A new study conducted by three Maryland researchers remind us of this sobering fact: "[m]otor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death and disability among adolescents 16 to 20 years of age in this country." The state of Maryland had decided to try to do something about that statistic by instituting a "graduated licensing program" for young drivers.
In the Maryland program, students begin with a learner's permit, allowing teenager to drive only when an adult is present, and progressing through an intermediate provisional license before the third stage, unrestricted licensure. During the provisional, or probation, phase, the driver is placed under a number of restrictions, including a nighttime curfew, and may not receive any citations for a full year (now eighteen months) in order to earn an unrestricted license. This study, in part, depicts the effect of parental influence upon young drivers and their driving habits within this system.
The Maryland researchers write, "Parental attitudes and behaviors can have a significant influence upon young-driver risk. Parents control when age-eligible adolescents may obtain a driver's license, as well as their driving privileges. Further, parents are important gatekeepers who determine access to driving, and they can influence young drivers by teaching them specific skills, modeling safe driving behaviors, and controlling the conditions (e.g., time of day, type of road, presence of other passengers) under which they are permitted to drive."
Indeed, this sort of parental involvement has been shown to be effective in other areas: "Teen reports of parental influence and involvement have been shown to be important predictors of non-driving-specific risky behavior, such as alcohol problems"
The result of parental regulation and stringent expectations placed upon teen drivers is apparent: "Teens who reported that their parents did not allow other teens in the car when they were driving were significantly less likely to report being distracted by friends. Moreover, these same teens were much less likely to receive a ticket. Apparently, some adolescents still do listen to their parents, for, "[t]eens who reported that their parents allowed them to drive only in the daylight were less likely to drive after dark." Finally, "[t]eens who reported that their parents limited the number of passengers in the car when they were driving were less likely to drive too fast...or drive aggressively."
The converse also seems to be true: "Teens who had driven aggressively (M=17.11, SD=2.03) reported significantly less restrictive parents than did those who had no driven aggressively (M=16.01, SD=2.18), t=4, p<.001. Teens who had been ticketed (M=17.23, SD=2.21) reported significantly less restrictive parents than did those who had not been ticketed (M=16.12, SD=2.16), t=3.44, p<.001." While not rising to the level of statistical significance, similar finding were made concerning drivers who were distracted by their friends, broke their curfew, and who rode with a drunken driver.
Regarding parental teaching "there did not seem to be a meaningful pattern of associations between specific teaching items and specific risk behaviors." The one exception was that teenage drivers whose parent taught them weekly to plan ahead were less likely to get lost than those who told them this less often (OR=0.48, 95% CI=.32, .72). The authors write that "these findings suggest that during this provisional stage of relatively independent driving, parental teaching may be less important than the restrictions that they place on their teens' driving freedoms."
The authors conclude, "this investigation found consistent evidence that parents who allow less unsupervised access to a car have lower-risk teen drivers." The researcher further recommend "that parents should consider incorporating their own graduated system of granting driving privileges and lifting restrictions," even where it is not required by law.
