1 

Graduated driver licensing: An international review

Abstract

Graduated Driver Licensing aims to gradually increase the exposure of new drivers to more

complex driving situations and typically consists of learner, provisional and open licence

phases. The first phase, the learner licence, is designed to allow novices to obtain practical

driving experience in lower risk situations. The learner licence can delay licensure, encourage

learning to drive under supervision, mandate the number of hours of practice required to

progress and encourage the involvement of parents. The second phase, the provisional

licence, reduces new drivers’ exposure to risky driving in situations such as at night, with

passengers, or after drinking alcohol, by putting various driving restrictions in place. Parental

involvement with Graduated Driver Licensing appears essential in helping novices obtain

sufficient practice and enforcing compliance with restrictions once the new driver obtains a

provisional licence.

Keywords: traffic accidents; public health; accident prevention; safety; automobile driving

Acknowledgements: The authors appreciate the feedback provided by the anonymous

reviewers and editors as part of the peer review process.

2 

Introduction

Graduated driver licensing (GDL) systems use a public health approach to reduce

crash risk by focusing on reducing risk for new drivers as a group rather than the risk of

individual drivers.1,2 These systems minimise the exposure of novice drivers to risky

situations, while allowing them to obtain experience as drivers.3,4 The purpose of GDL is to

gradually introduce new drivers to more complex driving environments as they gain

experience.4,5

Typically, there are three stages in a GDL system: learner phase, intermediate or

provisional stage, and full licence.6 As new drivers demonstrate their experience in less

demanding stages, restrictions are lifted and new driving privileges introduced.7 The learner

phase allows the new driver to develop driving skills under the supervision of a more

experienced driver,8 while a provisional licence allows solo driving subject to restrictions.9 A

GDL system is not designed to reduce deliberate risk taking by new drivers. Instead, it

reduces crash risk caused by inexperience.10

New Zealand introduced the first GDL system in 1987 and since then its popularity

has grown, with jurisdictions within Australia, New Zealand, the United States of America

(USA), and Canada introducing forms of GDL.4,5 An increasing number of evaluations of

GDL systems indicate that this countermeasure is effective in reducing crash risk.11-14 In the

USA, the introduction of GDL systems has reduced the crash risk of the youngest newly

licensed drivers by 20 to 40 percent.15 Even when a basic GDL system is introduced, research

indicates that it reduces fatal crash involvement for 16 and 17 year old drivers when

compared with slightly older drivers. More comprehensive GDL systems result in larger

crash reductions.11 The available evidence suggests that when GDL systems only apply to

drivers aged up to 17 year old drivers, an increase in crashes for drivers aged 18 or 19 can

occur. Thus, there may be advantages in applying GDL systems to older novice drivers.16

3 

Research suggests that GDL programs are beneficial both for the young licensed driver and

other road users.17 Evaluations of the New Zealand GDL system that occurred immediately

after its introduction demonstrated a reduction in casualty crashes of 25 percent.18 However,

the reduction in young driver crashes as a result of a GDL system may differ across racial or

ethnic groups.19

Within the Australian states of Queensland and Victoria, the introduction of more

comprehensive GDL systems is associated with reductions in fatal and serious injury

crashes.20,21 Other studies in various jurisdictions demonstrate a reduction on road crashes

attributable to GDL systems, however not as significantly as when it was first introduced.22,23

Road traffic crashes are an alarming public health issue throughout the world,24

including in Oman,25 despite ongoing improvements in traffic law enforcement practices and

technology. One of the main target groups for road safety in Oman are young drivers aged

17-25 years. According to the licensing system in Oman, as comprised in the Traffic Law, the

minimum age to apply for licence is 18 years, with a provision for an exception in some cases

where the minimum age may be 17. In a recent investigation examining the characteristics of

crashes in Oman involving young drivers over a three year period, Al-Reesi, Buckley 26

found that although young drivers aged 17-25 years comprise around 17% of all licence

holders, they represented more than one third of all drivers involved in road traffic crashes in

Oman. Specifically, these authors reported that of the total number of road traffic crashes in

Oman for the period 2009 to 2011 (N = 33,172), a total of 11,101 involved a young driver.

Examination of young drivers specifically revealed that 7,727 young drivers (69.6%) were

considered to be ‘at-fault’ at the time of the crash. There is a need to consider programs such

as GDL in order to improve young driver safety in Oman.

While research has confirmed, to varying degrees, the effectiveness of GDL

systems,27,28,3,4,29,30,14,15 there is limited evidence available regarding the mechanisms by

4 

which they successfully reduce crashes and which particular components are most effective.15

The available research has suggested that requiring a learners permit for a minimum of 12

months, having a passenger restriction, and a night-time restriction component were the most

effective in reducing fatal crashes.31 This review is intended to provide an update on the

existing literature, with special attention given to the role of parents and enforcement related

issues.

The learner phase

The learner phase is designed to allow new drivers the opportunity to gain practical

driving experience with vehicle handling, the road environment and with the behaviour of

other drivers while under the supervision of a more experienced driver.2 This phase

recognises that individuals need to learn how to drive and to accumulate their initial driving

experience in lower risk situations with an experienced supervisor.1,8 It aims to provide

individuals with the experience and capabilities for when they drive by themselves.21 While

the learner phase is critical in a comprehensive GDL system,32 it is important to note that

supervised driving is inherently different from unaccompanied driving.2 Supervised driving is

designed to effectively teach and allow the learner to develop experience as a driver.33

Benefits from the learner phase may result through delayed licensure, the supervised learning

process, mandated hours of practice and the involvement of parents.

