For Device Driver Download and Updates Click Here >>

Reinventing driver education

By: Lawrence P. Lonero

Date: Sunday, 28. January 2007

Larry Lonero is an expert on crash causes and a principal of Northport Associates, a consulting company based in Ontario, Canada.


By the early 1990s, it was clear that driver education in North America, typically provided in public secondary schools, was declining. This was due at least in part to disappointment with the findings of the landmark DeKalb study, which was a controlled clinical trial of a new, state-of-the-art high-school driver education program. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety in Washington, D.C. identified a need and sponsored a project to "reinvent" a more effective approach to driver education for the U.S. and Canada. Both countries were facing a rapid increase in the young driver population, after years of decline, due to the "baby boom" echo. The comprehensive review and needs identification project was carried out by Northport Associates based in Ontario, Canada. The resulting report outlines a more comprehensive set of driver characteristics and instructional approaches than had typically been addressed by driver education previously. For effective and lasting crash prevention, the report concluded that both skill and motivational aspects of driver development must be addressed effectively. That is, to produce a net reduction in traffic crashes among its graduates (relative to those receiving only informal training) driver education must be structured as both an education/training program and a behavior change intervention. To succeed in achieving such a mandate would require that driver education: 1) develop and adopt new instructional approaches; 2) move to an extended, multi-stage format; and 3) be supported by coordinated, ongoing behavioral influences in families, communities, and states. This mandate was very ambitious and remains far from general achievement, but promising progress has been made in some areas, particularly in computer-based training. Unfortunately, other identified needs, such as organizational change and advanced classroom instructional methods directed toward motivation have lagged.

The state of driver education

The intent of the project was to identify the areas of change needed to give driver education a positive safety impact. At the present time, supporting mobility is the main function of formal driver education (DE). New drivers need to learn the skills to handle a vehicle and interact with other road users well enough to pass a licensing test and satisfy the safety concerns of parents/guardians. Driver education helps meet these needs. While this is a valuable service, there has always been a desire for DE to help novice drivers perform more safely. The DeKalb County study was a major experimental field trial of the safety impact of a specially developed, intensive DE program. When it failed to show a net safety benefit, much support for DE in North America was lost in the 1980s. Some jurisdictions and private organizations continued to develop their programs, but overall DE suffered a decline of support after the DeKalb report. By the 1990s, it was widely recognized that a renewal of DE is needed (e.g., Mayhew & Simpson, 1997; Young, 1993).

Drivers' needs, system needs

Novice drivers contribute to serious crash losses well beyond their representation in the driving population or mileage driven (Williams, 1995). As a group, new drivers take five to seven years to reach mature risk levels. However, they are also a diverse group, varying widely in cultural background, life situations, skills, underlying abilities, motivations, levels of experience, and crash risk. Male/female differences in behavior and risk are best known, but sex differences seem to be declining.

Conventional safety education can readily facilitate cognitive and psychomotor learning, but lasting influence over behavior is much harder to accomplish. As well as in road safety, behavior change is a major challenge for all the safety, health, and other helping sciences (Lonero & Clinton, 1998). The classical education model of DE is inadequate, and fundamental changes in content, methods, and organization are clearly needed. Because it is expected to actually change behavior, DE has a tougher job than most other forms of education. To have a chance of succeeding, DE must lead in the scope and precision of its content and the effectiveness of its methods. Innovative, participational education in the classroom and self-paced, automated training in the lab are needed to balance motives and skills. Reduction of crashes will also likely require linking DE with parental and community influences, graduated licensing, and motivational influences such as personal involvement and incentives (see Geller et al., 1990; Lonero et al., 1995a).

From the perspective of 1995, when the Novice Driver Education Model Curriculum Outline was developed, it was clear that a reinvented DE would have to operate initially within severe resource limitations. Curriculum hardware and software need to be highly developed and simply packaged for delivery in poorly capitalized, low-tech instructional environments. Starting in the 1990s, both for-profit and non-profit private organizations started bringing new capital into the field, and this opened new opportunities for future development. Nevertheless, a new DE will have to be modular and highly flexible to accommodate the severe non-uniformity of standards, organization, and available resources in different jurisdictions. The late 1990s brought trends toward consolidation of the driving school industry and organizational integration with insurance and automobile manufacturing. These trends seemed to promise better organization and more development resources, but it is not yet clear how successful the early consolidators and integrators have been and whether others will follow.

