W ' /5"C» ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE DRIVER RECORDS OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL DRIVER INSTRUCTION TEACHERS by Ed F. N. Lorenzen The study sought to determine the quality of the official driver records of public secondary school driver instruction teachers in California for purposes of determining the advisability or necessity for more precise evaluation and surveillance of the driver record for initial or continued teacher certification and assignment. Three different survey instruments were used to gather data. Specific data obtained in the study included (a) driver record information by age, sex, and marital status, and (b) pro- fessional information concerning academic background, phase of instructional assignment, and membership in specific professional organizations. The driver record for the three year period imme- diately prior to the investigation was provided by the State Depart- ment of Motor Vehicles for 4, 558 driver instruction teachers with full- or part-time teaching assignments during the 1966-67 school Ed F. N. Lorenzen year in 334 California public secondary school districts. Mean numbers of accidents, convictions, and negligent operator point counts of the driver instruction teachers were statistically com- pared to normative data on the California general driving popula- tion as reported in the 1964 California Driver Record Study. Driver instruction teachers had significantly lower mean numbers of accidents, convictions, and negligent operator point counts than did the general driving population. Female driver instruction teachers, however, had significantly higher means than did their counterparts in the general driving population. Judgment was sus- pended on the rejection of the null hypothesis of no difference between driver records of the two populations. Significant differences were established at the 1 per cent level of confidence between mean numbers of accidents, convictions, and negligent operator point counts in terms of (a) age, (b) marital status, (c) highest academic degree held, (d) phase of instructional assignment, and (e) traffic density within the county of employment. Non-significant differences occurred in terms of (a) sex, (b) major field of academic specialization, and (c) professional affiliation. Physical education undergraduate majors were found to have sig- nificantly poorer driver records than did subjects with other spe- cializations . Ed F. N. Lorenzen A total of 41 driver instruction teachers could legally be classified as prima—facie negligent operators; 15 were convicted of a major traffic violation during the three year period immediately prior to the investigation, e. g. drunk driving, hit-and-run, and driving after their driver license had been suSpended or revoked; 35 teachers had been convicted of these major violations and 21 had had their driver license suspended or revoked at some time previ- ous to the three year period under investigation. Conclusions of the study were: (1) there is ample evidence to warrant more precise and critical evaluation and surveillance of driver records for purposes of teacher certification and assign- ment; and (2) there is a positive relationship between driver record and academic background, phase of instructional assignment, age, sex, and marital status. Recommendations for improvement of the statewide driver instruction program were directed to (a) the California Driver Education Association, (b) the State Board of Education, (c) teacher preparation institutions, (d) public secon- dary school district administrators, and (e) the driver instruction teachers. Implications for future research were cited. National implications of this study are in direct proportion to the degree that the 4, 558 California public secondary school Ed F. N. Lorenzen teachers are representative of the nationwide population of driver education and driver training teachers. (75/4/97 A STUDY OF THE DRIVER RECORDS OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL DRIVER INSTRUCTION TEACHERS By Ed Fay Nolan Lorenzen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education 1968 { yCopyright by ED FAY NOLAN LORENZEN 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research study was made possible by a graduate fellowship and research grant from the Automotive Safety Founda- tion. I owe a great debt of gratitude to that organization, and in particular to Dr. Charles H. Hartman for his personal interest and encouragement in the development of the study. Appreciation is also extended to Mr. A1 Evans and the Triple "E" Corporation for also providing financial assistance during the early stages of the investigation. The official driver record data reported in this research study were provided by the California State Department of Motor Vehicles. I am deeply indebted to Mr. Ronald Thunen and the members of his staff for the invaluable assistance in obtaining the data so vital to this study. I wish also to acknowledge the counsel given by Ronald Coppin and Raymond Peck and the use of data reported in the 1964 California Driver Record Study. Sincere appreciation is also extended to the California State Department of Education and the many hundreds of California public secondary school administrators who participated in the iii questionnaire survey to provide essential identification and profes- sional information concerning