A New Scheme for Young Novice Drivers                in Germany                                      Dr. Walter Funk      ...
Highest crash risk of novice driversProblem:• Highest crash risk as a car                                        Rate per ...
Tackling young novice driver risk: Extended learning       period through „Accompanied Driving“Solution:Extending the     ...
Pre-conditions to participate in the model• From the age of 16 ½: Start of the mandatory pre-licence  training and educati...
Qualifications of the experienced attendants                    (supervising drivers)The attendant (supervising driver):• ...
Chronology of surveys in the panelPanel Wave 1                           Panel Wave 2          Panel Wave 3          Panel...
Young novice drivers and most frequent attendants              (supervising drivers)Novice drivers in the sample of the pr...
Impulse for participating in the accompanied driving      model (as stated by the novice driver)                          ...
Difficulties in finding an attendant (supervising driver)?              (as stated by the novice driver)                  ...
Youth: Reasons for delayed driving licence acquisition• Time management problems  (didn’t manage it earlier, started drive...
Youth: Reasons for participating in the model• Wish to drive a car (instrumental motive)  [explaining 15.3 % of the varian...
Parents: Reasons for participating in the model• Help and support for their children [explaining 14.6 % of  the variance] ...
Mean daily mileage of all model participants                                 Significant difference                       ...
Mean daily mileage of mobile model participants                            Significant difference                         ...
Mean monthly mileage of all model participants                                Significant difference                      ...
Extrapolation of the mean monthly mileage                        to the mean total mileage in the model scheme            ...
Categories of driving time of the mobile model       participants – reference week of the 1st panel wave                  ...
Most frequent destinations of the model participants in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible)                  ...
Most frequent destinations of the model participants in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible)                  ...
Most frequent destinations of the model participants in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible)                  ...
Most frequent destinations of the model participants in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible)                  ...
Subjective indicators of building driving experience:          During the last four weeks felt unsure …                   ...
Subjective indicators of building driving experience:     During the last four weeks felt unsure …                        ...
Subjective indicators of building driving experience –                                            as seen by the youth    ...
Summary (1 of 4)• Impetus for participating in the accompanied driving  model scheme:  - largely from the youth themselves...
Summary (2 of 4)• Reasons of the youth to participate in the model  scheme:  - request to drive a car (instrumental motive...
Summary (3 of 4)• Mileage in the model: - Per day:    Ø 9.3 km (all), Ø 24.0 km (mobile youth) - Per week: Ø 65.0 km (all)...
Summary (4 of 4)• Subjective perception of the youth:Strong indicators for building driving experienceFurthermore (as surv...
ConclusionThe accompanied driving model can be characterized by:• easy access     Recommendation:     To encourage youth –...
Thank you very much for your attention!                               For more information and                        list...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Praesentation Walter Funk Icdbt 2011 Paris

360 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
360
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Praesentation Walter Funk Icdbt 2011 Paris