Skills vs. motives

Novice drivers as a group have important skill deficiencies, particularly in acquiring and processing information from the driving environment. They are less able to integrate the required psychomotor skills. They are less able to control attention and to extract the full richness of information available in the environment. They are less effective in scanning the environment, in detecting and recognizing hazards at a safe distance, and in making tough decisions quickly. Compared to experienced drivers, they underestimate the danger in some relatively risky situations, and they overestimate the danger in some less risky situations (Mayhew & Simpson, 1995).

Improving novice drivers' skills may be necessary for improved safety, but it is clearly not sufficient. Novices' excess crash risk is quite situation dependant. They are at especially high risk on recreational trips at night and when carrying teenage passengers. They are quite safe when driving under supervision and when on purposeful trips (Preusser, Ferguson, & Williams, 1997), which suggests that fundamental skill deficits are not the most important factors in their excess risk.

Crashes on the road result from what drivers choose to do, at least as much as from what they are able (or unable) to do. A major portion of risk results from risk acceptance in various forms--deliberate risky actions, stimulus seeking, high speeds, and impaired driving. Compared to older, experienced drivers, young and novice drivers choose to drive too fast, too close to other vehicles. As a result they have more rear-end crashes and run-off-the-road crashes. They run yellow lights more, accept smaller gaps in traffic, and leave smaller safety margins.

The safety potential of improving drivers' skill, so far at least, appears to be offset by overconfidence and increased exposure to risk. Better-trained novice drivers become licensed sooner and drive more, perhaps in part at least because of their own overconfidence and that of their parents, who give them more freedom to drive.

The Safe Performance Curriculum, developed for the DeKalb study, focused strongly on skill development, reversing an earlier (and apparently ineffective) emphasis on motivation through scare tactics. The results of advanced skills training, such as skid schools, have also shown that higher skills can lead to more crashes, not fewer (Glad, 1988; Jones, 1993; OECD, 1990; Siegrist & Ramsier, 1992). A skid control study with young drivers showed an increase in confidence without any real increase in skill (Gregerson, 1996).

Nevertheless, risk acceptance is not the same as crash acceptance--few drivers would take a risky action if they knew it was going to result in a crash. Deficiencies in motor skills, attention management, risk perception and hazard detection skills, and overconfidence in these and other skills, will also contribute to risky choices. There may be a mutually supportive effect of stronger motivation and better risk detection and evaluation skills. However, enhancing the individual and community factors that influence novice drivers' personal motivation and social responsibility have to be the highest priorities if DE is to achieve its safety mission. Development of methods for addressing these goals is highly challenging.

Complementary skills and values

Desirable skills, knowledge, and motivation are shared among different training, educational and helping fields (Lonero et al., 1994). There is already considerable integration of DE knowledge objectives with other school subjects, such as physics, law, and multi-cultural understanding. New media and teaching techniques can expand the range of this integration, to the benefit of driver education and other fields. Interactive media can be used to enhance perceptual and decision skills, and attentional control that may apply to other tasks beside driving. The potential for subject matter integration into other courses seems limited to the public schools, unless some higher authority could coordinate integration between high schools and driving schools.

Also important is curriculum integration in areas of personal and social values, risk taking, self-esteem, empowerment/optimism, peer pressure, community cohesion, and health protection. These are the motivational basics of many types of pro-social and self-protective behaviors. Active participation in peer-based teaching activities could perhaps help achieve "healthy values integration." Development of such methods that could apply in driver education settings remains a high priority.

Developing supporting influences

Most novice drivers' motivation and responsibility can likely be enhanced, given a sufficiently intense education and influence program. Peer influences, community education programs, and incentives can probably contribute to a stronger impact on many novice drivers' behavior. However, some novice drivers display deviant and problem behaviors in various aspects of their lives, and they are likely at high risk on the roads as well (Bierness, 1995). The special needs of these multi-problem youngsters must be addressed by community resources.

To develop community resources, the DE industry, school authorities, insurers, governments, families, and communities must decide that they care enough about the safety of novice drivers that they will coordinate their efforts. This will require organizational change and the development of some form of compensation for organizations for the reduced autonomy and public profile (Lonero et al., 1994). Little evidence of such organizational change has yet appeared.