Delayed licensing

Delayed licensing occurs when learner drivers are delayed from being able to drive

without supervision for a time. It limits learners’ exposure to risky driving situations and

allows them time to mature thereby reducing crashes.34 Delayed licensing can include

increasing the amount of time that must be spent as a learner or raising the minimum age to

obtain a learner licence.35-37

5 

Raising the licensing age from 16 years to 16½ years in New Jersey has been

associated with a seven percent lower fatal crash rate, while delaying the licensing age to 17

years was associated with a 13 percent lower fatal crash rate.3 An analysis of fatal crash rates

for 15, 16 and 17 year olds in the USA revealed that jurisdictions that allow individuals to

learn to drive and become licensed at an earlier age have higher crash rates.38 Additionally,

recent literature suggests that a GDL system that is inclusive of all ages reduces novice driver

crash risk, however conversely, a GDL system can increase the crash risk if it is only

applicable to those under 18 years.39

Furthermore, the length of time that the learner licence is valid provides another

method of delaying licensing. Learner licences that expire in a relatively short time period

may encourage individuals to become licensed near the expiration date due to the sense of

urgency that the short time frame creates. Allowing learners to drive on a licence that does

not expire for a significant time period does not create this pressure.38

Supervised learning

Higher order skills such as perception, attention and judgement develop over several

years in comparison to basic motor skills.40 The amount of practice required for learning to

drive is not known.34 Although new drivers’ ability improves over time, it does not equal the

ability of more experienced drivers in more complex driving situations. Research suggests

that the more supervised practice that a learner undertakes reduces their risk of crashing once

they commence solo driving.7

The amount of practice undertaken by learner drivers may be affected by a number of

factors. This includes increasing self-confidence as vehicle control skills improve, time

constraints including employment, social events, education, and holding the learner’s

licence.41 Research has identified that learners fail to gain much experience in potentially

6 

higher-risk situations, such as driving in the rain or at night, however they quickly became

confident of their driving abilities by the time they reach the next stage of licensing.42,41 This

suggests that more hours of accompanied driving undertaken results in a more positive

perception of this period.43

Mandated hours of practice

Some jurisdictions require learners to obtain and record in a logbook a fixed number

of driving hours, with research suggesting that mandating a number of hours of supervised

practice increases the amount of practice undertaken.44,45 These requirements in the USA

vary from 20 to 65 hours.46 Some states within Australia require learner drivers to complete

significantly more practice. For instance, learner drivers in Victoria and New South Wales

must complete 120 hours while those in Queensland must record 100 hours.47 However, in

Queensland, learner drivers are able to record 3 hours within their log book for every hour

completed with a professional driving instructor up to 10 hours of practice or 30 log book

hours.33 This means that learner drivers in Queensland may be able to record 100 hours

within a log book with only 80 hours of practice undertaken. There appears to be little

research basis for the selection of particular time limits.48,2 although there is some research

support for learners obtaining close to 120 hours of practice, suggesting that supervised

learning reduced crash rates once the individual commenced driving on their own.49

Additionally, jurisdictions with 50 or more mandated hours of practice have higher levels of

parental involvement than those with less or no mandated hours.50

However, the mandated number of hours may imply to learners and their parents that

this is all the time it takes to learn the required driving skills and that it is a simple task that is

completed as soon as the learner requirements are fulfilled.2 Requiring new drivers to

7 

complete a certain amount of practice may also delay licensing and thus reduce their

exposure to the risk of crashing.34

There are also a number of potential drawbacks involving parents in ensuring that

learner drivers obtain sufficient supervised practice.51 This includes that the supervised

practice may lack variety and parents may undertake many of the higher order driving tasks

on behalf of the learner, thereby preventing the development of skills in identifying hazards

and managing distractions. This concept is supported by the findings of research undertaken

in North Carolina which identified that parents of teenage learner drivers focussed on

teaching vehicle handling skills rather than higher-order perceptual and cognitive skills.52

Other potential drawbacks include little parental knowledge of the mandated number

of hours and parental perceptions of supervised practice.53 Research indicates that parents

find the log book system is not an effective measure of the amount of driving practice despite

reporting that their own child’s log book is accurate.54 However, the use of a log book to

record hours may help structure learners’ driving practice, allowing other supervisors to

know how much the learner had practiced.55

Research suggests that log books are not completed in voluntary systems.44,55 Before

completing a learner log book was a compulsory requirement within the Queensland GDL

system, two-thirds of participants within a study indicated that they were unaware that a

voluntary log book was available for completion.42

The provisional phase

An important component of effective GDL systems is the limiting of driving in high

risk situations for the first few months or years after the new driver receives their licence.38

The provisional phase is designed to reduce new drivers’ exposure to risky situations when

they first commence driving without supervision by limiting their driving in certain riskier

situations such as at night, with passengers, or after drinking alcohol.9

8 

Night driving restrictions

Younger drivers are far more likely than older drivers to crash at night.38 Night

driving restrictions have been introduced in several jurisdictions including New Zealand as

well as numerous states in the USA.6 Restricting late night driving for young drivers is shown

to be effective in reducing crashes and young driver fatalities.56,4 A national study within the

