# A contemporary examination of the effect of driver training for reducing crash risk in novice adolescent drivers: protocol for the DRIVER study, a random assignment trial

## TL;DR

This study tests whether driver training programs reduce crash risk for new teen drivers in Pennsylvania.

## Contribution

It is the first rigorous randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of different driver training programs on crash risk.

## Key findings

- Professional behind-the-wheel training and online hazard training will be compared for crash risk reduction.
- The study will identify which training is most effective for different types of learners.
- Results will inform policy on driver training requirements for young drivers.

## Abstract

Motor vehicle crashes and resultant fatalities remain disproportionately high among young drivers, with crash risk peaking immediately after licensure. Although graduated driver licensing laws (GDL) for young novice drivers have reduced such fatalities, driver error remains a leading cause; thus, prevention efforts that target improving skills in novice teen drivers before licensure are a strong candidate for reducing crash risk early in licensure. States with more comprehensive driver licensing laws that include mandated driver training before licensure in addition to GDL show lower crash rates post-licensure, but these effects were not determined through rigorous controlled studies of driver training. This paper describes the DRIVER study, a phase III randomized trial that tests the effectiveness of two different driver training programs in reducing young driver crash risk early in licensure in Pennsylvania, a state like many others that does not require formal training for young drivers.

Learner drivers age 16 and 17 years will be recruited and followed through the GDL learner phase and for six months post-licensure. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of three interventions: professional behind-the-wheel training (n = 333), online hazard training (n = 333), or an active control online vehicle and driver safety course, unrelated to hazard skills training (n = 333). The primary outcomes are on-road crash risk post-licensure (via kinematic hard braking events tracked through a smartphone-based app) and state license examination performance. Secondary outcomes include change in simulated driving performance from baseline to the time of license examination, self-reported and kinematically tracked risky driving behavior (e.g. cell phone use, speeding) and self-reported crashes. Participants will complete baseline surveys and cognitive assessments to determine potential moderating effects of cognitive maturation and risk-taking tendencies.

Findings from the DRIVER study will provide insights into training effectiveness generally, and an evidence base for recommendations to policy makers, while also revealing for whom these interventions are less effective.

The study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT06413927) in May 2024, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06413927 and last updated on August 11th, 2025. This protocol was developed per the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) Checklist.

What is already known: States with more comprehensive driver licensing laws that include mandated behind-the-wheel (BTW) driver training before licensure in addition to GDL show lower crash rates post-licensure, but these effects were not determined through rigorous controlled studies of driver training and there may be barriers to accessing BTW training.

What this study adds: This Phase III randomized trial will test the effectiveness of BTW driver training and an evidence-based online virtual hazard skills training in reducing young driver crash risk early in licensure.

How this study might affect research, practice or policy: Findings will provide insights into training effectiveness overall, and an evidence base for recommendations to policy makers, while also advancing research by identifying individual characteristics that determine for whom each type of training is not effective, addressing key gaps in understanding individual differences in training outcomes.