  1. 1. A New Scheme for Young Novice Drivers in Germany Dr. Walter Funk Institute for Empirical Sociology at theFriedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany) Wednesday 30 November 2011, 14 p.m., Salon Parisien, Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- 01/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  2. 2. Highest crash risk of novice driversProblem:• Highest crash risk as a car Rate per million kilometres driver is initially after Accidents (offences) in Central licensing (in Germany up Register of Traffic Offenders till now right from age 18 males away as „full privileged“ driver) females• Substantial decrease of Years since licensure crash risk with increased driving experience (minus (cf. SCHADE 2001) 50% during the first 9 months, minus 90% during the first 2.6 years of driving) Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- 02/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  3. 3. Tackling young novice driver risk: Extended learning period through „Accompanied Driving“Solution:Extending the Extended learning periodrelatively short through “Accompanied Driving from 17”formal driver age 16 age 17 age 18education in learning period up to 18 month Learning period: up to 18 monthsprofessional“driving schools” driver training/ driving test only accompanied driving Begleitetes Fahrenby a period in solo driving allowed driver trainingwhich the novice Process evaluation driving testis only allowed to Learning period: 3 3 to 6months learning period to 6 monthdrive while beingaccompanied by (cf. WILLMES-LENZ 2008: 137)an experienceddriver. Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- 03/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  4. 4. Pre-conditions to participate in the model• 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 same formal 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); Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- 04/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  5. 5. Qualifications of the experienced attendants (supervising drivers)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); Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- 05/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  6. 6. Chronology of surveys in the panelPanel Wave 1 Panel Wave 2 Panel Wave 3 Panel Wave 4Feb. 30, 2007 March 01, 2008 April 30, 2008 July 04, 2008 Attendant’s (Supervising (n = 1,735; driver’s) 45.9 %) questionnaireParticipant’s Participant’s Participant’s Participant’squestionnaire questionnaire questionnaire questionnaire Closure Closure Closure Closurequestionnaire questionnaire questionnaire questionnaire (n = 3,780; (n = 3,088; (n = 1,652; (n = 1,118; 60.9 %) 81.7 %) 85.1 %) 93.0 %) Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 2-2) 6/30
  7. 7. Young novice drivers and most frequent attendants (supervising drivers)Novice drivers in the sample of the processevaluation (n = 3,780):• sex: 48.5 % male, 51.5 % female;• education: 66.8 % pupils, 31.6 % apprenticesMost frequent attendants (supervising drivers)(according to the youth):• female,• 40-49 years old,• living in the same household with the novice driver; = own mother Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, sections 3.3 and 4.4) 7/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  8. 8. Impulse for participating in the accompanied driving model (as stated by the novice driver) 90 85.7 80Percentage of respondents 70 60 Multiple responses possible 55.8 (n = 3,047 respondents) 50 40 35.1 30 20 8,4 10.9 10 6.5 1.4 0 Myself My parents Peers Other Other non- Col- Other relatives relatives leagues motivation Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-7) 8/30
  9. 9. Difficulties in finding an attendant (supervising driver)? (as stated by the novice driver) 90 84,8 80Percentage of respondents 70 60 Multiple responses possible 50 (n = 3.680 respondents) 40 30 20 10,7 10 5,4 5,2 0,9 0,7 0 None Younger Holding Too many Other reason No parental than age 30 drivers demerit assent licence less points than three years Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-16); 9/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  10. 10. Youth: Reasons for delayed driving licence acquisition• Time management problems (didn’t manage it earlier, started driver training later because of lack of time or training lasted longer than planned)• Financial problems (started driver training later or training lasted longer because of 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) Institute for Empirical Sociology Multiple responses: 5,892 answers from 2,938 respondents; at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-3) 10/30
  11. 11. Youth: Reasons for participating in the model• Wish to drive a car (instrumental motive) [explaining 15.3 % of the variance] (probation time will end sooner; to sit behind the wheel as soon as 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) Institute for Empirical Sociology Multiple responses: 14,329 answers from 3,206 respondents; at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-8) 11/30
  12. 12. Parents: 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) Institute for Empirical Sociology Multiple responses: 6,536 answers from 1,720 respondents; at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-14) 12/30