United States of America suggested that the night time fatal crashes for 16 and 17 year old

drivers was reduced by approximately 10 per cent when compared with older peers.57 The

effectiveness of the night time driving restriction however, is affected by the time it starts, the

role of parents, and the availability of exemptions.37 Night time restrictions have shown to be

more effective when they restrict driving before midnight, and even with a 50 percent

compliance rate, are still effective in reducing crashes.58,59

Passenger restrictions

Drivers tend to exhibit safe driving behaviours such as wearing a seatbelt when they

are accompanied by passengers. The greater the number of passengers, the greater the

likelihood that safe driving behaviours will be displayed by the driver.60 Conversely, younger

drivers accompanied by younger passengers are more likely to cause a crash than any other

age group.61,60,38 The more young passengers present, the greater the crash risk both at night

and during the day.37 With a passenger restriction, while passengers under a certain age are

prohibited, family members are generally exempted from the restriction and are able to drive

with the provisional licence holder at all times.37

Research from New Zealand suggests there is a reduction in provisional licensed

driver crashes when a passenger restriction is in place.18 Evaluations conducted in the USA

have also found positive effects relating to the implementation of the passenger

9 

restriction.4,30,37 Research from the United States of America suggests that GDL laws with no

teen passengers permitted are effective in reducing fatal crashes for 16 and 17 year old

drivers with teen passengers.Research from the United States of America suggests that any

peer passenger restriction, whether it allows no, one or two peer passengers, is effective in

reducing fatal crashes for 16 and 17 year old drivers.57 Provisional drivers are less likely to

comply with the passenger restriction than they are with a night driving restriction.37

However, one study calculated that even with a 50 percent compliance rate fatalities and

serious injuries to novice drivers reduced.58

Blood Alcohol Content restrictions

Young people drink and drive less frequently than adults but when they do drink and

drive, they have an increased risk.61,62 While Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) restrictions for

all drivers are frequently present in licensing systems, restricting BAC at a much lower level

is often part of a GDL system. All Australian states have BAC restrictions for provisional

drivers, although this restriction may sometimes only apply to drivers below a certain age.63

Additionally, New Zealand and jurisdictions within the USA and Canada also have BAC

restrictions.64,63 Research suggests that there is strong evidence that restricted BAC laws for

younger drivers are effective in reducing crash risk for new drivers.56

Mobile phone restrictions

Younger drivers are more likely than older drivers to use their mobile phone while

driving.65,66 One survey study of American college students found that they were more likely

to crash or nearly crash while talking on a mobile phone rather than when dialling or

answering their mobile phone.67 The introduction of mobile phone bans is designed to

counter the problem of distraction for new drivers.37 Research suggests that drivers that use

10 

mobile phones (including texting) while driving may have an increased risk of crashing.68,69

The incorporation of a mobile phone ban into GDL systems has also been prompted by

research indicating that the use of hands-free mobile phone devices does not eliminate the

crash risk.70

Restrictions on mobile phone use are present in several USA and Australian

jurisdictions. These restrictions can be either for all drivers or just for newly licensed

drivers.47,37 Foss, Goodwin 71 examined mobile phone use and identified that the law had

little effect on the use of these devices by young drivers. The method of enforcement of this

restriction is likely to impact on its effectiveness.72,71 Public education campaigns that are

implemented in an evidence-based manner may be useful in reducing illegal mobile phone

use.73,74

Vehicle power restrictions

A vehicle power restriction is used to limit the type of car that a newly licensed driver

may drive.75 For instance, they may be restricted to a certain number of cylinders or a power-

to-weight ratio. The rationale for this restriction is that young drivers who have an above

average performance vehicle tend to have a more dangerous attitude to driving than other

young drivers.76 Vehicle power restrictions have existed for some time in Australia,75

however the effectiveness of this restriction in reducing crashes is at best limited. A recent

study suggests that, due to the low numbers of high powered vehicles driven by provisional

drivers, the reduction in injury rates from these restrictions ranges from .4 percent in New

Zealand to 2.5 percent in the Australian states of Queensland and Victoria, provided there

was 100 percent compliance with this restriction.75

P-plates

11 

P-plates, also known as decals, are used to indicate to others that the driver of the

vehicle holds a provisional licence and is therefore not yet fully licensed.77 The mandatory

display of P-plates may increase compliance with,78 and enforcement of, other restrictions.4,79

They may also indicate to other drivers that the person holds a provisional licence and

encourage the driver to limit their risk taking behaviours.80 Additionally, the removal of the

requirement to display these plates could be seen as an incentive for provisional drivers.80

One study evaluated the decal law in New Jersey and found it positively affected

provisional drivers’ safety and reduced their crash rate by nine percent.77 The requirement to

display decals is not popular with young people in New Jersey.81 Focus groups with young

drivers in Queensland indicated that they felt that police may target them for enforcement

when they are required to display P-plates.82

Exit tests

The purpose of an exit test is to test a provisional driver before they obtain their full

driving licence. It is designed to ensure that the provisional driver is capable of holding a full

(unrestricted) licence83 and may highlight the fact that a provisional driver is still developing

their driving skills and abilities.6 Exit tests, like other tests within the licensing system, can

use a range of formats including knowledge tests, hazard perception tests or on-road driving

tests.63 One North American study identified that an exit test is beneficial as it reduces

relative fatality risk,30 although another review concluded that the effectiveness of driver

testing, including exit tests, is not known.84

Parental involvement

A key factor within GDL systems is the level of support that parents provide4,8 with

parental involvement impacting positively on the safety of young drivers.85 Parents involved

