The Level of Injury and Fatality in Teens - Assignment Example

Introduction Driving has essentially been a required skill for most people [John, this is a very awkward sentence It has been a dream sought early on by most children nearing their teens. Hence, when that pivotal time comes when they have to take the wheel and start driving, their fulfilled dreams entail the greatest risk among all other driver age groups. Numerous studies have all agreed that teens have significantly higher motor vehicle crash rates compared to older groups especially during the initial six months and within the 1000 and 3000 miles coverage after licensure. (Hartos et al., 2005). This is found to be true in most countries. Moreover, crashes are considered the primary cause of injury and fatality in teens within the 16-19 age brackets. (Morton & Ouimet, 2006). Morton and Ouimet concur with the central finding of numerous researches related to the level of injury and fatality which is highest in teens of the said age bracket. This lays the basic argument that teens are most vulnerable to getting hurt when driving. Because of this, the subject of injury and fatality prevention of researches in vehicular safety has been directed to teens. More than being the primary cause of injury and death in teens, the high risk of driving related incidents to teens also is tantamount to social costs. It has been found that people aged 15 to 24, while representative of only 14% of the entire United States population, are credited for $ 19 billion or 30 percent of the total costs of male vehicular injuries, while females account for $7 billion or 28 percent of the total costs in their gender group. (Finkelstein et al., 2006). In relation to the high risk with teens, the resulting elevated social costs are not surprising. With the government and various agencies realizing this, efforts to address and minimize these costs have been the core of every policy that has been conceptualized and implemented to address this problem.   In the outset, it is but apparent that the logical dual factors attributable to teen drivers bearing the highest risk of vehicular accidents are lack of experience and immaturity. Driving skills and judgment on-the-road need time to be developed and mastered. Young drivers suffer from these insufficiencies hence they are more prone to suffer driving related injuries and deaths. Realizing and recognizing this huge risk, a number of efforts have been established and implemented to minimize and address this concern. Countermeasures are focused on the following areas: promotion of driver education, proper parental management or increased parental involvement and development of appropriate licensing policies. Within the last decade, significant gains have been attributed to the aforementioned methods. A marked decline in the number of novice teen driver related crashes has been achieved. While, studies have attested to the effectiveness of these restrictions, many debates are still ongoing about up to what extent do policy and parental supervision have to play to teenage drivers. With these let us examine the three methods. It must be realized however that the three methods may be offered and administered simultaneously to produce positive results and as such the benefits and disadvantages of each have related effects. Driver’s Education As every part of the driving learning process, driver education has been administered in all states of the United States. All states have laws regarding this and many administer this through the local public school or a commercial driving school certified by the state. According to Christopher Klicka of the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA), a nonprofit organization established to protect and defend to direct the education of their children and freedom of families, traditional programs and methods of relaying driver’s education to teens have been failing. He cites that despite the generally improved statistics on the reduction of traffic-related deaths in the general population, more teens between the ages of 16-20 have died in 2006 as compared to 2005 banking on the results published by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). According to the crash results by NHTSA, in 2006 6,964 teen drivers have killed in crashes compared to only 3,374 in 2005. Klicka believes that the United States posts a higher risk on this area compared to other countries as the US permits the issuance of driver’s licenses at an earlier age relative to other countries. Moreover, the relatively cheap cost of obtaining such licenses contributes to the problem. (Klicka, 2006). Klicka relies on data published by (NHTSA) and to strengthen his argument that traditional programs of driver’s education have been losing its effectiveness. Klicka was right in citing the relatively easy process of issuing licenses in America as compounding the problem. The NHTSA affirms the ease of obtaining licenses for teens as its 2005 data reveals that of the 198.9 million licensed drivers in America in 2004, 12.5 million account for teen drivers aged 15 to 20 years. This translates to roughly 6.3 percent of the total American licensed population illustrating a significant increase of 6.2 percent from the 11.8 million in 1994. (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 2006). The NHTSA highlights the increasing number of teens issued with licenses therefore signifying the growing number of teens engaging in driving. With this, it could be said that the scope of the problem has been increasing as more teens