1. A New Scheme for Young Novice Drivers
in Germany
Dr. Walter Funk
Institute for Empirical Sociology at the
Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nuremberg (Germany)
Wednesday 30 November 2011,
14 p.m., Salon Parisien,
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- 01/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

2. Highest crash risk of novice drivers
Problem:
• Highest crash risk as a car
Rate per million kilometres
driver is initially after Accidents (offences) in Central
licensing (in Germany up Register of Traffic Offenders
till now right from age 18 males
away as „full privileged“
driver) females
• Substantial decrease of
Years since licensure
crash risk with increased
driving experience (minus (cf. SCHADE 2001)
50% during the first 9
months, minus 90%
during the first 2.6 years
of driving)
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- 02/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

3. Tackling young novice driver risk: Extended learning
period through „Accompanied Driving“
Solution:
Extending the Extended learning period
relatively short through “Accompanied Driving from 17”
formal driver
age 16 age 17 age 18
education in
learning period up to 18 month
Learning period: up to 18 months
professional
“driving schools” driver training/
driving test only accompanied driving
Begleitetes Fahren
by a period in solo driving allowed
driver training
which the novice Process evaluation driving test
is only allowed to Learning period: 3 3 to 6months
learning period to 6 month
drive while being
accompanied by
(cf. WILLMES-LENZ 2008: 137)
an experienced
driver.
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- 03/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

4. Pre-conditions to participate in the model
• From the age of 16 ½: Start of the mandatory pre-licence
training and education for licences Class B / BE with a
professional driving instructor in a so-called “driving school”;
• Passing through the professional “driving school” curriculum;
• Successful passing of the theoretical and the practical
licensing tests;
i.e.: Participants in the model pass exactly the same
formal training and tests as regular licence acquirers;
• From 17th birthday: Handing over of a certificate, allowing to
drive a car in Germany (licences Class B / BE);
Only one constraint: Driving is only allowed when
accompanied by an experienced adult;
• Age of 18: Replacement of the certificate by regular drivers
licence (full driving privileges);
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- 04/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

5. Qualifications of the experienced attendants
(supervising drivers)
The attendant (supervising driver):
• must be at least 30 years old,
• must have held a valid driver’s licence Class B for at least
five years,
• must not have more than three demerit points in
Germany’s Central Register of Traffic Offenders (“traffic-
sinner file”) and
• must – at the start of the accompanied trip – have a BAC
lower than 0.05 gm/100 ml, and must not be affected by
intoxicants (illegal drugs);
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- 05/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

6. Chronology of surveys in the panel
Panel Wave 1 Panel Wave 2 Panel Wave 3 Panel Wave 4
Feb. 30, 2007 March 01, 2008 April 30, 2008 July 04, 2008
Attendant’s
(Supervising (n = 1,735;
driver’s) 45.9 %)
questionnaire
Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s Participant’s
questionnaire questionnaire questionnaire questionnaire
Closure Closure Closure Closure
questionnaire questionnaire questionnaire questionnaire
(n = 3,780; (n = 3,088; (n = 1,652; (n = 1,118;
60.9 %) 81.7 %) 85.1 %) 93.0 %)
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 2-2) 6/30

7. Young novice drivers and most frequent attendants
(supervising drivers)
Novice drivers in the sample of the process
evaluation (n = 3,780):
• sex: 48.5 % male, 51.5 % female;
• education: 66.8 % pupils, 31.6 % apprentices
Most frequent attendants (supervising drivers)
(according to the youth):
• female,
• 40-49 years old,
• living in the same household with the novice driver;
= own mother
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, sections 3.3 and 4.4) 7/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

8. Impulse for participating in the accompanied driving
model (as stated by the novice driver)
90
85.7
80
Percentage of respondents
70
60
Multiple responses possible
55.8 (n = 3,047 respondents)
50
40
35.1
30
20
8,4 10.9
10 6.5
1.4
0
Myself My parents Peers Other Other non- Col- Other
relatives relatives leagues motivation
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-7) 8/30

9. Difficulties in finding an attendant (supervising driver)?
(as stated by the novice driver)
90
84,8
80
Percentage of respondents
70
60
Multiple responses possible
50 (n = 3.680 respondents)
40
30
20
10,7
10 5,4
5,2 0,9 0,7
0
None Younger Holding Too many Other reason No parental
than age 30 driver's demerit assent
licence less points
than three
years
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-16); 9/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

10. Youth: Reasons for delayed driving licence acquisition
• Time management problems
(didn’t manage it earlier, started driver training later because
of lack of time or training lasted longer than planned)
• Financial problems
(started driver training later or training lasted longer because
of lack of money)
• Change of mind concerning participation in the model
(own change of mind or convinced by parents)
• Lack of support
(Convincing parents or finding another attendant)
• „Rest category“
(other reasons, ignorance about accompanied driving, still got
enough time to drive until my 18th birthday)
Institute for Empirical Sociology Multiple responses: 5,892 answers from 2,938 respondents;
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-3) 10/30