12 

in the learning process tend to be strong supporters of GDL,86,4,87-89 however, while GDL

systems that implicitly encourage parental involvement are now implemented in many

jurisdictions, parents tend not to be systematically involved in the process.34 A criticism of

many studies is that they look at novice drivers in isolation, rather than the relationship

between novice drivers, their peers and their parents in a holistic way.90

Parental involvement in the learner phase

The involvement of parents in the learner phase is critical to the success of GDL

systems.4. The support of parents is necessary in order for the majority of learner drivers to

accrue sufficient driving experience41 with learners indicating that the cost of accessing

professional driving instructors as an alternative was prohibitively expensive.91 Young

drivers in GDL programs have increased parental driving instruction and supervised driving

during the learner phase92 with parents tending to take more time to supervise their learners

driving than required by law.45 Research suggests that, at least for the first four months of

supervised driving, parents tend to focus on vehicle handling and operation.93

It appears that mothers take responsibility for much of the supervision of learner

drivers. A study in North Carolina identified that mothers assumed most of the responsibility

for supervising the teenage driver when they were driving on a learner licence.52 Research

suggests that mothers appeared to be more safety conscious than fathers, and consider driving

at all stages of licensure riskier.94,88,89 Perhaps this explains why mothers are more likely to

delay driving privileges than fathers.88 Parents will continue to influence the newly licensed

driver’s behaviour once they progress to solo driving.90,95,96,2

Parental involvement in the provisional phase

13 

Parental involvement does not cease once the new driver obtains their provisional

licence. Some authors argue that parental involvement is most important when young drivers

are able to drive solo.51 Parents can be involved by playing an active role in placing

restrictions on new drivers by enforcing the GDL requirements.92 However, parents and their

children may not agree on driving rules with parents tending to have stricter

interpretations.97,98 For these reasons, parents may not become actively involved in managing

their children’s driving.98

While nearly all parents place driving restrictions on their children, young drivers

who have been licensed under a GDL system report more restrictions on their driving by

parents.99,92 Research indicates that most parents set limits on newly licensed drivers,

although these limits tend not to be strict or maintained too long.100 The restrictions may also

be focussed on issues, such as obtaining permission to drive the car, that may not directly

affect crash risk.51

Young drivers with parents who have imposed stricter limits reported engaging in less

risky driving behaviour and had fewer traffic violations and crashes.101,51,102 While parental

limit setting does have some safety benefits, it appears that these benefits are modest, have a

limited time span and are not well enforced with clear consequences.51

Programs targeting parents

Programs that aim to develop parents’ skills and abilities to manage their child’s

progress through the GDL system are being developed. Given that siblings, parents, and other

family members reported that parental involvement in supervising learner driving should be

extensive, the need to increase parent education is important.103 Whilst many educational

programs are adopted for parents,104 the most common parent educational program is the

Checkpoints Program used in the USA which is designed to encourage parents to limit

14 

driving under high risk conditions when their child is first licensed.4 The Checkpoints

Program uses videos, newsletters and a parent-teen driving agreement in order to encourage

parent monitoring of their child’s driving. Evaluations of this program identified that it was

effective in parental limit setting and on teenage risky driving behaviour and traffic offences

during the first 12 months of driving.51

Connecticut now requires a parent to complete training course at the commencement

of their child learning to drive. Research suggests that parents approve of the requirement to

attend the course and believe the training would help them in their role as supervisor of a

learner driver. Some parents stated that they were more likely to enforce the GDL rules as a

result of this course.105

Compliance and enforcement

Compliance

New drivers do not uniformly comply with all restrictions present in GDL systems

with the levels of compliance higher for some restrictions when compared with others. As an

example, new drivers are more likely to comply with a late night driving restriction than with

the peer passenger restriction.106 It appears that as novice drivers progress through their

provisional driving licence, they become less compliant with road laws.107

In North Carolina, 17 percent of learner drivers drove without a supervisor.108 In

Nova Scotia and California, approximately 40 percent of intermediate licensed drivers had

occasionally violated the night driving restriction. However, only 12 to 15 percent of drivers

on their intermediate licence violated the night driving restriction often.109,110 Despite the fact

that significant numbers of new drivers have, at some stage, not complied with a GDL

restriction, the laws are still successful in reducing crash risk for novice drivers.63

Nevertheless, the effectiveness of GDL systems will probably be enhanced by improving

15 

compliance with the restrictions. Accordingly, it is important to examine the factors that

influence compliance rates.

Compliance with the GDL system is, to some extent, self-motivated. Individuals are

expected to conform to the laws as they represent the standard of behaviour. However, this

will not work if the GDL laws require new drivers to comply with standards that are not

considered ‘reasonable’ by the majority of new drivers. Compliance with the GDL system

can therefore be enhanced by ensuring that most new drivers consider the provisions

contained within the GDL system are reasonable.111

It appears as if parents also impact on the likelihood that their children will comply

with the road laws. Those novice drivers whose parents provide a strong supervision role

display a more negative attitude towards violating road rules. They also have less intention of

violating these laws.112

Enforcement of road laws

Generally speaking, the enforcement of traffic laws is the most common initiative

used to modify driver behaviour and thus reduce the incidences of crashes.113 However, the

provisions of a GDL system are difficult for police officers to enforce, particularly if they are

unable to recognise which driving restrictions apply to which licence.90,106 If police officers

do not have a full understanding of the GDL laws they may be placed in a difficult situation

when they attempt to enforce laws on new drivers who have a greater knowledge of the

laws.114

One study examined if publicity and increased enforcement increased compliance

with GDL restrictions. The program used mechanisms known to change driver behaviour in

other contexts. It resulted in a modest increase in infringement notices issued to novice

drivers, although virtually no tickets had been issued previously.114

16 

GDL relies on parents to enforce the various provisions.105,1,88,111 Given the

difficulties involved with police enforcement, parents are implicitly expected to implement

driving restrictions and monitor compliance with these restrictions.115 Research has shown

that parents play a significant influence on the driving compliance of provisionally licensed

drivers, more than police.90 GDL programs provide parents with support in setting limits for

their children. GDL systems clearly identify the factors that are high-risk and establish clear

limits for parents on what is appropriate driving behaviour.99 Effective enforcement of GDL

provisions by parents requires them to be aware of the requirements of the GDL system in

their jurisdiction.105

Summary

GDL aims to gradually increase the exposure of new drivers to more complex driving

situations in as safe a manner as possible. GDL systems typically consist of learner,

provisional and open licence phases. The first phase of a GDL system, the learner licence, is

designed to allow new drivers to obtain practical driving experience in a lower risk situation.

