Two-phase driver education models applied in Finland and in Austria – Do we have evidence to support the two phase models?

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2009.11.002Get rights and content

Abstract

Finnish and Austrian driver education models were analysed in order to find out existing and new evidence to support obligatory 2nd phase driver education. Earlier findings showed that the safety benefits of the 2nd phase education courses are contradictory. Furthermore, the goal and the content of the 2nd phase education have changed from simple slippery track practices to preventive risk awareness education. In addition, it has been suggested that the timing of the second phase education should not be too far from the 1st phase of the education.

The empirical part of this study consisted of two separate questionnaires to the Finnish and the Austrian novice drivers. The candidates that had completed the Austrian 2nd phase education reported less traffic offences and accidents than the not completed participants. The ANCOVA-models indicated that the Finnish participants, who completed early the 2nd phase education, reported having benefited only of the economical driving training but not of the safety related driving competency areas. For the Austrian participants the ANOVA-models did not show any self-assessed safe driving benefits. Implications of the findings to the driving education were discussed.

Introduction

Driver licensing systems can be divided into three classes (OECD/ECMT, 2006, Twisk and Stacey, 2007). In a traditional or probationary licensing system, accompanied training and practice precede theoretical and practical tests. A full driving license may be issued directly after passed tests or after a probationary period. It is also common to apply different requirements prior to tests (like mandatory training) or in the probation period (like stricter demerit points). In a two-phase licensing system, the education is divided into two obligatory phases. In a graduated licensing system (GDL) the conditions change progressively as the drivers’ driving experience increases, to guarantee low-risk conditions for the learner drivers. GDL-systems are often divided into three stages: learner, provisional and fully licensed.

Obligatory two-phase driving education models exist in Finland, Austria, Luxemburg and Switzerland. German voluntary 2nd phase education can be considered as a variation of the two-phase system. In addition, an obligatory 2nd phase education exists in Estonia. Slovenia, Lithuania and Croatia are going to introduce their obligatory 2nd phase education models in the year of 2010. Furthermore, these 2nd phase education models will mainly be based on the Austrian and Swiss experiences. On the other hand, in recent European Union co-financed study (SUPREME, 2007) national road safety related best practices were evaluated. In that study, none of the two-phase driving education models were assessed as best, good or even promising practices to improve safety of the novice drivers. However, a recent evaluation study of the 2nd phase system in Austria (Gatscha & Brandstaetter 2008) suggested promising results regarding serious accidents among young, novice drivers.

Norway was the first country to introduce a 2nd phase driver education model in the year of 1979. The biggest change compared to the Norwegian former education model was that the new obligatory 2nd phase education included slippery track training and nighttime driving practices. A follow-up study (Glad, 1988) showed unwanted results. Male novice drivers’ accidents increased 17% and their slippery road accidents even 23%. The explanation for the negative results was that the new education model probably increased novice drivers’ self-confidence, which in turn produced negative safety effects. Nevertheless, a positive result in terms of reduction of the night-time accidents was reported (Glad, 1988). Norway let go of their obligatory 2nd phase education in the year of 1994.

Finland introduced a two-phase driver education model in the year of 1989. A description of the Finnish model is presented in Table 1. The objective of the Finnish renewal was to reduce novice drivers’ accidents. In addition, the Norwegian experiences had shown that slippery track training may include even negative safety effects, especially if the emphasis focuses too much on the maneuvering skills. Still, the contents of the Finnish 2nd phase education were mostly adopted from the Norwegians.

The results of the first follow-up study (Keskinen, Hatakka, Katila, & Laapotti, 1992) were not promising. Novice drivers’ (18–21 years) slippery road accidents increased 2.7%, while in the same time the number of the accidents among the older (22–50 years) drivers decreased 9.4%. The sample was randomly selected 40 977 novice drivers, of which 74.7% returned the questionnaire. About half of the participants had completed the new 2nd phase driving education.

Katila (1998) picked another sample to assess long-term effects of the Finnish 2nd phase education. Returned answers of the 1007 novice drivers (0.5–1 years driven) were compared to the 547 from more experienced ones (4–5 years driven). The results indicated, again, that especially the more experienced drivers seemed to have benefited of the 2nd phase education. In addition, a reduction was found also in the novice drivers’ accidents. After the amount of exposure was controlled, the accident reduction accounted for 6.6% in the group of 18–20 years old male drivers and 22% in the group of male drivers older than 20 years. Since the sample was not identical to the first follow-up study, and included biased age proportions, other explanations for the results cannot be excluded completely.