Parents/guardians may inadvertently contribute to the failure of DE to reach its safety goals. They appear to give better-trained novices more freedom and less supervision, and this leads to more exposure to risk and more crashes. DE needs to become more of a family intervention. To be more effective it must take advantage of the family's strengths in influencing early driving behavior and helping to build those strengths. A major problem for DE is to make parents/guardians more realistic about their children's abilities and motives, without "turning them off" formal training. Families need understanding, skills and motivation to take a more active, effective role in their novice drivers' progress to mature driving. Graduated licensing and other trends suggest a longer and stronger role for families in the future. Graduated licensing and many parent-oriented programs appear to have started promising movement in this area.

Multi-stage driver education

Beginner drivers have limited capability for absorbing information and training. As youth is said to be wasted on the young, much of driver education may be wasted on those who cannot yet drive. Readiness to learn suggests a longer-term or staged approach to driver education, as does graduated licensing (McKnight, 1984).

Graduated and provisional licensing systems (GPLs) have been implemented in many North American jurisdictions. To make GPLs effective over the long term, it will likely be necessary to coordinate graduated licensing with driver education. This will raise major questions of the organization and sequencing of DE programs to ensure a mutually supportive effect on learning and performance (Lonero, 1996). In North America, only one state (Michigan) has implemented a limited two-stage driver education requirement, which is currently being evaluated. More work has been done on this approach in Scandinavia.

Many performance objectives, such as those addressing high speeds, night driving or risk acceptance, could be left out of the first stage of a multi-stage program. They are not yet needed within the graduated licensing restrictions, or they can be provided by the accompanying parent, or may be judged better left until stage 2 in terms of readiness to learn. Stage 2 could be a cognitively oriented, risk evaluation, and decision course for those who already have "automatized" basic driving skills.

Strategic directions

Because of demographic and economic trends, the 1995 model curriculum outline predicted increased market demand for DE and increased pressure for reducing the losses produced by young, novice drivers' crashes. Issues of standards and governance, and of teacher and instructor training were expected to become more important, as the potential effectiveness of a reinvented DE curriculum increased. A continuing trend toward "privatization" of DE was seen as producing new business opportunities for driving schools, suppliers of instructional hardware and software, and instructor trainers. Standards for compatibility of hardware and software specifications were expected to become issues as media technologies developed rapidly and DE became more complex and modular (Lonero et al., 1995b). Lack of consensus about specific content were seen as leading to difficulties in sharing or marketing of software and other materials. While these 1995 expectations may now appear naively optimistic, it seems clear that the observed trends and the needs behind them remain.

It also remains clear that a more effective new driver education will need to be explicitly developmental, adaptive, and experimental to stimulate and incorporate rapid advances in knowledge and technology. DE was expected to benefit greatly from the development of interactive, individualized learning technologies (Brock, 1997; Decina et al., 1996). Computer-based instruction and part-task simulation were seen as having reached a point where their largely-untapped potential for training could see practical use, even for relatively complex capacities, such as allocation of attention (e.g., Gopher, 1992). As expected, these technologies have developed rapidly, as reflected in the AAA Foundation's DriverZed, Adept Driver's TeenSmart, and Cognifit's DriveFit (used by Young Drivers of Canada).

Interactive computer-based instruction holds further promise for more effective and efficient learning of basic skills and knowledge. However, these are the relatively easy parts of the reinvention of driver education. Greater efficiency in basic learning will free up teaching and learning resources to concentrate on the "hard parts" of driver education, which are:

  1. developing students' higher cognitive processes, motivation and responsibility;
  2. training teacher/facilitators who can help do this;
  3. mobilizing influence resources in the family, community, industry, and government to support the teachers and students.

Summary of ongoing development needs


Bierness, D. (1995). The relationship between lifestyle factors and collisions involving young drivers. In: H. Simpson, (Ed.) New to the Road: Reducing the Risks for Young Motorists. Los Angeles: Youth Enhancement Service, University of California, Los Angeles, 71-78.

Brock, J.F. (1997). Computer based instruction. In: G. Salvendy, (Ed.), Handbook Of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd edition, 578-593.

Decina, L., Gish, K., Staplin, L., & Kirchner, A. (1996) Feasibility of New Simulation Technology to Train Novice Drivers. Washington, D.C.: National Highway traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. DOT BS 808 548.

Geller, E.S., Berry, T.D., Ludwig, T.D., Evans, R.E., Gilmore, M.R., & Clarke, S.W. (1990). A conceptual framework for developing and evaluating behavior change interventions for injury control. Health Education Research, 5, 2, 125-137.