11. Youth: Reasons for participating in the model
• Wish to drive a car (instrumental motive)
[explaining 15.3 % of the variance]
(probation time will end sooner; to sit behind the wheel as soon
as possible; driving moped without accompaniment; licensure
for certain at 18th birthday; more favourable car insurance tariff)
• Safety motive [explaining 13.9 % of the variance]
(to drive more safely as solo driver later; to feel safer at the start
as novice driver; to show parents that I will later drive safe as
solo driver)
• Role model / Temporal equalisation of potential stressors
[explaining 10.2 % of the variance]
(older siblings / friends already participated; driving test
otherwise parallel to much stress in school / vocational training)
Institute for Empirical Sociology Multiple responses: 14,329 answers from 3,206 respondents;
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-8) 11/30

12. Parents: Reasons for participating in the model
• Help and support for their children [explaining 14.6 % of
the variance]
(to help the youth; to let her/him participate in my experience as
car driver)
• Practical reasons [explaining 14.6 % of the variance]
(probation time will end sooner; more favourable car insurance
tariff; equalisation of potential stressors in school / vocational
training)
• Safety concerns [explaining 14.1 % of the variance]
(less worries, when youth drives solo later on; to assure
themselves, that youth will drive safe and cautious)
• Popularity motive and role model [ 11.6 % of the variance]
(good experiences of relatives and friends; family member
already participated in the model)
Institute for Empirical Sociology Multiple responses: 6,536 answers from 1,720 respondents;
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 4-14) 12/30

13. Mean daily mileage of all model participants
Significant difference
Previous
School-
Educa- Region Regional length of
leaving
Total Sex tional of type model
qualification
status origin participation
of parents
Mean daily m ileage in km
20
Mean Median
15,6 14,5
15
14,9 13,5 13,4 13,8
13,2 13,3 13,2 12,8 12,4 13,1 13,0 12,2
11,6 12,1
10
10,0 10,7 10,5 10,4
9,3 9,6 9,3 9,3 9,3 9,7
8,3 8,6 8,6 8,5 8,1 7,9
5
0
1)
7)
2)
8)
8)
)
)
)
)
)
3)
)
)
)
)
)
69
64
48
03
25
32
42
60
79
25
2
72
14
59
5
3
.2
.5
.2
.6
.3
=7
=7
.0
.0
.6
=5
=7
.2
2.
n=
1.
=3
=1
=1
=1
=1
=1
=1
=2
=1
(n
(n
n=
(n
n=
(n
l(
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
s
s
l(
ra
l(
s
es
th
th
th
e
e
d
l
e
s
pi
es
ve
Ru
n
ve
at
al
al
ne
ze
th
on
on
tio
on
Pu
at
-le
St
M
-le
m
on
ni
ai
M
M
a
M
St
Fe
O
ba
Tr
O
er
d.
M
3
6
2
d.
ll
1-
4-
Fe
om
>
Ur
-1
9
Ti
Fe
7-
10
w
gl
d
Ne
Ag
Ol
All model participants (including immobile ones);
Questioned at all four panel waves;
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 5-25) 13/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

14. Mean daily mileage of mobile model participants
Significant difference
Previous
School-
Educa- Region length of
leaving Regional
Total Sex tional of model
qualification type
status origin participation
of parents
Mean daily mileage in km
36,5 Mean Median 37,6
40
35,0 34,1 32,1 33,7 31,7 34,1 33,0
32,4 31,3 31,2 31,3 32,1 30,1
28,5
30
26,3 26,2 27,3 26,1
20 24,0 24,3 24,6 23,3 23,3 24,3 25,1 25,0
22,5 23,0 23,0
21,0
10
0
)
6)
)
)
)
)
)
6)
)
9)
)
)
)
)
4)
9)
41
65
38
07
07
03
40
85
51
83
75
53
04
28
0
7
.5
=5
.2
.0
.1
=6
=6
=7
.5
=7
=9
.5
.0
1.
2.
1.
=2
=1
=1
=1
=1
=1
=3
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
n=
n=
n=
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
s
s
es
al
s
e
l(
l(
l(
th
th
th
ne
es
ed
s
n
ur
e
e
ve
at
pi
ve
th
io
al
al
on
on
on
ai
at
R
St
iz
Pu
-le
-le
m
at
M
on
Tr
M
M
St
an
M
Fe
O
er
d.
O
M
3
6
2
rb
d.
m
Fe
ll
1-
4-
>
-1
9
Fe
Ti
U
lo
7-
10
ew
gg
ld
N
A
O
Only actual mobile model participants;
Questioned at all four panel waves;
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 5-40) 14/30

