An Evaluation of the Texas Driver Improvement Training Program

Edwards, Mark L.; Ellis, Newton C.

doi:10.1177/001872087601800402

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The other remedial measure, suggested by the present data, is enhancement of the perceived seriousness of traffic offenses by appropriate instruction during the training of drivers, or during retraining of convicted offenders. Studies of this possibility have, so far, been inconclusive (e.g., Edwards & Ellis, 1976;Peck, 1976;Pelz, 1976;Schuster, 1970Schuster, , 1978. However, this failure to achieve an effective system of driver improvement may result partly from the fact that remedial programs have often attempted to modify attitudes towards offending, rather than providing better evidence on the need for drivers to change their attitudes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in perceived seriousness of overt and covert road traffic offenses: Some implications for the effectiveness of legal sanctions.

Colbourn

Brown

Copeman

1981

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attitudes towards the perceived seriousness of road traffic offenses were studied as a function of the age and sex of drivers. Ratings of seriousness of 31 verbalized offenses were analyzed using detection theory parameters to study sensitivity and bias effects in the discrimination of "overt" and "covert" offenses, Overt offenses were defined as those which are immediately obvious to a casual observer, such as jumping red traffic lights. Covert offenses are those not so easily observable, such as driving a defective vehicle. The latter are inherently more hazardous, because they do not allow other road users to adopt appropriate margins of safety. The results indicated that young male drivers were relatively insensitive in discriminating between overt and covert offenses compared with other subgroups of drivers tested. Instructions which directed drivers to judge the offenses from the standpoints of personal responsibility, or involvement in, or the social consequences of, any accidental outcome, increased sensitivity relative to no such instructions being given. Analysis of the rating data itself showed that, overall, overtly offensive driving was considered less serious than covertly offensive driving. This was particularly the case for male and younger drivers. Possible implications of the results for legal sanctioning and other accident countermeasures are discussed. *The work reported here formed part of a three-year project concerned with the bases of road accident causation among young drivers, which was supported by the U.K. Department of the Environment, Transport and Road Research Laboratory and the Medical Research Council of Great Britain. The authors are indebted to Ian Nimmo-Smith for advice and help with the statistics used here.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differences in perceived seriousness of overt and covert road traffic offenses: Some implications for the effectiveness of legal sanctions.

Colbourn

Brown

Copeman

1981

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One study evaluated the impact of a rehabilitation training program for the small minority of habitual violators who account for the majority of motor vehicle violations and accidents (Edwards and Ellis, 1976). Several thousand drivers participated in the educational program.…”

Section: Employers As Providersmentioning

confidence: 99%

What difference does it make?

Knox

1979

New Dir Adult Contin Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Goel,

Tiwari,

Varghese

et al. 2024

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundRoad Traffic injuries (RTI) are among the top ten leading causes of death in the world resulting in 1.35 million deaths every year, about 93% of which occur in low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Despite several global resolutions to reduce traffic injuries, they have continued to grow in many countries. Many high‐income countries have successfully reduced RTI by using a public health approach and implementing evidence‐based interventions. As many LMICs develop their highway infrastructure, adopting a similar scientific approach towards road safety is crucial. The evidence also needs to be evaluated to assess external validity because measures that have worked in high‐income countries may not translate equally well to other contexts. An evidence gap map for RTI is the first step towards understanding what evidence is available, from where, and the key gaps in knowledge.ObjectivesThe objective of this evidence gap map (EGM) is to identify existing evidence from all effectiveness studies and systematic reviews related to road safety interventions. In addition, the EGM identifies gaps in evidence where new primary studies and systematic reviews could add value. This will help direct future research and discussions based on systematic evidence towards the approaches and interventions which are most effective in the road safety sector. This could enable the generation of evidence for informing policy at global, regional or national levels.Search MethodsThe EGM includes systematic reviews and impact evaluations assessing the effect of interventions for RTI reported in academic databases, organization websites, and grey literature sources. The studies were searched up to December 2019.Selection CriteriaThe interventions were divided into five broad categories: (a) human factors (e.g., enforcement or road user education), (b) road design, infrastructure and traffic control, (c) legal and institutional framework, (d) post‐crash pre‐hospital care, and (e) vehicle factors (except car design for occupant protection) and protective devices. Included studies reported two primary outcomes: fatal crashes and non‐fatal injury crashes; and four intermediate outcomes: change in use of seat belts, change in use of helmets, change in speed, and change in alcohol/drug use. Studies were excluded if they did not report injury or fatality as one of the outcomes.Data Collection and AnalysisThe EGM is presented in the form of a matrix with two primary dimensions: interventions (rows) and outcomes (columns). Additional dimensions are country income groups, region, quality level for systematic reviews, type of study design used (e.g., case‐control), type of road user studied (e.g., pedestrian, cyclists), age groups, and road type. The EGM is available online where the matrix of interventions and outcomes can be filtered by one or more dimensions. The webpage includes a bibliography of the selected studies and titles and abstracts available for preview. Quality appraisal for systematic reviews was conducted using a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, AMSTAR 2.Main ResultsThe EGM identified 1859 studies of which 322 were systematic reviews, 7 were protocol studies and 1530 were impact evaluations. Some studies included more than one intervention, outcome, study method, or study region. The studies were distributed among intervention categories as: human factors (n = 771), road design, infrastructure and traffic control (n = 661), legal and institutional framework (n = 424), post‐crash pre‐hospital care (n = 118) and vehicle factors and protective devices (n = 111). Fatal crashes as outcomes were reported in 1414 records and non‐fatal injury crashes in 1252 records. Among the four intermediate outcomes, speed was most commonly reported (n = 298) followed by alcohol (n = 206), use of seatbelts (n = 167), and use of helmets (n = 66). Ninety‐six percent of the studies were reported from high‐income countries (HIC), 4.5% from upper‐middle‐income countries, and only 1.4% from lower‐middle and low‐income countries. There were 25 systematic reviews of high quality, 4 of moderate quality, and 293 of low quality.Authors' ConclusionsThe EGM shows that the distribution of available road safety evidence is skewed across the world. A vast majority of the literature is from HICs. In contrast, only a small fraction of the literature reports on the many LMICs that are fast expanding their road infrastructure, experiencing rapid changes in traffic patterns, and witnessing growth in road injuries. This bias in literature explains why many interventions that are of high importance in the context of LMICs remain poorly studied. Besides, many interventions that have been tested only in HICs may not work equally effectively in LMICs. Another important finding was that a large majority of systematic reviews are of low quality. The scarcity of evidence on many important interventions and lack of good quality evidence‐synthesis have significant implications for future road safety research and practice in LMICs. The EGM presented here will help identify priority areas for researchers, while directing practitioners and policy makers towards proven interventions.

show abstract

An Evaluation of the Texas Driver Improvement Training Program

Cited by 9 publications

References 2 publications

Differences in perceived seriousness of overt and covert road traffic offenses: Some implications for the effectiveness of legal sanctions.

Differences in perceived seriousness of overt and covert road traffic offenses: Some implications for the effectiveness of legal sanctions.

What difference does it make?

Effectiveness of road safety interventions: An evidence and gap map

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About