  13. 13. Mean daily mileage of all model participants Significant difference Previous School- Educa- Region Regional length of leaving Total Sex tional of type model qualification status origin participation of parentsMean daily m ileage in km 20 Mean Median 15,6 14,5 15 14,9 13,5 13,4 13,8 13,2 13,3 13,2 12,8 12,4 13,1 13,0 12,2 11,6 12,1 10 10,0 10,7 10,5 10,4 9,3 9,6 9,3 9,3 9,3 9,7 8,3 8,6 8,6 8,5 8,1 7,9 5 0 1) 7) 2) 8) 8) ) ) ) ) ) 3) ) ) ) ) ) 69 64 48 03 25 32 42 60 79 25 2 72 14 59 5 3 .2 .5 .2 .6 .3 =7 =7 .0 .0 .6 =5 =7 .2 2. n= 1. =3 =1 =1 =1 =1 =1 =1 =2 =1 (n (n n= (n n= (n l( (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n (n s s l( ra l( s es th th th e e d l e s pi es ve Ru n ve at al al ne ze th on on tio on Pu at -le St M -le m on ni ai M M a M St Fe O ba Tr O er d. M 3 6 2 d. ll 1- 4- Fe om > Ur -1 9 Ti Fe 7- 10 w gl d Ne Ag Ol All model participants (including immobile ones); Questioned at all four panel waves; Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 5-25) 13/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  14. 14. Mean daily mileage of mobile model participants Significant difference Previous School- Educa- Region length of leaving Regional Total Sex tional of model qualification type status origin participation of parentsMean daily mileage in km 36,5 Mean Median 37,6 40 35,0 34,1 32,1 33,7 31,7 34,1 33,0 32,4 31,3 31,2 31,3 32,1 30,1 28,5 30 26,3 26,2 27,3 26,1 20 24,0 24,3 24,6 23,3 23,3 24,3 25,1 25,0 22,5 23,0 23,0 21,0 10 0 ) 6) ) ) ) ) ) 6) ) 9) ) ) ) ) 4) 9) 41 65 38 07 07 03 40 85 51 83 75 53 04 28 0 7 .5 =5 .2 .0 .1 =6 =6 =7 .5 =7 =9 .5 .0 1. 2. 1. =2 =1 =1 =1 =1 =1 =3 (n (n (n (n (n (n n= n= n= (n (n (n (n (n (n (n s s es al s e l( l( l( th th th ne es ed s n ur e e ve at pi ve th io al al on on on ai at R St iz Pu -le -le m at M on Tr M M St an M Fe O er d. O M 3 6 2 rb d. m Fe ll 1- 4- > -1 9 Fe Ti U lo 7- 10 ew gg ld N A O Only actual mobile model participants; Questioned at all four panel waves; Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 5-40) 14/30
  15. 15. Mean monthly mileage of all model participants Significant difference School- Region Previous Educa- length of Total Sex leaving of Regional tional model qualification origin type status participation of parentsMean monthly mileage in km 335,0 372,7 333,7 357,3 333,7 375 318,5 324,0 320,1 316,0 320,1 303,2 294,5 311,0 293,8 293,7 301,6 300 225 150 75 0 ) 6) ) ) 5) ) ) ) 8) ) ) ) ) ) ) 7) 42 79 64 25 03 07 59 80 84 59 96 11 54 08 29 0 .5 =5 .0 =6 =6 .1 .2 =7 .6 =7 =9 .4 .1 1. 2. 1. =2 =1 =1 =1 =1 =1 =3 (n (n (n (n (n (n n= n= n= (n (n (n (n (n (n (n s s es al e s l( l( l( ed th th th ne es s n ur e e ve at pi ve th io al al on on on iz ai at R St Pu -le -le m at M on an Tr M M St M Fe O er d. O M rb 3 6 2 d. m Fe ll 1- 4- > -1 9 U Fe Ti lo 7- 10 ew gg ld N A O All model participants; Questioned at all four panel waves; Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 5-64) 15/30
  16. 16. Extrapolation of the mean monthly mileage to the mean total mileage in the model scheme 4.000 3.766,7 Mean duration of attendance: 8 months; 3.500 Mean mileage during this time: 2,400 km; 3.383,6 3.000 3.057,8Mean mileage in km 2.723,4 2.500 2.395,0 2.000 2.060,4 1.752,5 1.500 1.479,6 1.139,7 1.000 835,5 500 514,6 257,3 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Duration of attendance in months Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 5-68) 16/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  17. 17. Categories of driving time of the mobile model participants – reference week of the 1st panel wave 100% 2,6 2,7 2,0 2,9 3,4 1,8 2,6 2,1 2,3 2,1 2,7 7,9 9,5 Exposure 1,9 2,4 2,4 2,1 time 7,3 2,9 7,7 8,1 7,0 8,7 3,2 3,9 4,1 Longer than 11,5 10,3 1 hour 30 15,3 12,7Percentage of respondents 14,4 13,6 9,9 minutes 75% Up to 1 hour 14,6 30 minutes 16,1 32,4 Up to 1 hour 32,0 15 minutes 33,0 33,4 33,8 50% 29,2 Up to 1 hour 28,0 Up to 45 minutes 25% 41,8 Up to 30 38,1 40,3 minutes 37,2 28,5 35,8 31,9 Up to 15 minutes 0% Monday Tuesday Wednes- Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday day (n = 1,267) (n = 1,264) (n = 1,274) (n = 1,236) (n = 1,491) (n = 1,400) (n = 1,142) Weekday Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 5-71) 17/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  18. 18. Most frequent destinations of the model participants in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible) School, vocational training, work 70 Household chores Private trips 60 Leisure tripsPercentage of respondents 50 42,8 40,9 40 30 20 9,4 10 0 Monday - Sunday Monday - Friday Saturday - Sunday (n=2,833) (n=2,594) (n=1,911) Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 5-16) 18/30