Laapotti, Keskinen, Hatakka, & Katila (1998) tested different conditions for the 2nd phase education in five Finnish driving schools. The results showed that educational benefits could be gained by changing the order of the theoretical and practical training. The best results were obtained when the practical education preceded the theoretical education. In addition, practical exercises and demonstrations were shown to benefit of the activating practices and participation of the other candidates. The role of the theoretical education was considered as important because of its potential to increase drivers’ risk awareness.

Laapotti et al. (2003) sent a questionnaire to 19 231 Finnish novice drivers, who had had their category B driving license issued 0.5–54 months earlier. The questionnaire was sent during the summer of 2002, and it produced 9305 returned answers. The results showed that males completed their 2nd phase course earlier (m = 15.7 months) than females (m = 17.6 months). Of the men about 22% and of the women about 15% had completed the 2nd phase course at latest a year after their licensing. Males drove more (m = 19 222 km) before the 2nd phase education than females (m = 10 971 km). About half of the drivers’ driving exposure related to leisure time or fun driving. In addition, females reported more often than men to have safety related attitudes, less violations and less accidents. After the amount of exposure was controlled, no systematical differences existed between the driving school and private education candidates. Late (18–24 months after licensing) participation in the 2nd phase education was related to the weakest reduction of accidents. An average participation (13–17 months after licensing) produced the best accident reduction effect, as the quickest participation (6–12 months after licensing) produced the second best result. Minimum damage for an accident was considered to be 500€ in the study.

Katila and Keskinen (2003) evaluated the Finnish driving education and examination model. The empirical part of their study included an analysis of the Finnish Novice Driver questionnaire data from 1999 to 2001. The questionnaire was sent four times a year to 2000 drivers, whose category B driving license was issued 1 year earlier. Thus, about every fifth Finnish novice driver obtains the questionnaire. The questionnaire includes questions of the exposure, accidents and violations, as well as a question about the necessity of the 2nd phase driving education. Completion of the 2nd phase education or the type of driving instruction (driving school versus private) was not related to the exposure, accidents or violations. Of the men 27.1% and of the women 19.1% had completed their 2nd phase education at latest 1 year after their licensing. One third of the participants considered the 2nd phase education either necessary or very necessary as one third of the participants considered it unnecessary or very unnecessary. Younger (18–20 years) drivers considered their 2nd phase education necessary or very necessary more often (32%) than the drivers over 20 years (46%). Katila and Keskinen (2003, p. 37) concluded that if the safety effects of a licensing system are being looked after, then the system should be looked as a whole and not to reduce it to components.

The Austrian two-phase driver education model (described in Table 1) was introduced in the beginning of the year 2003. The aim of the renewal was to decrease the number of novice drivers’ accidents by a continuous and harmonious driver education. The post-license modules were developed by following experiences of other countries like Finland and Luxemburg as well as the results of the European Union co-financed projects DAN Bartl, 2000, ADVANCED, 2002. An early evaluation of the system was carried out in 2004 (Gatscha & Smuc, 2004). The questionnaire included questions regarding safety relevant attitudes, accidents, violations, theoretical and practical driving test passing rates as well as satisfaction with the new modules. In co-operation with the Austrian Federal Computing Centre, questionnaires were sent to randomly selected category B license novice drivers aged 18 and 19, who had completed their 2nd phase training module. Of the 2500 participants, 1142 returned the questionnaire. The group of novice drivers that had not yet had the possibility to conduct the 2nd phase education (control group in terms of age, sex and exposure) had earlier received a similar questionnaire in the year of 2002 as a part of the BASIC-project (Hatakka et al., 2003).

With respect to self-reported attitudes or traffic violations, no differences between the groups were found. Of the standard educated male novice drivers 72.7% reported that they had not been involved in traffic accidents, whereas the same proportion for their 2nd phase educated counterparts was 76.4% respectively. Most of the novice drivers were satisfied with the new educational modules, as the mean of their assessment grades for the modules was between very good and good. Furthermore, both education groups reported equal pass rates in the theoretical and practical tests. A decrease in the pass rates was expected because the requirements to control the costs after the renewal lowered the number of theoretical lessons 20% and practical lessons 10%.

A recent accident analysis (Gatscha & Brandstaetter, 2008) showed that the number of personal injury accidents among 18-year-old novice drivers reduced continuously in all regions of Austria after the renewal of about 28% in the first year of driving, whereas the number of the comparable accidents among a comparable group of older drivers (24–30 years old) did not change significantly. Nevertheless, single vehicle accidents remained the most common accident type within personal injury accidents among the 18-year-old drivers.