Glad, A. (1988). Phase 2 driver education effect on the risk of accident. Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Center for Research.

Gopher, D. (1992). The skill of attention control: Acquisition and execution of attention strategies. In D.E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV, Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 299-322). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Gregersen, N.P. (1996).Young drivers' overestimation of their own skill--An experiment on the relation between training strategy and skill. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 28, 243-250.

Jones, B. (1993). The effectiveness of skid-car training for teenage novice drivers in Oregon. Salem, Oregon: Oregon Department of Motor Vehicles.

Lonero, L.P., Clinton, K.M., Wilde, G.J.S., Roach, K., McKnight, A.J., MacLean, H. & Guastello, S.J. (1994). Methods to influence road user behaviour. Toronto: Ministry of Transportation.

Lonero, L.P., Clinton, K.M., Brock, J.F., Wilde, G.J.S., Laurie, I., & Black, D. (1995a). Novice driver education model curriculum outline, Washington, D.C.: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Lonero, L., Clinton, K., Mayhew, D., and Black, D. (1995b). Approved New Driver Training - NDIP ANDT Component: Part 1: Curriculum Review. Ministry of Highways and Transportation, Government of British Columbia, Victoria, B.C.

Lonero, L. & Clinton, K. (1996). Driver education and graduated licensing: How should they fit together? Transportation Research Circular 458, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council.

Lonero, L. and Clinton, K. (1998). Changing Road User Behavior: What Works and What Doesn't. Toronto: PDE Publications.

Mayhew, D. and Simpson, H. (1995). The Role of Driving Experience: Implications for the Training and Licensing of New Drivers. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Traffic Injury Research Foundation.

Mayhew, D. and Simpson, H. (1997). Effectiveness and Role of Driver Education and Training in a Graduated Licensing System. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Traffic Injury Research Foundation.

McKnight, A.J. (1984). Driver education--when? Journal of Traffic Safety Education, January, 13-15.

OECD (1990). Behavioural adaptations to changes in the road transport system. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Road Transport Research.

Preusser, D., Ferguson, S., and Williams, A. (1997). Effects of Teenage passengers on the Fatal Crash Risk of Teenage Drivers. Arlington, Virginia: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Williams, A. (1995). Magnitude and characteristics of the young driver crash problem in the United States. In: H. Simpson, Ed., New to the Road: Reducing the Risks for Young Motorists. Los Angeles: Youth Enhancement Service, University of California, Los Angeles.

Young, K (1993). Workshop To Identify Training Requirements Designed To Reduce Young Driver Risk Taking And Improve Decision Making Skills. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Further comments to this article have been disabled.

All Comments (15)

Showing 1 - 15 comments


This information needs to be updated.


Online drivers education has became boon for the people living in remote areas. Adults are happen now as their kids have no need to face problems to take a driver education course like them.


Education about driving and ways of safe driving should be thought in school level itself. This can help young drivers prepare there minds and have good knowledge and methods of safe driving in any conditions.


1. Can changing the driver culture nationally have an overall effect on my company's driver fleet?

Alison Kendall,

I'm interested in how safe bicycling education programs could be integrated into drivers ed. This is done in schools in Europe, which have more comprehensive mobility education than in the US. Is there any literature on this connection and whether safe cycling education (we use the League of American Bicyclists Traffic Skills 101 program) results in safer car drivers?

Robert Cole,


In the realm of “holism” as it relates to effective or ineffective driver training I believe the fundamentals have to do with:

- Innate survival instincts

- Alignment of confidence with actual skill versus self imagined skill

- Experiencing failure repeatedly, predictably, and measurably

The first sense that humans develop is that of touch. After touching an open flame it is in our nature to avoid doing so again. If later forced towards an open flame we will do whatever is necessary to avoid it.

Unfortunately for American drivers we become aware of our limitations and those of our vehicle AFTER we survive a serious accident (millions annually). Only then to we change our behavior to avoid the flame.

Failure as it relates to driver training must occur at ‘a’ known control threshold e.g. specific speed that can be replicated. Forcing drivers past this “threshold” is the only way to measure a driver’s actual skill level. It is the only way to safely expose a driver to the “flame.” Without a predicable control threshold students cannot analyze their mistakes effectively, and instructors cannot analyze the students actual skill verses their self imagined skill (training efficacy). Success without measurable failure in the context of driver training increases accident risk (Glad 88).