Benefits from this phase may result from delayed licensure, the supervised learning process,

mandated hours of practice and the involvement of parents. The second phase of the GDL

system, the provisional licence, reduces new drivers’ exposure to risky driving in situations

such as at night, with passengers or after drinking alcohol. It manages this risk by putting

various driving restrictions in place. The involvement of parents with GDL appears essential.

They tend to have a heavy involvement in helping their learner obtain sufficient practice and

enforcing compliance with restrictions once the new driver obtains a provisional licence.

Given the significant number of young drivers involved in crashes within Oman, GDL is one

countermeasure that may be beneficial in reducing crash risk and involvement for this group.

17 

Oman has an opportunity to apply the international research reviewed above and introduce

various aspects of GDL that have demonstrated crash reductions in other jurisdictions.

18 

References

1. Shults RA. Foreword to 'Graduated driver licensing research, 2007-present: A review

and commentary'. Journal of Safety Research 2010.41:75.

2. Foss R. Improving graduated driver licensing systems: A conceptual approach and its

implications. Journal of Safety Research 2007.38(2):185-92.

3. McCartt A, Teoh ER, Fields M, Braitman KA, Hellinga LA. Graduated Licensing

Laws and Fatal Crashes of Teenage Drivers: A National Study. Traffic Injury

Prevention 2010.11(3):240 - 8.

4. Williams A, Shults RA. Graduated Driver Licensing Research, 2007–Present: A

Review and Commentary. Journal of Safety Research 2010.41:77-84.

5. Simpson HM. The evolution and effectiveness of graduated licensing. Journal of

Safety Research 2003.34:25-34.

6. Williams A, Mayhew D. Graduated Licensing: A Blueprint for North America.

Arlington: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; 2003 January.

7. Gulliver P, Begg D, Brookland R, Ameratunga S, Langley J. Learner driver

experiences and crash risk as an unsupervised driver. Journal of Safety Research

2013.46:41-6.

8. Mayhew D. The learner's permit. Journal of Safety Research 2003.34:35-43.

9. Preusser D, Leaf WA. Provisional license. Journal of Safety Research 2003.34:45-9.

10. Waller PF. The genesis of GDL. Journal of Safety Research 2003.34:17-23.

11. Fell J, Jones K, Romano E, Voas RB. An evaluation of graduated driver licensing

effects on fatal crash involvements of young drivers in the United States. Traffic

Injury Prevention 2011.12(5):423-31.

12. Masten SV, Foss R, Marshall S. Graduated driver licensing and fatal crashes

involving 16- to 19-year-old drivers. JAMA 2011.306(10):1098-103.

19 

13. Williams A, Chaudhary N, Tefft B, Tison J. Evaluation of New Jersey’s graduated

driver licensing program. Traffic Injury Prevention 2010.11(1):1-7.

14. Neyens DM, Donmez B, Boyle LN. The Iowa graduated driver licensing program:

Effectiveness in reducing crashes of teenage drivers. Journal of Safety Research

2008.39(4):383-90.

15. Shope JT. Graduated driver licensing: Review of evaluation results since 2002.

Journal of Safety Research 2007.38(2):165-75.

16. Fell J, Romano E, Voas RB. A national evaluation of graduated driver licensing laws

in the United States. Papers presented at: 20th International Council on Alcohol,

Drugs and Traffic Safety Conference, 25-28 August; Brisbane, Australia; 2013.

17. Kirley BB, Feller A, Braver E, Langenberg P. Does the Maryland graduated driver

licensing law affect both 16-year-old drivers and those who share the road with them?

Journal of Safety Research 2008.39(3):295-301.

18. Begg DJ, Stephenson S. Graduated driver licensing: the New Zealand experience.

Journal of Safety Research 2003.34:99-105.

19. Romano E, Fell J, Voas RB. The role of race and ethnicity on the effect of graduated

driver licensing laws in the United States.

Annals of Advances in Automotive Medicine 2011.55:51-61.

20. Newstead S, Scully M. Crash effects of the new Queensland Graduated Licensing

System: A preliminary evaluation. In: 2013 Australasian Road Safety Research,

Policing & Education Conference, 28 - 30 August; Brisbane, Australia; 2013.

21. Healy D, Catchpole J, Harrison W. Victoria's Graduated Licensing System Evaluation

Interim Report. Melbourne; 2012.

22. Rouse HL, Aitken ME, Lein SD, Leath KJ, Halverson P, Thompson JW. Statewide

policies for safer teen driving: An evaluation of the impact of graduated driver

20 

licensing in Arkansas. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2013.75(4):S281-

S4.

23. Lewis-Evans B. Crash involvement during the different phases of the New Zealand

Graduated Driver Licensing System (GDLS). Journal of Safety Research

2010.41:359-65.

24. McIlvenny S. Road traffic accidents - A challenging epidemic. Sultan Qaboos

University Medical Journal 2006.6(1):1-5.

25. Al-Lamki L. Life loss and disability from traffic accidents: It is imperative we all act

now. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal 2010.10(1):1-5.