learn to drive. With this, Klicka believes that home school teen driver’s education is the best way to administer this kind of teaching. Moreover, parental involvement is key to the success of this method. This kind of philosophy is associated with homeschooling, which Klicka expressed enables student to produce above average results academically. It is Klicka’s belief that parent-taught driver education makes parents responsible for their child’s safety and it is with this important consideration where the most benefits can be reaped. B Simons-Morton and M C Ouimet agrees that driver’s education is available to teens in varied forms however it is important to note that such education is not seen as being a mandated practice as states have alternatives for the ease of meeting the requirements for driver’s education. They noted that majority of these traditional methods of obtaining driver’s education include classroom training and actual instruction. However, these techniques have no significant positive impact in reducing crashes for teens and hence considered ineffective because of the relatively insufficient number of hours dedicated to classroom and actual behind-the-wheel instruction. It could be that with the increase in the number of hours of professional driver training as this may include more time to teach the more difficult aspects of driving such as risk and danger detection, and driving perceptions and attitudes, direct results in ensuring driver safety could be achieved. Simons-Morton and Ouimet also noted that because state-recognized professional driver training are limited in terms of time, parents remain to be the primary people responsible for teaching their children and preparing them for independent driving. (Simons-Morton & Ouimet, 2006). Simons – Morton and Ouiment has a sound argument it in tagging the parents as having utmost and primary responsibility to the safety and teaching of their children on the road. This supports the prior claim that direct parent teaching and attention is better than the traditional methods of driver’s education and as such is seen as more effective in ensuring the safety of teens. [Remember to comment on each source that you use.] Graduated Licensing Policy Perhaps the most ingenious and innovative way devised to reduce the number of teen-related car crashes is the implementation of the policy of Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL). This statistically proven method features the limiting of driving privileges to teens until they are more experienced and hence more adept on the road hence delaying licensure and constraining high-risk driving conditions. This system has been implemented in the US, New Zealand, Australia, some provinces in Canada and parts of Europe. While, this technique exists in varying forms, the most common one is a three-tiered system composed of a supervised learner’s stage; intermediate or provisional licensing which limits hazardous driving situations while being supervised (done after completing driver’s test) and the granting of full privileges after successfully completing the two prerequisite stages. Some of its requirements in the early learning stage, which usually starts when driver is at age 16 up to six months, include approximately 30 hours of driving under supervision. Further restrictions on night driving and number of allowable teen passengers (usually just one at any time of the day) add to the supervision requisites. (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety [IIHS]). The IIHS details the basics and benefits of GDL. The principles and logic behind the establishment and implementation of GDL are strong and as such the level of effectiveness it has shown is undoubted and has been recognized. Because of this, it is seen as the most effective way of reducing the number of injuries and deaths in teens. It is no wonder that this policy has been adopted by most towns and countries. GDL is a preventive way of safeguarding the teen driver. Restricting the number of teen passengers allowable when a teen is the one driving is an important element of GDL. Teens are vulnerable to peer pressure for risky behavior and as such, reducing the number of passengers who might be directly influencing the teen driver is a logical course of action. Moreover, aside from late-night driving and alcohol-influenced driving, passengers account as one of the greatest risks of a teen driver as this creates a social environment that could negatively affect the behavior of the one behind the wheel. Thus, the likelihood of crashes is directly tied to the presence of passengers. This likelihood also tends to rise in relation to the increasing number of passengers. (Williams, 2003). Williams shows that restrictions in the number of passengers, late-night driving are GDL’s greatest features and hence directly influence the reduction in injuries and/or deaths in teens. Related to this, are the more common risky behaviors engaged in by teen drivers such as over speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol. Moreover, since teens are particularly drawn into risky behavior, supervision and gradual extension of driving privileges have been sound in addressing the risks associated with teen driving. Because of the restrictions it imposes, GDL has successfully reduced the number of vehicle crashes in teens. This was proven by Swarthmore Associate Professor in Economics Thomas Dee in his May 2005 study signifying a 5.6 percent national decline in traffic deaths of 15-17 year olds. Dee also discovered that the states with the