The only way to improve driver behavior (avoiding the flame), increase their awareness (anticipate the flame), and provide insight into what can go wrong (when forced towards the flame) is to enable drivers to safely loose control of their vehicles on their own. Drivers must experience the consequences of their mistakes as they would in an actual accident, but do so safely and in ways that can be effectively analyzed.

Learning-by-doing is the key

John Van Winkle,

When looking for answers to why both novice and experienced drivers crash we told to look for the solution within the concept of holism.

This is part of the third leg of the stool that appears to be missing. Without a leg that looks at how unconscious body systems function without conscious direction and indeed, can take over executive control it seems impossible for any course of lessons in a classroom or in a car can aid in crash proofing a driver.

Here is some of the modern research relating to how skill which functions automatically is now understood.

Not knowing or more importantly not understanding how hidden body movement processes and body movement systems function through pre-sets and hard-wiring can set traps for the unwary driver.

Research and the literature that seeks to find answers in "The Nut that Holds the Wheel" have ignored the action word in the sentence imho.

John Van Winkle,

To the Experts-A Question.

Last week 5 cyclists were struck by a minivan near Ottawa, Canada. This is a repetition of a crash a few years ago where a group of cyclists were mowed down.

The question is this; What has the body's innate or instinctive hard wired body protection system to do with this crash?

This spawns other questions. What is the common denominator in this crash and drivers hitting a towed motor boat; and drivers hitting a towed telephone pole; or the truck driver on the Queen Elizabeth Highway in Ontario Canada that hit a police car that was parked part way on the driving lane?

Since Innate Body Positioning is hardwired are we not all susceptible, even those of us who call ourselves experts?

Innate Body Positioning is a part of every drivers somatic hardwired body movement system and the body's protection system.

As such these are measurable quanta that makes every driver equal for the purpose of research that up to now just shakes its head and says there are too many variable,imho.

John Van Winkle

bbody i

John Van Winkle,

Hi Robert. Hi Larry.

Robert, you have an excellent site and worthy goals.

As one who has utilized one hour of each course to high speed control I value the potential of drivers learning "responses" that could save their lives.

Some will say that high speed control lessons only add a bullet to the gun of a few type A novice and experienced drivers.

I think Larry's commentary elsewhere on this site sums it up. Training without the "insight" lessons do indeed pose a problem. A problem that I assume is answered on your course in the classroom.

In my view, the state of driver and traffic safety is based on a three legged stool. It can be summed up on the YMCA sign that espouses Spirit, Mind and Body. Spirit in driver terminology is Attitude. Mind is the knowledge leg and that leaves the body leg where little in the way of research has been applied by the driver safety community. Without the three legs, the stool will not stand and crashes will occur.

Very little of the extant knowledge of how the invisible body systems work have been analyzed.

What role does a body protection system play with its innate body positioning system?

How does automaticity have the potential to kill the most seasoned expert driver?

What protection is built into the body fear response system that aids a driver or has a killer potential?

What is the long term residual affect of skill training? Why,too, can a driver not transfer his skills at the onset of winter each year?

Since there are only three actions that the driver uses to control the vehicle why is it so hard to teach crash proofing? Why,too, is this not taught moment to moment, lesson by lesson, and minute by minute?

The research has been done. What has not happened is it has not been passed down to the driver in a manner with utility.

Until you can incorporate tha "insights" that Larry speaks of you may indeed be just loading the gun of overconfidence.

John Van Winkle

Robert Cole,

Larry, I had forgotten that I posted here. I wish I checked sooner as what you have to say is important.

The best way to understand why/how European RSTC training works is to participate. I did, then I spent 5 years interviewing experts and researching European training techniques. I also learned how countries such as Germany scaled to support a population of 82 million. I can assure you that it is possible. To begin with RSTC centers are designed to increase the instructor to student ration from 1:1 (instructor ride along) to 1:12 (due to no instructor ride along, and a control tower approach). Each center can train tens of thousands of participants annually. I can provide further details on this subject if you wish to contact me.

EU papers on the subject explain that reductions in accidents have been measured due to RSTC, but they do not explain how the training actually works. If one doesn't understand the training process it is difficult to put the results into proper context. Perhaps this is because many of the countries that now support RSTC training have also mandated it. The assumption is that the reader has likely attended. This is just one of many reasons why the research seems vague. Again, I can explain in detail.