26. Al-Reesi H, Buckley L, Davey J, Al-Adawi S, Al Maniri A, Armstrong K, et al.

Analysis of young driver crashes in Oman. Oman: Research Council of Oman; 2013.

27. Lyon J, Pan R, Li J. National evaluation of the effect of graduated driver licensing

laws on teenager fatality and injury crashes. Journal of Safety Research 2012.43:29-

37.

28. Masten SV, Foss R. Long-term effect of the North Carolina graduated driver licensing

system on licensed driver crash incidence: A 5-year survival analysis. Accident

Analysis & Prevention 2010.42:1647-52.

29. Pressley J, Benedicto C, Trieu L, Kendig T, Barlow B. Motor vehicle injury, mortality

and hospital charges by strength of graduated driver licensing laws in 36 states.

Journal of Trauma, Infection and Critical Care 2009.67(1):s43-s53.

30. Vanlaar W, Mayhew D, Marcoux K, Wets G, Brijs T, Shope JT. An evaluation of

graduated driver licensing programs in North America using a meta-analytic

approach. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2009.41:1104-11.

21 

31. Masten SV, Foss R, Marshall S. Graduated driver licensing program component

calibrations and their association with fatal crash involvement. Accident Analysis &

Prevention 2013.57:105-13.

32. Bates L, Watson B, King M. Driving and licensing experiences of learner drivers in

two Australian states prior to changes in the licensing laws. Journal of the

Australasian College of Road Safety 2009.20(3):51-5.

33. Scott-Parker B, Bates L, Watson B, King M, Hyde M. The impact of changes to the

graduated driver licensing program in Queensland, Australia on the experiences of

learner drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2011.43:1301-8.

34. Simons-Morton B. Parent involvement in novice teen driving: Rationale, evidence of

effects, and potential for enhancing graduated driver licensing effectiveness. Journal

of Safety Research 2007.38(2):193-202.

35. McCartt A, Farmer C, Jenness J. Perceptions and experiences of participants in a

study of in-vehicle monitoring of teenage drivers. Traffic Injury Prevention

2010.11(4):361-70.

36. Williams A. Licensing age and teenage driver crashes: A review of the evidence.

Traffic Injury Prevention 2009.10(1):9-15.

37. Williams A. Contribution of the components of graduated licensing to crash

reductions. Journal of Safety Research 2007.38(2):177-84.

38. Preusser D, Tison J. GDL then and now. Journal of Safety Research 2007.38(2):159-

63.

39. Ehsani JP, Bingham CR, Shope JT. Graduated Driver Licensing for new drivers:

Effects of three states' policies on crash rates among teenagers. American Journal of

Preventive Medicine 2013.45(1):9-18.

22 

40. Sagberg F, Bjørnskau T. Hazard perception and driving experience among novice

drivers. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2006.38(2):407-14.

41. Harrison WA. Investigation of the driving experience of a sample of Victorian learner

drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2004.36:885-91.

42. Bates L, Watson B, King M. Factors influencing learner driver experiences. Canberra:

Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local

Government; 2009.

43. Taubman-Ben-Ari O, Lotan T. The contribution of a novel intervention to enhance

safe driving among young drivers in Israel. Accident Analysis & Prevention

2011.43:352-9.

44. Bates L, Watson B, King M. Required hours of practice for learner drivers: A

comparison between two Australian jurisdictions. Journal of Safety Research

2010.41:93-7.

45. Waller PF, Olk ML, Shope JT. Parental views of and experience with Michigan's

graduated licensing program. Journal of Safety Research 2000.31(1):9-15.

46. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Young driver licensing systems in the U.S. .

2012 [cited 2012 18 September]; Available from:

http://www.iihs.org/laws/graduatedlicenseintro.aspx

47. Senserrick T. Australian Graduated Driver Licensing Systems. Journal of the

Australasian College of Road Safety 2009.20(1):20-6.

48. Bates L. The Experiences of Learner Drivers, Provisional Drivers and Supervisors

with Graduated Driver Licensing in Two Australian Jurisdictions. Brisbane:

University of Technology; 2012.

23 

49. Gregersen NP, Berg H-Y, Engstrom I, Nolen S, Nyberg A, Rimmo P-A. Sixteen years

age limit for learner drivers in Sweden - An evaluation of safety effects. Accident

Analysis and Prevention 2000.32:25-35.

50. Jacobsohn L, Garcia-Espana J, Durbin DR, Erkoboni D, Winston FK. Adult-

supervised practice driving for adolescent learners: The current state and directions

for interventions. Journal of Safety Research 2012.43(1):21-8.

51. Simons-Morton B, Ouimet MC, Catalano RF. Parenting and the Young Driver

Problem. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008.35(3, supplement 1):s294-

s303.

52. Goodwin AH, Foss R, Margolis LH, Waller M. Parents, teens and the learner stage of

graduated driver licensing. Washington: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety; 2010.

53. O'Brien N, Foss R, Goodwin A, Masten SV. Supervised hours requirements in

graduated driver licensing: Effectiveness and parental awareness. Accident Analysis

& Prevention 2013.50:330-5.

54. Bates L, Watson B, King M. Parental perceptions of the learner driver log book

system in two Australian states. Traffic Injury Prevention in press.

55. Bates L, Watson B, King M. The structure of the learner licence affects the type of

experiences novices gain during this phase: Examples from Queensland and New

South Wales. Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety 2008.19(4):36-42.

56. Carpenter D, Pressley JC. Graduated driver license nighttime compliance in U.S. teen

drivers involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention

2013.56:110-7.