During the last 30 years, the emphasis of the 2nd phase driver education has shifted from the simple slippery track driving practices to other ones, like increasing novice drivers’ risk awareness. In the same time, teaching methods have changed to concentrate more on activating and motivating the learner with various ways, like group discussions (Hatakka et al., 2002, HERMES, 2008) or demonstrative safety halls (SUPREME, 2007). The evidence also suggests that the content, emphasis and even the timing of the 2nd phase education are important determinants for the effective function of the system. As about 20 years old, the structure of the Finnish 2nd phase education has not changed. Most of the time is spent with the activities on a slippery track. About 5 years old Austrian 2nd phase education, on the other hand, focuses more on the social- and risk-avoidance behavior of the novice drivers. A comparison of the models is presented in Table 1.

The purpose of the empirical part of the study was to examine further, if the Finnish or Austrian novice drivers, who have finished their 2nd phase education, report to gain any subjective benefit from the driver education, compared to the participants that have not conducted their 2nd phase education. Since the questionnaires and the procedures used in the Finnish and Austrian studies are different, the results must be interpreted within the country concerned.

Section snippets

Finnish

A number of 2000 Finnish novice drivers (who had had a category B driving license for 1 year) were randomly selected from the Finnish Driver Examination Register four times a year between the years 2000–2007. They (N = 64 000) received the Finnish Novice Driver questionnaire that 22 141 of them (an average 35%) answered voluntarily. Because of the self-selection bias the participants cannot be considered to represent all of the Finnish novice drivers. Nevertheless, the bias was systematical between

Finnish

Finnish participants’ mean amount of driven kilometers during the first licensing year was 12 373 (SD = 15 674). This consisted of an average 2644 km (SD = 7807) of professional driving, an average 3573 km (SD = 5334) of other goal related driving and an average 4108 km (SD = 6239) of leisure time driving.

Of the participants 71.8% reported that they had not been involved in any accidents (not even in minor ones) in their first year of driving. No difference was found between the completed and not completed

Discussion

Thirty years of experience of the 2nd phase driver education has shifted the emphasis from the slippery track driving practices to other preventive measures, especially increasing novice drivers’ risk awareness. The existing evidence of the 2nd phase education suggests contradictory safety effects. Nevertheless, apart from the safety effects, the educational arrangements, didactical settings as well as goal setting and timing have been found to have an influence on the 2nd phase education.

References (18)

  • S. Mynttinen et al.

    Are novice drivers overconfident? A comparison of self-assessed and examiner-assessed driver competences in a Finnish and Swedish sample

    Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

    (2009)
  • D.A.M. Twisk et al.

    Trends in young driver risk and countermeasures in European countries

    Journal of Safety Research

    (2007)
  • ADVANCED (2002). Final report of the EU-Project ADVANCED: Description and analysis of post-licence driver and rider...
  • Bartl, G. (2000). Final report of the EU-Project DAN: Description and analysis of post licensing measures for novice...
  • De Craen, S., Twisk, D. A. M., Hagenzieker, M. P., Elffers, H., & Brookhuis, K. A. (2006). Do young novice drivers...
  • Gatscha, M., & Brandstaetter, C. (2008). Evaluation der zweiten Ausbildungsphase in Österreich [Evaluation of the...
  • Gatscha, M., & Smuc, M. (2004). Evaluation of the 2nd phase system in Austria. In Final report of the EU-project NovEV...
  • Glad, A. (1988). Fase 2 I foreopplaringen. Effect på ulykkes risikoen [Driver Education’s second phase. Its effect to...
  • M. Hatakka et al.

    From control of the vehicle to personal self-control; broadening the perspectives to driver education

    Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour

    (2002)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (9)

  • A randomized controlled evaluation study of the effects of a one-day advanced rider training course

    2015, Accident Analysis and Prevention
    Citation Excerpt :

    The results showed that the new generation advanced driver training, can still lead to overestimation of skills. Moreover, the results of a recent questionnaire survey (Mynttinen et al., 2010) into the advanced driver training in Finland and Austria showed a negative effect on driver safety of young drivers. The risk awareness of the Finnish young drivers was even lower after taking the advanced driver training.

  • Finnish novice drivers' competences - Successful driving test candidates 2000-2009 evaluated by driving examiners

    2011, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour
    Citation Excerpt :

    The first phase of driver education prepares the novice drivers for the risky independent practice period that follows success in the driving test. In the second phase training course, the achieved driving competences and experiences are refreshed and developed further (AKE, 2005; Mynttinen, Gatscha, Koivukoski, Hakuli, & Keskinen, 2009). In the first phase of the driver education, Finnish candidates have to take at least 20 theoretical lessons (at 45 min per lesson).

  • Developed nations

    2016, Handbook of Teen and Novice Drivers: Research, Practice, Policy, and Directions
View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text