  19. 19. Most frequent destinations of the model participants in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible) School, vocational training, work 70 Household chores Private trips 59,7 60 Leisure trips Shopping,Percentage of respondents 52,6 bank, public 50 authorities, 42,8 doctor 40,9 40 etc. 35,1 30 20 9,4 10 0 Monday - Sunday Monday - Friday Saturday - Sunday (n=2,833) (n=2,594) (n=1,911) Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 5-16) 19/30
  20. 20. Most frequent destinations of the model participants in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible) School, vocational training, work 70 64,3 Household chores Private trips 61,9 59,7 60 Leisure trips Family,Percentage of respondents 52,6 visiting friends 50 46,2 etc. 42,8 40,9 40 35,1 30 20 9,4 10 0 Monday - Sunday Monday - Friday Saturday - Sunday (n=2,833) (n=2,594) (n=1,911) Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 5-16) 20/30
  21. 21. Most frequent destinations of the model participants in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible) School, vocational training, work 70 64,3 Household chores Private trips 61,9 59,7 60 Leisure trips Sport,Percentage of respondents 52,6 Hobby etc. 50 46,2 42,0 42,8 40,9 40 36,6 35,1 30 28,3 20 9,4 10 0 Monday - Sunday Monday - Friday Saturday - Sunday (n=2,833) (n=2,594) (n=1,911) Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 5-16) 21/30
  22. 22. Subjective indicators of building driving experience: During the last four weeks felt unsure … 40 3 4 ,0 Wave 1Percentage of unsafe Wave 2 30 Wave 3 novice drivers 2 5, 7 Wave 4 19 , 0 20 12 , 2 10 0 Wa v e 1 Wa v e 2 Wa v e 3 Wa v e 4 (n = 2,254) (n = 1,346) (n = 913) (n = 507) …while ra pidly re s po nding t o unf o re s e e n s it ua t io ns Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 6-19a) 22/30
  23. 23. Subjective indicators of building driving experience: During the last four weeks felt unsure … 40 Wave 1 unsafe novice drivers Wave 2 2 7. 1 Wave 3 Percentage of 30 2 3 .8 Wave 4 17.8 20 10 .3 10 0 Wa v e 1 Wa v e 2 Wa v e 3 Wa v e 4 (n = 3,037) (n = 1,776) (n = 1,140) (n =611) …while c o rre c t ly re c o gnis ing t he int e nt io ns o f o t he r ro a d us e rs Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 6-19a) 23/30
  24. 24. Subjective indicators of building driving experience – as seen by the youth 100% 4,2 6,1 0,5 0,7 0,7 0,7 11,8 1,4 DoesntPercentage of respondents 12,8 8,6 9,1 6,3 90% apply at all 0,6 1,6 1,6 1,5 80% 30,6 27,7 25,7 30,8 Rather 70% 33,0 doesnt 41,6 67,9 apply 60% Partly 50% 29,8 applies 40% Rather 30% 62,1 61,3 57,3 applies 55,7 16,9 20% 43,3 22,1 Totally 2,5 applies 10% 15,9 6,2 1,3 0% I control the I ever more I become I become I sometimes Another I find it difficult car better often look more and more and drive a bit indicator to make out any ahead while more re- more confi- faster than progress in driving laxed while dent while allowed driving driving 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 Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 7-28) 24/30
  25. 25. Summary (1 of 4)• 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 time management Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- 25/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  26. 26. Summary (2 of 4)• 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] Institute for Empirical Sociology at the Friedrich-Alexander- 26/30 University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  27. 27. Summary (3 of 4)• 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)Institute for Empirical Sociologyat the Friedrich-Alexander- 27/30University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  28. 28. Summary (4 of 4)• Subjective perception of the youth:Strong indicators for building driving experienceFurthermore (as surveyed on the level of the FederalStates (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 the model scheme• Federal Motor Transport Authority:Only few violations of the requirement to be accompanied(supervised) no abuse of the accompanied driving modelInstitute for Empirical Sociologyat the Friedrich-Alexander- 28/30University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  29. 29. ConclusionThe accompanied driving model can be characterized by:• easy access Recommendation: To encourage youth – interested in obtaining a full privileged driver’s licence at age 18 – to start accompanied driving closer to their 17th birthday;• good practicability Recommendation: To encourage the participants to drive more, together with an attendant (supervising driver);• safe implementationInstitute for Empirical Sociologyat the Friedrich-Alexander- 29/30University Erlangen-Nuremberg
  30. 30. Thank you very much for your attention! For more information and list of cited literature please contact: Tel.: ++49 – 911 – 23 565 32 walter.h.funk@ifes.uni-erlangen.deInstitute for Empirical Sociologyat the Friedrich-Alexander- 30/30University Erlangen-Nuremberg

×