57. Fell J, Todd M, Voas RB. A national evaluation of the nighttime and passenger

restriction components of graduated driver licensing. Journal of Safety Research

2011.42:283-90.

24 

58. Jones SJ, Begg DJ, Palmer SR. Reducing young driver crash casualties in Great

Britain – Use of routine police crash data to estimate the potential benefits of

graduated driver licensing. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety

Promotion 2012.1-10.

59. Russell KF, Vandermeer B, Hartling L. Graduated driver licensing for reducing motor

vehicle crashes among young drivers. The Crochane Library 2011.10.

60. Lee C, Abdel-Aty M. Presence of passengers: Does it increase or reduce driver's crash

potential? Accident Analysis & Prevention 2008.40(5):1703-12.

61. Bates L, Davey J, Watson B, King M, Armstrong K. Factors contributing to young

driver crashes: A review. Sultan Qaboos University Medical Journal in press.

62. Shope JT, Bingham CR. Teen Driving: Motor-Vehicle Crashes and Factors That

Contribute. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008.35(3, supplement 1):s261-

s71.

63. Senserrick T, Whelan M. Graduated Driver Licensing: Effectiveness of Systems and

Individual Components. Melbourne: Monash University Accident Research Centre;

2003 October. Report No.:Report No. 209.

64. Carpenter C. Did Ontario's zero tolerance and graduated licensing law reduce youth

drunk driving? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2006.25(1):183-95.

65. Gauld CS, Lewis I, White KM. Concealing their communication: Exploring

psychosocial predictors of young drivers’ intentions and engagement in concealed

texting. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2014.62:285-93.

66. Bener A, Lajunen T, Ozkan T, Haigney D. The effect of mobile phone use on driving

style and driving skills. International Journal of Crashworthiness 2006.11(5):459-66.

25 

67. Seo D, Torabi M. The impact of in-vehicle cell phone use on accidents or near-

accidents among college students. Journal of American College Health

2004.53(3):101-7.

68. Cazzulino F, Burke R, Muller V, Arbogast H, Upperman J. Cell phones and young

drivers: a systematic review regarding the association between psychological factors

and prevention. Traffic Injury Prevention in press.

69. Hafetz J, Jacobsohn L, Garcia-Espana J, Curry A, Winston FK. Adolescent drivers'

perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of abstention from in-vehicle cell

phone use. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2010.42:1570-6.

70. McEvoy S, Stevenson M, McCartt A, Woodward M, Haworth C, Palamara P, et al.

Role of mobile phones in motor vehicle crashes resulting in hospital attendance: A

case-crossover study. British Medical Journal 2005.331:428-30.

71. Foss R, Goodwin AH, McCartt A, Hellinga LA. Short-term effects of a teenage driver

cell phone restriction. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2009.41:419-24.

72. Curry A, Hafetz J, Kallan M, Winston FK, Durbin D. Prevalence of teen driver errors

leading to serious motor vehicle crashes. Accident Analysis & Prevention

2011.43:1285-90.

73. Gauld C, Lewis I, White K. Concealed texting while driving: What are young

people’s beliefs about this risky behaviour? Safety Science 2014.65:63–9.

74. Fleiter J, Lewis I, Watson B. Promoting a more positive traffic safety culture in

Australia: Lessons learnt and future directions. In: 2013 Australasian College of Road

Safety Conference, 6-8 November 2013; National Wine Centre of Australia,

Adelaide, Australia; 2013.

26 

75. Keall MD, Newstead S. The potential effectiveness of young driver high-performance

vehicle restrictions as used in Australia. Accident Analysis & Prevention

2013.52:154-61.

76. Clarke D, Ward P, Truman W. In-depth Accident Causation Study for Young Drivers.

United Kingdom; 2002. Report No.:TRL542.

77. Curry A, Pfeiffer M, Localio R, Durbin D. Graduated Driver Licensing Decal Law :

Effect on Young Probationary Drivers. American Journal of Preventive Medicine

2013.44(1):1-7.

78. Triggs TJ, Smith KB. Young Driver Research Program: Digest of Reports and

Principal Findings of the Research. Canberra: Federal Office of Road Safety; 1996.

Report No.:CR 164.

79. Harrison WA. Report on Review of Novice-Driver Road Safety Programs. Sydney:

NRMA Motoring and Services; 2003 March.

80. Senserrick T, Whelan M. Graduated Driver Licensing Systems. Melbourne: Monash

University Accident Research Centre; 2002 December.

81. Williams A, McCartt A. Views of New Jersey teenagers about their state's policies for

beginning drivers. Journal of Safety Research 2014.48:1-6.

82. Scott-Parker B, Bates L. "…it just feels like you are a suspect for everything":

Investigating young drivers' perceptions regarding their interactions with Police.

Police Practice and Research: An international journal under review.

83. Ferguson SA. Other high-risk factors for young drivers - how graduated licensing

does, doesn't, or could address them. Journal of Safety Research 2003.34(1):71-7.

84. Haire ER, Williams A, Preusser D, Solomon M. Driver license testing of young

novice drivers. Washington: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 2011

February.

27 

85. Taubman-Ben-Ari O, Katz-Ben-Ami K. Family climate for road safety: A new

concept and measure. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2013.54:1-14.

86. Brookland R, Begg DJ. Adolescent, and their parents, attitudes towards graduated

driver licensing and subsequent risky driving and crashes in young adulthood. Journal

of Safety Research 2011.42(2):109-15.

