J. A. Vosswinkel1, K. L. Ladowski1, J. E. McCormack1, R. S. Jawa1 1Stony Brook University Medical Center,Stony Brook, NY, USA
Introduction: Despite advances in engineering, motor vehicle crashes remain a leading cause of injury morbidity and mortality, due in great part to driver behaviors such as speeding and inattention.
Methods: In 2015, the County’s Traffic & Parking Violation Agency began offering a 3 hour traffic violator course as part of a plea deal to reduce points/fines. Course instructors include representatives from agencies with a vested interest in traffic safety; county police department, defense lawyer and/or judge, trauma center, and a local human service agency. The course is divided into 2 sections based on type of violation received: Dangerous Driver (DD) program for speeding and/or aggressive driving and Inattentive Driver (ID) program for cell phone violations. Both courses cover similar content including traffic laws, judicial consequences of unsafe driving, and emotional/physical consequences of unsafe driving. After the course, participants are given an anonymous post-then-pre survey about their driving behavior. The Likert-type answers are coded numerically (1=Not At All, 2=A little, 3=somewhat, 4=A lot). Retrospective data analysis was performed using Student’s t-test.
Results: There were 214 surveys (139DD, 75 ID) collected from 11 classes (7DD, 4ID). We analyzed 5 key questions about their driving behavior: 1.Worried it could result in legal consequences; 2.Worried it could cause injury; 3.Want to change driving behavior to avoid legal consequences; 4.Want to change driving behavior to avoid causing injury; 5.Believe can improve driving behavior. Results presented below. Of note, the final 3 columns compare the mean change in attitudes between the DD and ID program. Furthermore, the DD overall scores were significantly higher both pre (DD=14.5±3.2, ID=12.7±3.1) and post (DD=17.4±3.4, ID=16.0±3.5)(p <.001), but there was no significant difference in the overall score increases between groups (DD=2.6±4.4, ID=2.9±3.8, p=0.60).
Conclusion: On course completion, both groups were more likely to agree with statements that worried about their driving behavior and more likely wanted to change their driving behavior. Although both group’s overall scores increased similarly, there were underlying differences in the attitudes of driving behavior between the DD and ID groups. Overall, ID were less likely to worry about their driving behavior and less strongly felt they needed to change their driving behavior compared to the DD both before and after the class. These findings are similar to other studies that have concluded that drivers who operate cell phones tend to overestimate their driving ability and underestimate the demands of driving. Further study is warranted.