15. Mean monthly mileage of all model participants
Significant difference
School- Region Previous
Educa- length of
Total Sex leaving of Regional
tional model
qualification origin type
status participation
of parents
Mean monthly mileage in km
335,0 372,7 333,7 357,3 333,7
375
318,5 324,0 320,1 316,0 320,1
303,2 294,5 311,0 293,8 293,7 301,6
300
225
150
75
0
)
6)
)
)
5)
)
)
)
8)
)
)
)
)
)
)
7)
42
79
64
25
03
07
59
80
84
59
96
11
54
08
29
0
.5
=5
.0
=6
=6
.1
.2
=7
.6
=7
=9
.4
.1
1.
2.
1.
=2
=1
=1
=1
=1
=1
=3
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
n=
n=
n=
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
(n
s
s
es
al
e
s
l(
l(
l(
ed
th
th
th
ne
es
s
n
ur
e
e
ve
at
pi
ve
th
io
al
al
on
on
on
iz
ai
at
R
St
Pu
-le
-le
m
at
M
on
an
Tr
M
M
St
M
Fe
O
er
d.
O
M
rb
3
6
2
d.
m
Fe
ll
1-
4-
>
-1
9
U
Fe
Ti
lo
7-
10
ew
gg
ld
N
A
O
All model participants;
Questioned at all four panel waves;
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg
Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 5-64) 15/30

16. Extrapolation of the mean monthly mileage
to the mean total mileage in the model scheme
4.000
3.766,7
Mean duration of attendance: 8 months;
3.500
Mean mileage during this time: 2,400 km; 3.383,6
3.000 3.057,8
Mean mileage in km
2.723,4
2.500
2.395,0
2.000 2.060,4
1.752,5
1.500 1.479,6
1.139,7
1.000
835,5
500 514,6
257,3
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Duration of attendance in months
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 5-68) 16/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

17. Categories of driving time of the mobile model
participants – reference week of the 1st panel wave
100% 2,6 2,7 2,0 2,9 3,4
1,8 2,6
2,1 2,3 2,1 2,7 7,9 9,5 Exposure
1,9 2,4 2,4 2,1 time
7,3 2,9
7,7 8,1 7,0 8,7 3,2 3,9
4,1 Longer than
11,5 10,3 1 hour 30
15,3 12,7
Percentage of respondents
14,4 13,6 9,9 minutes
75%
Up to 1 hour
14,6 30 minutes
16,1
32,4 Up to 1 hour
32,0 15 minutes
33,0 33,4 33,8
50%
29,2 Up to 1 hour
28,0
Up to 45
minutes
25%
41,8 Up to 30
38,1 40,3 minutes
37,2
28,5
35,8 31,9 Up to 15
minutes
0%
Monday Tuesday Wednes- Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday
day
(n = 1,267) (n = 1,264) (n = 1,274) (n = 1,236) (n = 1,491) (n = 1,400) (n = 1,142) Weekday
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 5-71) 17/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

18. Most frequent destinations of the model participants
in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible)
School, vocational training, work
70
Household chores
Private trips
60 Leisure trips
Percentage of respondents
50
42,8
40,9
40
30
20
9,4
10
0
Monday - Sunday Monday - Friday Saturday - Sunday
(n=2,833) (n=2,594) (n=1,911)
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 5-16) 18/30

19. Most frequent destinations of the model participants
in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible)
School, vocational training, work
70
Household chores
Private trips
59,7
60 Leisure trips Shopping,
Percentage of respondents
52,6
bank,
public
50 authorities,
42,8 doctor
40,9
40 etc.
35,1
30
20
9,4
10
0
Monday - Sunday Monday - Friday Saturday - Sunday
(n=2,833) (n=2,594) (n=1,911)
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 5-16) 19/30

20. Most frequent destinations of the model participants
in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible)
School, vocational training, work
70
64,3 Household chores
Private trips 61,9
59,7
60 Leisure trips Family,
Percentage of respondents
52,6
visiting
friends
50 46,2 etc.
42,8
40,9
40
35,1
30
20
9,4
10
0
Monday - Sunday Monday - Friday Saturday - Sunday
(n=2,833) (n=2,594) (n=1,911)
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 5-16) 20/30

21. Most frequent destinations of the model participants
in the 1st panel wave (multiple responses possible)
School, vocational training, work
70
64,3 Household chores
Private trips 61,9
59,7
60 Leisure trips Sport,
Percentage of respondents
52,6 Hobby
etc.
50 46,2
42,0 42,8
40,9
40 36,6
35,1
30 28,3
20
9,4
10
0
Monday - Sunday Monday - Friday Saturday - Sunday
(n=2,833) (n=2,594) (n=1,911)
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, table 5-16) 21/30

