School start times and teenage driver motor vehicle crashes.

INTRODUCTION: Shifting school start times to 8:30 am or later has been found to improve academic performance and reduce behavior problems. Limited research suggests this may also reduce adolescent driver motor vehicle crashes. A change in the school start time from 7:30 am to 8:45 am for all public high schools in one North Carolina county presented the opportunity to address this question with greater methodologic rigor. METHOD: We conducted ARIMA interrupted time-series analyses to examine motor vehicle crash rates of high school age drivers in the intervention county and 3 similar comparison counties with comparable urban-rural population distribution. To focus on crashes most likely to be affected, we limited analysis to crashes involving 16- & 17-year-old drivers occurring on days when school was in session. RESULTS: In the intervention county, there was a 14% downward shift in the time-series following the 75 min delay in school start times (p = .076). There was no change approaching statistical significance in any of the other three counties. Further analysis indicated marked, statistically significant shifts in hourly crash rates in the intervention county, reflecting effects of the change in school start time on young driver exposure. Crashes from 7 to 7:59 am decreased sharply (-25%, p = .008), but increased similarly from 8 to 8:59 am (21%, p = .004). Crashes from 2 to 2:59 pm declined dramatically (-48%, p = .000), then increased to a lesser degree from 3 to 3:59 pm (32%, p = .024) and non-significantly from 4 to 4:59 (19%, p = .102). There was no meaningful change in early morning or nighttime crashes, when drowsiness-induced crashes might have been expected to be most common. DISCUSSION: The small decrease in crashes among high school age drivers following the shift in school start time is consistent with the findings of other studies of teen driver crashes and school start times. All these studies, including the present one, have limitations, but the similar findings suggest that crashes and school start times are indeed related, with earlier start times equating to more crashes. CONCLUSION: Later high school start times (>8:30 am) appear to be associated with lower adolescent driver crash rates, but additional research is needed to confirm this and to identify the mechanism by which this occurs (reduced drowsiness or reduced exposure).

Supervised hours requirements in graduated driver licensing: Effectiveness and parental awareness.

Most states require teens to complete a certain number of hours of supervised driving practice to obtain a license to drive unsupervised. Although widely implemented, the effect of requiring supervised practice is largely unknown. Using auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) interrupted time-series analysis, we found no change in fatal and injury crash involvement of 16-17-year-old drivers in Minnesota following enactment of a 30h supervised driving requirement. To supplement and provide insight into these findings, we conducted telephone interviews with parents of newly licensed teenage drivers in five states with varying amounts of required supervised driving, including Minnesota. Interviews revealed awareness of supervised driving requirements was limited. Only a third of parents (32%) overall could correctly identify the number of hours their state required. In Minnesota only 15% of parents could identify the amount of supervised driving their teen was required to complete. Awareness of the number of hours required was substantially higher (55%) in Maryland. Unlike the other states, Maryland requires submission of a driving log detailing the hours of supervised driving. The findings suggest states need to develop more effective mechanisms to ensure parents are aware of supervised hours requirements.

Effect of North Carolina's restriction on teenage driver cell phone use two years after implementation.

A majority of states now restrict teenagers from using a mobile communication device while driving. The effect of these restrictions is largely unknown. In a previous study, we found North Carolina's teenage driver cell phone restriction had little influence on young driver behavior four months after the law took effect (Foss et al., 2009). The goal of the present study was to examine the longer-term effect of North Carolina's cell phone restriction. It was expected that compliance with the restriction would increase, as awareness of the restriction grew over time. Teenagers were observed at high schools in North Carolina approximately two years after the law was implemented. Observations were also conducted in South Carolina, which did not have a cell phone restriction. In both states, there was a broad decrease in cell phone use. A logistic regression analysis showed the decrease in cell phone use did not significantly differ between the two states. Although hand-held cell phone use decreased, there was an increase in the likelihood that drivers in North Carolina were observed physically manipulating a phone. Finally, a mail survey of teenagers in North Carolina showed awareness for the cell phone restriction now stands at 78% among licensed teens. Overall, the findings suggest North Carolina's cell phone restriction has had no long-term effect on the behavior of teenage drivers. Moreover, it appears many teenage drivers may be shifting from talking on a phone to texting.

Talking and texting among teenage drivers: a glass half empty or half full?

OBJECTIVE: Cell phone use and text messaging in particular are associated with an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes. However, the frequency with which teenagers use cell phones while driving is still largely unknown. METHODS: The current study obtained self-reported cell phone use behaviors while driving, including text messaging, along with beliefs about these actions, for a sample of licensed teenage drivers. Questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of 1947 high-school-age teens in 2 large metropolitan areas in North Carolina. Questionnaires were completed and returned by 537 teens, of whom 320 had an intermediate or full driver's license. RESULTS: In total, 45 percent of teens reported using a cell phone in some capacity during their most recent trip. Fifteen percent reported that they only talked on a cell phone, 15 percent sent or read a text message only, and 15 percent both talked and texted. More generally, 12 percent of teens reported that they often talked on a cell phone while driving, 4 percent reported that they often initiated a text conversation while driving, 11 percent said that they often replied to texts, and 23 percent often read text messages. Teens reported using several strategies to reduce the risk associated with using a cell phone while driving. Among teens who had ever talked on a cell phone while driving, 47 percent said that they try to keep their conversations short because they are driving. Among teens who had ever texted while driving, approximately half said that they often wait until it feels safe to read and reply to text messages (58% and 47%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Most teens surveyed reported having talked or read or sent a text message using a cell phone while driving. Somewhat less than half engaged in one of these behaviors the last time they drove. However, many teens reported using strategies to reduce this risk and in certain instances, cell phone nonuse was the normative behavior. Better measurement of the extent and nature of phone use while driving is needed.