87. Campbell B, Chaudhary N, Saleheen H, Borrup K, Lapidus G. Does knowledge of

teen driving risks and awareness of current law translate into support for stronger

GDL provisions? Lessons learned from one state. Traffic Injury Prevention

2009.10(4):320-4.

88. Williams A, Leaf WA, Simons-Morton B, Hartos JL. Parents' views of teen driving

risks, the role of parents, and how they plan to manage the risks. Journal of Safety

Research 2006.37:221-6.

89. Ferguson SA, Williams A. Parents' views of driver licensing practices in the United

States. Journal of Safety Research 1996.27(2):73-81.

90. Allen S. What 'drives' compliance? : The deterrent effects of police and parents on the

driving compliance of Queensland provisionally licensed drivers. Mt Gravatt,

Queensland: Griffith University; 2013.

91. Scott-Parker B. Experiences of teen drivers and their advice for the Learner licence

phase. Traffic Injury Prevention in press.

92. Beck KH, Shattuck T, Raleigh R, Hartos JL. Does graduated licensing empower

parents to place greater restrictions on their newly licensed teens' driving? Health

Education and Behavior 2003.30:695-708.

93. Goodwin A, Foss R, Margolis LH, Harrel S. Parent comments and instruction during

the first four months of supervised driving: An opportunity missed? Accident

Analysis & Prevention 2014.69:15-22.

28 

94. Bates L, Watson B, King M. Mothers Vs Fathers As Learner Driver Supervisors:

Time Commitment, Driving Activities And Perceptions Of Risk. In: 2013

Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing & Education Conference, 28 - 30

August; Brisbane, Australia; 2013.

95. Miller G, Taubman-Ben-Ari O. Driving styles among young novice drivers - The

contribution of parental driving styles and personal characteristics. Accident Analysis

& Prevention 2010.42:558-70.

96. Prato C, Toledo T, Lotan T, Taubman-Ben-Ari O. Modeling the behavior of novice

young drivers during the first year after licensure. Accident Analysis & Prevention

2010.42:480-6.

97. Brookland R, Begg D, Langley J, Ameratunga S. Parental influence on adolescent

compliance with Graduated Driver Licensing conditions and crashes as a restricted

licensed driver: New Zealand Drivers Study. Accident Analysis & Prevention

2014.69:30-9.

98. Beck KH, Hartos JL, Simons-Morton B. Parent-teen disagreement of parent-imposed

restrictions on teen driving after one month of licensure: Is discordance related to

risky teen driving? Prevention Science 2005.26(3):177-85.

99. Hartos JL, Simons-Morton B, Beck KH, Leaf WA. Parent-imposed limits on high-risk

adolescent driving: are they stricter with graduated driver licensing? Accident

Analysis & Prevention 2005.37(3):557-62.

100. Hartos JL, Eitel P, Haynie D, Simons-Morton B. Can I take the car? Relations among

parenting practices and adolescent problem-driving practices. Journal of Adolescent

Research 2000.15(3):352-67.

29 

101. Ginsburg K, Durbin D, Garcia-Espana J, Kalicka E, Winston FK. Associations

between parenting styles and teen driving, safety-related behaviors and attitudes.

Pediatrics 2009.124:1040-51.

102. Simons-Morton B, Ouimet MC. Parent involvement in novice teen driving: a review

of the literature. Injury Prevention 2006.12(supplement 1):i30-7.

103. Bates L, Watson B, King M. The role of parents and non-parents in the supervision of

learner drivers in Australia. Accident Analysis & Prevention 2014.70:40-5.

104. Williams A, Tefft B, Grabowski DC. Graduated driver licensing research, 2010-

present. Journal of Safety Research 2012.43:195-203.

105. Chaudhary N, Williams A, Casanova T. Parents' attitudes about Connecticut's

required driver orientation course for parents. Traffic Injury Prevention

2010.11(5):478-82.

106. Hedlund J. Novice teen driving: GDL and beyond. Journal of Safety Research

2007.38(2):259-66.

107. Scott-Parker B, Watson B, King M, Hyde M. Young, inexperienced and on the road:

do novice drivers comply with road rules? Transportation Research Record 2012.

108. Foss R, Goodwin AH, Rodgman E, Feaganes J. Development and evaluation of the

North Carolina graduated driver licensing system. Chapel Hill, NC: University of

North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center; 2002.

109. Williams A, Nelson LA, Leaf WA. Responses of teenagers and their parents to

California's graduated licensing system. Accident Analysis and Prevention

2002.34:835-42.

110. Mayhew D, Simpson H, Ferguson SA, Williams A. Graduated driver licensing in

Nova Scotia: a survey of teenagers and parents. Journal of Traffic Medicine 1998.26

(1-2):37-44.

30 

111. Foss R, Goodwin AH. Enhancing the effectiveness of graduated driver licensing

legislation. Journal of Safety Research 2003.34:79-84.

112. Desrichard O, Roche S, Begue L. The theory of planned behavior as mediator of the

effect of parental supervision: A study of intentions to violate driving rules in a

representative sample of adolescents. Journal of Safety Research 2007.38:447-52.

113. Bates L, Soole D, Watson B. The effectiveness of traffic policing in reducing traffic

crashes. In: Prenzler T, editor. Policing and Security in Practice: Challenges and

Achievements. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan; 2011.

114. Goodwin AH, Wells JK, Foss R, Williams A. Encouraging compliance with

graduated driver licensing restrictions. Journal of Safety Research 2006.37:343-51.

115. Williams A, Chaudhary N. Views of Connecticut parents of teens and other adults

about graduated licensing upgrades. Traffic Injury Prevention 2008.9(6):503-7.