I have interviewed researchers at leading insurance companies as well as UC Berkeley Traffic Safety Center. Not one of them knew about facility based driver training taught in Europe. They knew about the European reports, but they couldn't answer basic questions about the training process. My concern is that far too many assumptions are clouding the good judgment of the US experts. This is leading to inaction, that results in unnecessary accidents (especially in the United States).

I would like to speak to you about this further. I don't wish to leave my contact information on this public forum. I will try to reach you via email, or feel free to contact me through

Larry Lonero,

Yeah, it's been pretty hard to know from here exactly what's going on in EU, since all we get are summaries, and published evaluations are rare. We have been trying to get some support for research on advanced driver training, because I think there is real potential, and things may be looking up in finding this support. You need to be careful about attributing benefits of training changes. Using Bob's How could you prevent 22% of accidents in 5 years with driver training? New drivers are only a tiny fraction of the population each year. It would take decades to make a measurable overall impact on the crashes of a country by improved beginner drive training. Often, a close look at evaluations will show there is less than meets the eye actually there. It's not an easy game.

More and better evaluation is needed badly. There is some interest in evaluating these facilities-based "advanced" training approaches in the US, and I hope to get involved in it.

There are also other promising approaches to advanced or post-licensing training. I would inlcude here computer-mediated knowledge, attitude and perceptual training, such as DriverZed and TeenSmart. There are also the cognitive training approaches, such as DriveFit. Some of these seem to offer better opportunities for wide exposure. I wonder many drivers we could imagine putting through facilities'based training in a year, even if we could prove it made a measurable dent in the crash rate. There's probably room for all this stuff, and until we know a lot more about what works how well, and how different approaches might be combined, R&D on all such approaches should be pursued.

Robert Cole,

What about the state of European driver training?

This post does not cover certain facts about driver training in Europe specifically with regard to the countries that conducted studies referenced hereing Glad 88 (Norway) and Gregerson 96 (Sweden). Fact number one, in approximately 1990 many countries including Austria, Finland, Luxembourg, Sweden, and Norway abolished certain training practices that focused on mastery of driving skills. This was a direct result of Glad 88. This transition period is referred to as the pre-renewal and post-renewal eras in many European studies on the subject (such as DAN 2000). The “post-renewal” curriculum is taught exclusively at purpose built facilities designed to enable drivers to loose control of their vehicles just as they would in an accident, but they do so safely. Only through training that enables total lose of control can people learn that the laws of physics do not change no matter how good of a driver they perceive themselves to be. They become “aware” as to their own limitations, and gain “insight” into the limitations of the vehicle (DAN 2000). These facilities enable safe loss of control in measurable, predictable, and repetitive ways, which support a failure-success based curriculum (emphasis on failure). Fact number two: nothing like the European training practices exist in the United States. Therefore, neither do the amazing results. Within 5 years Finland reduced auto accidents overall by over 22%, and Luxembourg measured a 34.3% reduction in accidents among control groups (ref: DAN 2000). Fact number three; The aforementioned countries that support this form of training all lead the United States in reduced accidents. In short, “post-renewal” training methods are proven to reduce auto accidents by improving driver behavior, especially among novice drivers (extensive empirical data exists to support this claim).

I don’t know about Canada, but when it comes to the United States driver safety experts don’t seem to have a clue that these centers (the European training solution) exists. For further details on this subject Google “United States Driver Training – a blueprint for the future” (Cole08)

maggie ,may 16 ,2008,

i am looking for driver ed vides nad new rssource materials for use in my driving school


If you want to see a good model for young drivers take a look at the Oregon program.
I think if we can get a program for the younger children on bicycle and ped, teach them the same concepts we are going to expect of them when they become drivers we will have better drivers. Besides teaching them the concepts, when children are young parents (in most cases) actually take an interest in what their children are learning and pick up some of them information themselves. So instead of trying to impact 1 generation we just might get the message across to 2. If you teach a child to check left center right and know what is behind them when they are learning to ride a bike, what will come naturally when they start to drive.

chris davis,

I am a curriculum developer/instructor who has done a lot of work in children's traffic safety (bicycle/pedestrian focus). I am working with several communities who are interested in implementing children's bike/ped education for it's value of keeping kids safe and producing safer drivers. Our theory is that we need to begin practicing skills much earlier. The skills that a child pedestrian/cyclist needs translate directly to driving. We wouls like to see these skill sets adopted as standards/objectives for physical education curiculum. I am intersted in similar efforts.

Truck Driving Jobs

driving information
other driver info
travel information for drivers

Travel and Driving