Graduated driver licensing (GDL) can improve road safety while having minimal impact on new drivers’ access to education, employment and social activities.
That’s according to a new report, carried out by TRL for the RAC Foundation and the Rees Jeffreys Road Fund.
GDL imposes some limited restrictions on new drivers, most of whom are young, to allow them to ‘safely gain experience in the critical few months after they pass their test’. The limitations target known risk situations such as driving in the dark and carrying peer-age passengers.
International evidence shows that GDL, in one form or another, can reduce collisions and trauma from collisions involving young drivers, by 20-40%.
Despite this, some policy makers – including members of parliament sitting on the Transport Select Committee – continue to have areas of concerns about GDL.
These include:
- Whether it reduces access to employment and education
- Its impact on those in rural areas
- The difficulty of enforcement
- Whether there are better alternatives such as telematics insurance which uses black box technology to monitor driving style and behaviour
However, the report, titled Supporting New Drivers in Great Britain, shows these worries – and a number of others – are broadly unfounded.
Having conducted a literature review, interviews with young people in Great Britain and interviews with international experts, the authors (Dr Shaun Helman, Dr Neale Kinnear, Jack Hitchings and Dr Sarah Jones) of the study conclude that: “…serious adverse impacts are not seen or expected in any of the areas considered.
“This is because all stakeholders (new drivers, and their friends and families; employers; and service providers) were found to adapt to restrictions, with evidence showing that exemptions and changes in travel patterns help people to maintain the most important elements of their mobility, while still benefitting from well-evidenced improvements in safety.”
Steve Gooding, director of the RAC Foundation, said: “Rather than limiting young people’s life chances, GDL is all about ensuring they can seize them safely.
“The mistake critics of GDL make is to think of it as a single bundle of restrictions rather than a menu where even minimal constraints can cut death and injury whilst still being applied proportionately to accommodate the trips – such as getting to work and college – that young drivers need to make.”
Dr Shaun Helman, chief scientist at TRL, said: “We often hear ministers say that Great Britain has been a leader in road safety, but this is one area in which we have lagged behind other countries over the last three decades.
“GDL is a simple, evidence-based approach to licensing that we know reduces risk, and that this work confirms does not lead to serious reductions in mobility for young people, or problems with enforcement.
“That we are still having this debate after a decade of research showing specifically how GDL could work in our country, is terribly sad. If we are leaders in road safety, we can do better.”
Pre-Covid data shows that almost a quarter (24%) of those killed or seriously injured on Britain’s roads were in a collision involving a young driver (aged 17-24 years old) even though this age group makes up only about 7% of the total driving population.
> As to Mr Weston’s comment, I am mystified as to how he can argue that GDL would have done nothing for him, without having experienced it.
Notwithstanding my opinions with regards to how arrogant that comment always sounds when it’s brought up (which is often), I’d like to point out that most advocates of GDL ultimately sell it as a way to avoid behaviour that can be seen as “showing off” to their friends.
Most if not all schemes that have been advocated in the past have included exclusions for passenger limits or curfews for those requiring the use of a vehicle to travel to work, or to assist with caring for a child and/or family member with a disability – two of which I have personal experience in doing as a young driver.
I very easily travelled 25,000 miles a year for the first 3 years of driving, mostly during what people would probably refer to as “higher risk” rural single carriageways alone before and after the standard working day and I can count on one hand the amount of times I would have fallen foul of most proposed GDL restrictions.
And I still would have made those mistakes that I made as a very young driver.
Essentially, to repeat what I’m saying – GDL as a concept (for cars, might I add) isn’t fit for purpose, is discriminatory, would cause massive inconvenience for those who legitimately need to go to work late at night and those who think otherwise appear to not live in the real world.
David Weston, Newcastle upon Tyne
--2
GDL and ISA are two “essentials” outside of my own arena, road safety engineering. It beggars belief that neither the UK nor the Scottish governments have made any progress whatsoever with either. It speaks volumes, however, for their commitment to road safety. As to Mr Weston’s comment, I am mystified as to how he can argue that GDL would have done nothing for him, without having experienced it.
As I understand it, GDL does address the main problem, the need to gain experience at lower risk. Does he not regard a reduction in accidents and trauma of at least 20% worth while? I think we should be told.
Andrew Fraser, Stirling
+1
> Pre-Covid data shows that almost a quarter (24%) of those killed or seriously injured on Britain’s roads were in a collision involving a young driver (aged 17-24 years old) even though this age group makes up only about 7% of the total driving population.
So, the problem is that the driving syllabus isn’t up to scratch, and in an attempt to hide that problem, the problem is being shifted away from the root cause of the issue? Good work, everyone.
As someone who was a former young driver, GDL wouldn’t have done anything for me. I would have easily still driven 50,000 miles under GDL constraints. And I would have made exactly the same mistakes under an ideal GDL scenario as I actually did make in this timeline.
GDL is a sticking plaster, and a really discriminatory one at that.
Do better.
David Weston, Newcastle upon Tyne
--4