most restrictive policies were also the most effective in addressing the problem by cutting the number of deaths. (Timiraos, 2005). This finding attests to the fact that the level of restrictive implementation a state or town imposes to teen drivers with regards to GDL is directly proportional to its level of effectiveness in addressing the problem. This result is also echoed by another study by R. Foss and K. Evenson. They conducted several independent studies in the GDL systems in New Zealand focusing on the effects of the GLD program and the corresponding night restrictions imposed. Outcomes showed that around 7 to 8 percent decrease in injuries related to teen driver crashes were linked to be caused by the program. More importantly, for night curfews, which are vital components of GDL, 23 to 25 percent of crash declines for novice teen drivers were attributable. Hence overall, the study found GDL to be effective and its bases solid. (Foss & Evenson, 1999). The studies all point to the strength and power of the GDL program in causing declines in the crashes for teens. Thus, Foss and Evenson attributes most success to GDL. Parental Intervention and Management Perhaps the question of how much parental involvement is tolerable in teen driving has been the subject of much talk and studies. Recognizing earlier that parents remain to be the primary agents responsible for teaching and safeguarding their children in relation to driving safety, parental intervention seems to be tolerated to an extent that could ensure the safety and protection of their children. It is common practice in the United States and other parts of the world for parents to be the preferred and usual driving teachers for their children. Thus, the previous policy of GDL was designed to also accommodate this reality and hence put emphasis on parental supervision and involvement in their children’s driving progression. It has been observed that in some GDL policies 50 hours of parental supervision was practiced. However, there is limited research on the actual effects and relation of such supervision in the improvement and development of a teen driver’s performance. Studies from the US and other European countries such as Norway have been generally uncertain and questionable. No definite conclusions can be derived as it was found that there was no effect or relation between practice and crashes after getting licenses. Learners, who have undergone both supervised and driver’s training, did not show any significant decrease in crashes. Similarly, a French study on learners who drove with and without supervision practically showed the same post-license crash rate than those who only drove on professional training without supervision. Hence, safety is said to have not been affirmed by having supervised driving. Nevertheless, it could be safely assumed that supervised practice better prepares the newly driving teen for independent driving by providing him or her with sufficient driving experience that would be a good opening for further higher skill learning. (Simons-Morton & Ouimet, 2006). Simons-Morton argues that while studies to the direct effects of supervised practice driving have been inconclusive, the role of intervention particularly that of parents is key in preparing teen drivers for advancing their driving skill sets. In relation to this, little is also known regarding the actual amount and kind of instruction given by parents to their children. While it can be argued that parental supervision is safe in nature, a counterargument suggests that independent driving experience is still valued. This is because unlike supervised driving, the manifestations of risky behaviors and patterns are realized with minimal supervision hence training the child more to become full-pledged drivers. Hence, a better evaluation of parent-teen relationship must still be definitely studied in order to fully make a valid link between parental supervision and safeguarding teen driver’s safety. In a study made by Simons-Morton, Hartos, Leaf and Preusser describing the intervention effects on the limits imposed by parents on novice teenage driving, it has been found out that with persuasive information campaign on the dangers of teenage driving alongside a parent-teenager driving agreement encouraging parents to limit the driving conditions of their teenage children, parental intervention was increased and this could be a good way to also mitigate the risks of teen driving. (Hartos et al., 2005). In relation to the power of parents to influence and ensure the safety of their children, the role of intervention in terms of follow-up shows that the method becomes more effective. The purpose behind this study was to prove that effective and persuasive communications on relevant and specific courses of action that are to be imposed on teen drivers can influence attitudes and behavior of parents and children on driving safety. This works with the premise that parents ultimately remain to be the ones enforcing driving privileges since they are the ones buying and controlling the access of teens to their respective cars. This also operates under the assumption that GDL may or may not be practiced or observed. Thus, with the findings of this study, it could be noted that the negative impact posed by the relatively modest restrictions naturally given by parents to their teenage driving children could be combated by simple behavioral interventions such as the regular delivery of well-designed and properly directed materials on driver’s safety. Perhaps another issue of parental