22. Subjective indicators of building driving experience:
During the last four weeks felt unsure …
40
3 4 ,0 Wave 1
Percentage of unsafe
Wave 2
30 Wave 3
novice drivers
2 5, 7 Wave 4
19 , 0
20
12 , 2
10
0
Wa v e 1 Wa v e 2 Wa v e 3 Wa v e 4
(n = 2,254) (n = 1,346) (n = 913) (n = 507)
…while ra pidly re s po nding
t o unf o re s e e n s it ua t io ns
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 6-19a) 22/30

23. Subjective indicators of building driving experience:
During the last four weeks felt unsure …
40
Wave 1
unsafe novice drivers Wave 2
2 7. 1 Wave 3
Percentage of
30
2 3 .8 Wave 4
17.8
20
10 .3
10
0
Wa v e 1 Wa v e 2 Wa v e 3 Wa v e 4
(n = 3,037) (n = 1,776) (n = 1,140) (n =611)
…while c o rre c t ly re c o gnis ing t he int e nt io ns
o f o t he r ro a d us e rs
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 6-19a) 23/30

24. Subjective indicators of building driving experience –
as seen by the youth
100% 4,2
6,1 0,5 0,7 0,7 0,7 11,8 1,4 Doesn't
Percentage of respondents
12,8 8,6 9,1 6,3
90% apply at all
0,6 1,6 1,6 1,5
80% 30,6 27,7 25,7 30,8 Rather
70% 33,0
doesn't
41,6 67,9 apply
60%
Partly
50% 29,8 applies
40%
Rather
30% 62,1 61,3 57,3 applies
55,7
16,9
20% 43,3 22,1
Totally
2,5 applies
10% 15,9 6,2
1,3
0%
I control the I ever more I become I become I sometimes Another I find it difficult
car better often look more and more and drive a bit indicator to make out any
ahead while more re- more confi- faster than progress in
driving laxed while dent while allowed driving
driving driving
(n=2.984) (n=2.978) (n=2.982) (n=2.980) (n=2.973) (n=365) (n=2.650)
All model participants, 2nd panel wave
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander-
University Erlangen-Nuremberg Reference: FUNK, GRÜNINGER (2010, picture 7-28) 24/30

25. Summary (1 of 4)
• Impetus for participating in the accompanied driving
model scheme:
- largely from the youth themselves (85.7 %)
- also by more than half of the parents (55.8 %)
• More than four out of five youth didn’t have difficulties in
finding an attendant (supervising driver)
• Handing over of the driving test certificate:
On average 5.1 months after the 17th birthday
main reason for the delay: problems with time
management
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- 25/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

26. Summary (2 of 4)
• Reasons of the youth to participate in the model
scheme:
- request to drive a car (instrumental motive);
- safety concerns; and
- practical aspects
• Reasons of the parents (attendants) to participate in
the model scheme as supervising drivers:
- offering help and support to their children;
- safety considerations;
- making use of the practical aspects of the accompanied
(supervised) driving model
[reasons all equally prevalent]
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- 26/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

27. Summary (3 of 4)
• Mileage in the model:
- Per day: Ø 9.3 km (all), Ø 24.0 km (mobile youth)
- Per week: Ø 65.0 km (all), Ø 71.7 km (mobile youth)
- Per month: Ø 318.5 km
Sample: approx. 2,400 km during 8 months;
Extrapolation to 12 months duration of attendance
(supervised driving): Potential of approx. 3,800 km
• Driving time (exposure duration):
- Mostly rather short (up to approx. 30 minutes)
- At weekend increase of longer trips
• Destinations:
- Mon – Fri: School, vocational training / work,
household chores
- Sat – Sun: Private trips (Family, visiting friends)
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- 27/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

28. Summary (4 of 4)
• Subjective perception of the youth:
Strong indicators for building driving experience
Furthermore (as surveyed on the level of the Federal
States (the German „Länder“)):
• Crash data gathered by the police:
Prevalence of crashes while participating in the model
= very low
extremely high safety during implementation of the
model scheme
• Federal Motor Transport Authority:
Only few violations of the requirement to be accompanied
(supervised)
no abuse of the accompanied driving model
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- 28/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

29. Conclusion
The accompanied driving model can be characterized by:
• easy access
Recommendation:
To encourage youth – interested in obtaining a full
privileged driver’s licence at age 18 – to start
accompanied driving closer to their 17th birthday;
• good practicability
Recommendation:
To encourage the participants to drive more, together
with an attendant (supervising driver);
• safe implementation
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- 29/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg

30. Thank you very much for your attention!
For more information and
list of cited literature please contact:
Tel.: ++49 – 911 – 23 565 32
walter.h.funk@ifes.uni-erlangen.de
Institute for Empirical Sociology
at the Friedrich-Alexander- 30/30
University Erlangen-Nuremberg