driver instruction teachers. Special acknowledgment is given to Dr. Carl Larson and Dr. John R. Eales of the State Department of Education. My gratitude also extends to all of those who have coun- seled me toward completion of this research study. I count among my best supporters those who have constructively criticized. Grateful appreciation is extended to the members of my Doctoral Committee at Michigan State University -- Dr. Robert O. Nolan (Chairman), Dr. Dale Alam, Dr. Robert E. Gustafson, and Dr. William A. Mann -- for their hours of counsel and guidance throughout the course of the research study. Finally, I would be greatly remiss if I did not acknowledge with loving appreciation the invaluable contribution made to this research study by my wife, Edine, through her unceasing patience and encouragement during the many months of my graduate work. The completion of this investigation has provided me with a unique and inSpiring experience which I shall never forget. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. THE PROBLEM Background of the Problem . The Need for the Study . The Purpose of the Study . Definition of Terms . Research Hypothesis and Problem Overview of the Study II. A REVIEW OF THE 1964 CALIFORNIA DRIVER RECORD STUDY Purpose . . . . Sample . Part 1--An Introduction and Methodological Description . . Part 2--Accidents, Traffic Citations, and Negligent Operator Count by Sex Part 5--Driver Record by Age, Sex, and Marital Status . . Part 7--The Relationship Between Types of Convictions and Accidents . Summary . Page iii . viii , xiii . xiv 12 14 18 18 21 21 22 23 24 28 46 47 Chapter III . IV. V. VI. DESIGN . Sample . Instrumentation Procedures . Statistical Hypotheses Summary . ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS: THE COMPARISON OF DRIVER RECORDS OF DRIVER INSTRUCTION TEACHERS AND THE GENERAL DRIVING POPULATION General Observations Driver Record by Age Driver Record by Sex . Driver Record by Marital Status Summary . ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRIVER RECORD VARIABLES AND ACADEMIC BACKGROUND, PHASE OF INSTRUCTIONAL ASSIGNMENT, AND PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION Driver Record by Academic Background Driver Record by Phase of Instructional Assignment Driver Record by Professional Affiliation Driver Record by Traffic Density Summary . . SUMMARY , CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of Study Purpose and Procedures Summary of Findings Conclusions Discussion . Recommendations Implications for Future Research vi Page 50 50 52 54 61 64 66 68 71 86 99 108 111 112 120 122 124 127 130 130 132 137 139 141 145 Page BIBLIOGRAPHY.....................147 APPENDICES......................151 vii Table LIST OF TABLES 1964 California Driver Record Study: Percentage Distribution of Licensees by Total Number of Accidents and Convictions--1964 1964 California Driver Record Study: Percentage Distribution of Licensees by Negligent Operator Point Count and Sex 1964 California Driver Record Study: Mean Number of Counts by Sex for Basic Driver Record Components 1964 California Driver Record Study: Percentage Distribution of Male Licensees by Age and Total Number of Reported Accidents 1964 California Driver Record Study: Percentage Distribution of Female Licensees by Age and Total Number of Reported Accidents . 1964 California Driver Record Study: Average (Mean) Number of Total Accidents by Age, Sex, and Marital Status . . . . 1964 California Driver Record Study: Percentage Distribution of Male Licensees by Age and Total Convictions 1964 California Driver Record Study: Percentage Distribution of Female Licensees by Age and Total Convictions 1964 California Driver Record Study: Average (Mean) Number of Total Convictions by Age, Sex, and Marital Status. viii Page 25 26 27 30 31 32 35 36 37 Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 1964 California Driver Record Study: Average (Mean) Number of Double Count Convictions by Age, Sex, and Marital Status . 1964 California Driver Record Study: Percentage Distribution of Male Licensees by Age and Negligent Operator Point Count + Moving FTA' s 1964 California Driver Record Study: Percentage Distribution of Female Licensees by Age and Negligent Operator Point Count + Moving FTA' s 1964 California Driver Record Study: Average (Mean) Number of Negligent Operator Points + Moving FTA' s by Age, Sex, and Marital Status . . . . . . . . . 1964 California Driver Record Study: Percentage Distribution of Convictions by Type--Total Sample . Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Licensees by Total Number of Accidents-~Total Samples Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Licensees by Total Number of Convictions--Total Samples Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Male Licensees Between the Ages of 21-65 by Total Number of Accidents Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Male Licensees Between the Ages of 21-65 by Total Number of Convictions Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Male Licensees Between the Ages of 21-65 by Total Number of Negligent Operator Points + Moving FTA' s . . Page 39 41 42 43 45 71 72 76 77 78 Table 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Age and Total Number of Recorded Accidents Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Age and Total Number of Recorded Convictions Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Age and Negligent Operator Point Counts + Moving FTA' s . . Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Sex and Total Number of Recorded Accidents Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Female Licensees Between the Ages of 21-65 by Total Number of Accidents . Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Sex and Total Number of Recorded Convictions Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Female Licensees Between the Ages of 21-65 by Total Number of Convictions Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Sex and Negligent Operator Point Counts + Moving FTA' s . . . Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Age and Negligent Operator Point Counts + Moving FTA' s (Males) Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Age and Negligent Operator Point Counts + Moving FTA' s (Females) . Page 80 83 85 88 90 92 93 95 96 97 Table 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Sex and Major (Double- count) Convictions . . . . . . . Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Marital Status and Total Number of Recorded Accidents Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Marital Status and Total Number of Recorded Convictions Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Marital Status and Major (Double-count) Convictions . . . Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Marital Status and Negligent Operator Point Counts + Moving FTA' s . Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Convictions by Type-~Tota1 Sample . . . . Driver Instruction Teachers: Summary of Driver Record Variables by Sex and Critical Ratio Test Results . Driver Instruction Teachers: Summary of Driver Record Variables by Marital Status and Critical Ratio Test Results Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Negligent Operator Point Counts + Moving FTA' s by Degree Earned Driver Instruction Teachers: Frequency and Percentage Distributions of Undergraduate Majors . xi Page 99 100 103 104 106 107 113 114 116 117 Table 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Negligent Operator Point Counts + Moving FTA' s by Undergraduate Majors . . . . . . . . . . . . . Driver Instruction Teachers: Frequency and Percentage Distributions of Graduate Majors . Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Negligent Operator Point Counts + Moving FTA' s by Graduate Majors . . . . . . . . Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Negligent Operator Point Counts + Moving FTA' s by Phase of Instructional Assignment . Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Negligent Operator Point Counts + Moving FTA' s by Professional Affiliation . . . . Driver Instruction Teachers: Correlation Between Driver Record Variables and Traffic Density xii Page 118 119 121 123 125 126 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Mean Numbers of Accidents, Convictions, and Negligent Operator Point Counts for Driver Instruction Teachers and the General Driving Population . Driver Instruction Teachers: Average (Mean) Number of Total Accidents by Age . Driver Instruction Teachers: Average (Mean) Number of Total Convictions by Age . Driver Instruction Teachers: Average (Mean) Number of Negligent Operator Point Counts by Age . . . Mean Numbers of Accidents by Sex for Driver Instruction Teachers and the General Driving Population Mean Numbers of Convictions by Sex for Driver Instruction Teachers and the General Driving Population (Between the Ages of 21-65) Mean Numbers of Negligent Operator Point Counts by Sex for Driver Instruction Teachers and the General Driving Population (Between the Ages of 21-65) Driver Instruction Teachers: Mean Numbers of Accidents, Convictions, and Negligent Operator Point Counts by Marital Status Mean Numbers of Negligent Operator Point Counts by Marital Status for Driver Instruction Teachers and the General Driving Population . xiii Page 73 81 82 86 87 91 98 101 102 Appendix LIST OF APPENDICES "DATA CONCERNING INSTRUCTION IN DRIVER EDUCATION AND DRIVER TRAINING IN THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOLS, 1966-67 SCHOOL YEAR" . DRIVER INSTRUCTION CERTIFICATION SURVEY FORM WITH COVERING LETTERS OF TRANSMITTAL REQUEST FOR DRIVER RECORD INFORMATION--DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES FORM DL-254 DATA CODING SHEET CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE-- SECTION 12810 CALIFORNIA VEHICLE CODE-- VIOLATION CATEGORIES TRAFFIC DENSITY ESTIMATES BY COUNTY xiv Page 151 154 160 162 164 166 171 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM The elements of the problem under investigation in this study included: (a) the background of the problem, (b) the need for the study, (c) the purpose of the study, (d) the definition of terms, (e) the research hypothesis and problem, and (f) an overview of the investi- gat ion. Background of the Problem Historically, education in the United States has placed great emphasis upon the necessity for formal instruction for all children in those activities that will enable them to effectively interact and con- tribute to the adult community. It has been recognized that the family can and does provide adequate educational experiences in many fun- damental areas, but that there are other areas of social importance that do not lend themselves to adequate learning through imitation of older members of the family. The underlying theory for this inves- tigation was that through early