intervention and management to which parents have their own sphere of influence is vehicle selection for the teen driver. In a study conducted by the US Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, it revealed that despite the recognition of the majority of the parents that vehicle selection for their children is one of the most important criteria for safety, novice drivers still drive vehicles with insufficient protection or are not recommended for teens such as mini or sports cars or SUVs. This was largely due to the fact that vehicles were already owned at the time of driving for the child or that children had to content themselves with the older car models of the family, which are more prone to accidents. Best course of action In a presentation by Ricardo Martinez from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in the international forum on Transportation, Traffic Safety and Health organized by the Karolinska Institute, World Health Organization (WHO), and Volvo, Martinez highlighted the improvements achieved in ensuring the safety of teen drivers and in minimizing fatalities related too crashes. However, he expressed that a lot still needs to be done. Recognizing that youngest drivers are the risk takes, a lot of people seemed to not be that involved in improving their own safety. Two reasons were cited namely: Traffic issues were perceived by majority of Americans as not among their priorities and also there exists a perception that traffic safety belongs to the realm of the government and industry and as such not an individual problem. Thus for Americans, majority of the problem rests on the lack of ownership and the commitment to solving it. Perhaps the detrimental factor leading to this kind of attitude or behavior is the independent western spirit imbibed by most Americans. As such, the proper course of action for the NHTSA was to let the citizens identify their own problems and provide them with tools that would enable them to find the best solutions to their respective problems in their own jurisdictions. These tools are in the form of programs and products. (Von Holst et al. 2000). This line of thinking must be followed and exercised by the rest of the world with regards to ensuring the risks involved in teen driving. The success of the GDL program and policy is but apparent. These are the programs that Martinez were talking about. Individual responsibility should surface first and foremost to be able to facilitate the formulation or the tailor-fitting of what is already there. The logic of the Graduated Driver Licensing policy is extremely sound. The gradual phasing of the teen driver to full privileges after undergoing several stages of supervision and training mitigates the risk that comes with teenage driving and hence creates an environment that is conducive for the teen to realize his very dream of driving. Moreover, this policy empowers and puts emphasis on the role of parents in taking active part in ensuring their child’s driving safety. This advocates appropriate restrictions on night-driving and in the allowable number of passengers, which are considered the highest risk factors for teens. In line with this, the view of Simon-Morton, Hartos et al in their study that public policy and education should go hand in hand seems to be the superior cause of action. They hypothesized based on the intervention effects they have studied, that education brought about by persuasive material delivery as well as the effectiveness of these materials together with the Checkpoints Program under the Parent-Teen Driving Agreement necessitated and increased parental restriction hence leading to a safer teen driving experience. Policy in this case refers to the regular follow ups as well as the provisions for products which are the effective materials on teen driving safety. This effective policy implementation likewise necessitated effective education that yielded positive results and hence reducing crash risks. If taken further, GDL can form the policy arm of this logic, the materials as resources for education, the intervention (Checkpoint Program) as means of monitoring teen driving. Following the effectiveness of such concepts, the implementation of the combinations of these elements can ultimately lead to further minimizing the crash risks among teens and hence leading to the more significant and sustained reduction of motor vehicular crashes in teens. However, an important component of this proposed integrated campaign is communications. Proper communications and state regular follow ups must be exercised to improve reception of policy as well as learning through the educational materials and parental intervention. It must be noted that countermeasures and policies are not readily accepted by the targeted people. In line with this, planning is essential to develop a strategic approach drawing bases from sound research and laudable communications. A thorough study should first be exercised to determine the problem, its nature and extent. Due to the numerous researches already conducted on teen driving, this proceeds as a constant. Individual responsibility and the need to act should be realized by each one as well as backed by government and state officials to ensure that decisions would be carried out for the best. Moreover, effective communications through social marketing techniques need to be executed to relay the information of the problem and the corresponding costs of remaining passive or not doing anything about the problem. Countermeasures to teen driving should be aligned and link