, stakeholder interviews. Rationale: The principles behind eco-driving – planning ahead, preparing early for junctions, traffic lights and so on, maintaining a consistent steady speed – are all measures that make people safe drivers; and also deliver financial savings (see Appendix A). An eco-driving approach could be covered in education interventions for pre-drivers and be given greater coverage within the current practical driving test²⁸.		•		•

6.2 Detailed assessment

The interventions identified above have been assessed against a range of criteria to inform the recommendations. The criteria are broadly based on those used in the Scottish Transport Appraisal Guidance (STAG), and include: evidence of effectiveness, support and/or acceptability amongst young people and parents/carers, risks including deliverability and enforcement issues, affordability, and broader impacts on young people.

Interventions have been categorised as ‘weak’, ‘moderate’, and ‘strong’ (or for the broader impacts on young people low, medium and high) against each of the above criteria, drawing on evidence from existing research and from the debate.

The process represents a high level and primarily qualitative assessment rather than a detailed appraisal of the proposed interventions.

It is recognised that this type of approach will always involve an element of subjectivity in terms of how the interventions are scored. However, it should be noted that the process is designed to help compare options, illustrate some of the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches, highlight issues for further consideration, and inform the recommendations in Chapter 7. No attempt has been made to weight the various criteria or, score or rank different options.

A more detailed description of the assessment criteria is presented in Appendix E, along with a summary of the assessment results.

Recommendations are made for the majority of interventions listed in Table 6.1 to 6.6, and are presented in Chapter 7. Recommendations have not been made for a small number of interventions where the evidence considered in the assessment process suggests that it is not appropriate to do so, for one or more of the following reasons:

significant deliverability challenges have been identified (e.g. B2), and
the evidence of effectiveness suggests that the intervention will have little impact on young driver safety (e.g. D2).