|
|
Project Summary
Extending parental mentoring using an event-triggered video intervention in rural teen drivers
Daniel V. McGehee, Mireille Raby, Cher Carney, John D. Lee, Michelle Reyes, and Lisa Troyer
Human Factors and Vehicle Safety Research Program
University of Iowa Public Policy Center
Photo by Tim Schoon
University of Iowa
Teen drivers are at high risk for car crashes, especially during their first year of licensure. Providing novice teen drivers and their parents with a means of identifying their good and bad driving maneuvers may help them learn more about how they drive. Those who are more risky may learn from their mistakes, thereby reducing their crash propensity. During the initial phase of learning, adult or parental supervision often provides such guidance. However, once teens obtain their license, adult supervision is no longer mandated, and teens are left to themselves to continue the learning process.
This study is the first of its type to enhance this continued learning process using an event-triggered video device made by DriveCam. By pairing this new technology with parental feedback in the form of a weekly video review and graphical report card, we extend parents’ ability to teach their teens even after they begin driving independently. Different than other intervention studies, this research technology gives clear, contextual driver feedback in the form of video and audio of the entire event along with a graphical summary of events relative to the study peer group. It is hoped that such feedback will help teen drivers improve their driving for the long-term.
The objective of this research is to determine whether use of an event-triggered video system paired with parent feedback in the form of a weekly report card can reduce unsafe driving behavior in teens. Twenty five 16- to 17-year-old drivers were recruited from a small U.S. Midwestern rural high school in Tiffin, Iowa (Clear Creek Amana High School). We equipped their vehicles with an event-triggered video device made by DriveCam, designed to capture 20-sec clips of the forward and cabin views whenever the vehicle exceeded lateral or longitudinal threshold accelerations. The first nine weeks established a within-subject baseline; no parental or system feedback was given during this time. After the nine-week baseline, feedback was provided to the participant in the form of a blinking LED light whenever the acceleration threshold was exceeded. In addition, teens and parents were sent a weekly summary of events relative to the study peer group that included video of safety-relevant events. The initial feedback intervention lasted for six months.
The first nine weeks established a within-subject baseline; no parental or system feedback was given during this time. During the next 40 weeks, feedback was provided to the teen driver in the form of a blinking LED on the camera and a weekly report card mailed to the parents. The report showed the driver’s weekly and cumulative performance regarding unsafe behaviors and seatbelt use relative to the other participants. The last eight weeks was a second baseline period. Results revealed two distinct groups: one that triggered few events and one that triggered many events. Combining this emerging technology with parental weekly review of safety-relevant incidents resulted in a significant and lasting decrease in events for most of the teens that triggered many events.
The baseline data revealed that participants were divided into two groups: one group of 18 drivers only activated the device 2.6 times per 1000 miles on average; the other group of 7 drivers triggered the system about 23 times per 1000 miles. After the first nine weeks of the feedback intervention, the low-event drivers did not change their behavior significantly—essentially showing a floor effect. However the high-event group showed a 72% reduction in safety-relevant events, averaging 6.4 events per 1000 miles in the first nine weeks of intervention. The interaction between the number of events by feedback phase was significant. After an additional 9 weeks of the feedback intervention, the high-event group dropped their safety relevant events by 89%, averaging 2.6 events per 1000 miles. The two most frequent incident types were improper turning or curve negotiation and abrupt braking. The group has logged over 360,000 miles of driving—averaging about 40 miles/day throughout the entire study.
Preliminary findings suggest that combining this emerging technology with parental weekly review of safety-relevant incidents resulted in a significant decrease in events for the more at-risk teen drivers.
Study funded by a basic research grant by American Family Insurance.
For more information, contact:
Daniel V. McGehee
Director
Human Factors and Vehicle Safety Research Program
University of Iowa
Public Policy Center
227 South Quad
Iowa City, Iowa 52242
Email: daniel-mcgehee@uiowa.edu
Phone: (319) 335-6819
|
|
|