to the overall national road safety policies and standards to ensure a level of standardization and to widen the span of control and coverage. Close coordination is necessary between the different levels of the government and research arms as well as other stakeholders including the parents and teens to ensure compliance and agreement on the policies or techniques. Moreover, the sharing of information across states and countries including the sharing of researches and findings should be done to reduce the costs of formulating and implementing new solutions. (Transport Research Centre et al., 2006). The Transport Research Centre and its affiliates propose a way of determining and evaluating the best course of action in addressing the problems associated with teen driving. The aim is of course to achieve the level of required effectiveness to primarily solve the problem. Looking into them, each proposal is worth adopting as they are logically grounded and sensible. [Remember to comment on each source that you use.] Through the effective collaboration of different groups, the effective merger of policy and education will be achieved with parents possessing the ultimate hand in protecting and ensuring the safety of their children. It is not for the parents to completely not allow their children to drive at a young age. It is more of a matter of proper education, training and supervision while complying to the state-mandated policies as well as tapping with the state resources available. Conclusion We are facing the reality of teen drivers having the highest risk in motor vehicular crashes, injuries and deaths. Countries and states have all developed several mechanisms, policies and programs to address this single issue. Thus, we have to accept the fact of the inevitability of this problem. Looking at and examining the three methods discussed above, GDL has proven to be the most effective method for reducing driving-related teen deaths. This must continue as well as the commitment to further studies and stricter implementations of existing programs. Moreover, citizens should actually recognize the availability of various resources for education aside from the need to comply with the given state policies on driving. Personal responsibility to be led by the parents must be exercised at all costs. The primacy of the role of parents is important to attaining further successes in this area. As principal agents of teaching and ensuring the safety of their children, parents should advocate a collaborative approach to maximize state resources and policies as well as the opportunities for driver education. Thus, while varied efforts are being undertaken to solve the inevitable problem of teen drivers, the framework and trend of GDL should persist. Additional research and studies should be directed at improving this. Moreover, the role of parents should continue to be of prime importance as they are the veritable agents for the safety and the regulation of the behavior of their children once they embark on driving. It is the perfect marriage of policy and education that must be maintained to be able to achieve new milestones in reducing teen driving fatalities as well as mitigating the great risks associated with such. References Finkelstein, E.A., Corso, P.S. & Miller, T.R. (2006). Incidence and Economic Burden of Injuries in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. Foss, R., & Evenson, K. (1999). Effectiveness of graduated driver licensing in reducing motor vehicle crashes.  American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 16( 1),  47 – 56. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Graduated Driver Licensing: Questions and Answers. Retrieved April 25, 2008. from http://www.iihs.org/research/topics/teenagers.html. Klicka, C. J. (2006, October 12). Parent Taught Driver’s Education Saves Home School Legal Defense Association. Retrieved on April 26, 2008 from http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000036.asp. Martinez, R. (2000). The Status of Traffic Safety in The United States. In H. von Holst, Å. Nygren & Å. Anderson (Eds.), Traffic Safety and Health Human Behavior (pp. 7-14). Springer. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Dept. of Transportation (US). Traffic safety facts 2005: speeding. Washington (DC): NHTSA; 2006a Retrieved on April 26, 2008 from http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/TSF2005/SpeedingTSF05.pdf. Simons-Morton, B. G.,  Jessica L Hartos, J. L.,  Leaf, W. A.,   David F Preusser, D. F. (2005). Persistence of Effects of the Checkpoints Program on Parental Restrictions of Teen Driving Privileges. American Journal of Public Health, 95(3), 447-52.  Simons-Morton, G & MC Ouimet, M.C. (2006). Parent Involvement in novice teen driving: a review of the literature Injury Prevention; 12(Suppl I):i30–i37. doi: 10.1136/ip.2006.011569. Retrieved April 26, 2008. from Injury Prevention Online. Timiraos, N. (2005, August 9). Teen Driving curbs show results. Stateline,org Retrieved April 26 2008. from http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=47520. Transport Research Centre, OECD/ECMT Transport Research Centre, Conferencia Europea de Ministros de Transportes Transport Research Centre, Oecd, European Conference of Ministers of Transport, OECD/ECMT Transport Research Centre, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe , Economic Commission for Europe, United Nations. (2006). Young Drivers: The Road to Safety. Williams, A. F. (2003). Teenage Drivers: Patterns of Risk. Journal of Safety Research, 34, 5 – 15. Read More