MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1993953912 · doi:10.1080/15389588.2011.588296

An Evaluation of Graduated Driver Licensing Effects on Fatal Crash Involvements of Young Drivers in the United States

2011· article· en· W1993953912 on OpenAlexfundno aff
James C. Fell, Kristina Jones, Eduardo Romano, Robert B. Voas

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTraffic and Road Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institutes of HealthEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentUniversity of Windsor
KeywordsCrashLaw enforcementDrunk driversLawPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsSeat beltInjury preventionOccupational safety and healthEngineeringForensic engineeringEnvironmental healthMedicineDrunk drivingPolitical scienceComputer scienceAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems are designed to reduce the high crash risk of young novice drivers. Almost all states in the United States have some form of a 3-phase GDL system with various restrictions in the intermediate phase. Studies of the effects of GDL in various states show significant reductions in fatal crash involvements of 16- and 17-year-old drivers; however, only a few national studies of GDL effects have been published. The objective of this national panel study was to evaluate the effect of GDL laws on the fatal crash involvements of novice drivers while controlling for possible confounding factors not accounted for in prior studies. METHODS: The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) was used to examine 16- and 17-year-old driver involvement in fatal crashes (where GDL laws are applied) relative to 2 young driver age groups (19-20, 21-25) where GDL would not be expected to have an effect. Dates when various GDL laws were adopted in the states between 1990 and 2007 were coded from a variety of sources. Covariates in the longitudinal panel regression analyses conducted included 4 laws that could have an effect on 16- and 17-year-old drivers: primary enforcement seat belt laws, zero-tolerance (ZT) alcohol laws for drivers younger than age 21, lowering the blood alcohol concentration limit for driving to 0.08, and so-called use and lose laws where drivers aged 20 and younger lose their licenses for underage drinking violations. RESULTS: The adoption of a GDL law of average strength was associated with a significant decrease in fatal crash involvements of 16- and 17-year-old drivers relative to fatal crash involvements of one of the 2 comparison groups. GDL laws rated as "good" showed stronger relationships to fatal crash reductions, and laws rated as "less than good" showed no reductions in crash involvements relative to the older driver comparison groups. CONCLUSIONS: States that adopt a basic GDL law can expect a decrease of 8 to 14 percent in the proportion of 16- and 17-year-old drivers involved in fatal crashes (relative to 21- to 25-year-old drivers), depending upon their other existing laws that affect novice drivers, such as those used in these analyses. This finding is consistent with recent national studies that used different outcome measures and covariates. The results of this study provide additional support for states to adopt, maintain, and upgrade GDL systems to reduce youthful traffic crash fatalities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations67
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicTraffic and Road SafetyFrench-language works237,207