exposure to formal educational expe- riences, under the guidance and direction of competent, qualified educators, the development of acceptable and successful behavior in adult society can be accomplished. In this light, driver and traffic safety education activities in our elementary and secondary school . systems appear critical. Accidents--traffic collisions in particular-- are the leading cause of death to teen—agers, and the National Safety Council claims that teen-agers are involved in a disproportionate number of fatal, injury, and prOperty damage traffic collisions. Safety educators, however, continue to claim marked success in the development of safe traffic behavior through systematic formal in- struction culminating in completion of a course in driver education and driver training in the secondary school. In a speech that was reprinted in the Harvard Graduate School of Education Association Bulletin, Lawrence A. Cremin made the statement, " . . . today, seven years after Sputnik, the most rapidly growing area of the secondary school curriculum is not physics, not chemistry, not mathematics, but driver education. "2 The comment tends to reflect a continuing controversy among edu- cators as to the legitimacy of driver education within the secondary 1National Safety Council, Accident Facts--1967 Edition (Chicago: The Council, 1967). p. 54. 2Lawrence A. Cremin, "The Education of the Public, " Harvard Graduate School of Education Association Bulletin, Volume IX, Fall 1964, #3, p. 4. school curriculum. While educators argue the relative merits of the instructional offering, however, public and legislative demands have generated rapid expansion of traffic safety education activities within public secondary school systems throughout the country. California has experienced phenomenal growth in its driver instruction program in recent years. 3 Enrollment data distributed by the California Department of Education indicate that between the years 1951-52 and 1966-67 enrollments in classroom driver education increased 179 per cent while enrollments in behind-the-wheel driver training increased 714 per cent. There have been compulsory class- room driver education courses in all California public secondary schools since 1949. Permissive behind-the-wheel driver training courses on an elective basis, with excess-cost reimbursement incen- tives, have been offered since 1953. During the 1966-67 school year in California more than 317, 000 high school students received the mandatory driver education classroom course, while more than 233, 000 students elected to complete the behind-the-wheel driver training course in addition to the mandatory classroom course. To accomplish such a massive instructional program--the largest in the 3John R. Eales, ”Driver Education and Driver Training: Its Growth and Financing in California Secondary Schools, " California Schools, Volume XXXIII, #5, May, 1962. United States-—more than 6, 000 driver instruction teachers were employed on a full- or part-time teaching assignment. The availability and assignment of qualified driver instruc- tion teachers are problems of increasing magnitude for secondary school administrators. Because of unique problems of scheduling and financing, coupled with continuing student pOpulation growth, administrators have been hard-pressed to initiate and maintain quality driver instruction programs that satisfy professional driver and traf- fic safety organizations and the general public as represented by the California Legislature. Compounding their problem, as pointed out by Hartman in his 1961 study, there are a number of glaring weak- nesses in teacher certification regulations and practices, a wide- Spread lack of agreement among teacher preparation institutions as to what constitutes an introductory college course in driver instruction, and a relative lack of Specialized preparation and experience in driver and traffic safety education on the part of those conducting the college and university teacher preparation courses. 4 During the 1966-67 school yearain California more than 95, 000 high school stu- dents completing the classroom driver education course received 4Charles H. Hartman, ”Teacher Preparation Programs in Driver Education in Colleges and Universities of the United States" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1961). their instruction from teachers who had not had specific driver instruction preparatory courses in college. In the behind-the-wheel driver training phase of the program over 38, 000 students completed the course under the tutelage of a teacher who had not had any specific traffic safety preparation. State and national professional driver and traffic safety edu- cation associations have repeatedly expressed their concern for the professional improvement of certification and teacher preparation standards. As early as 1949 the National Commission on Safety Edu- cation called the First National Conference on Driver Education to attempt to establish national standards for high school driver instruc- tion programs. Subsequently, three additional national conferences were held for the purpose of setting guidelines for the conduct of state and local programs. 6 In every instance published reports of these national conferences have contained Specific recommendations con- cerning the qualifications of teachers. 5California State Department of Education, "Data Concern- ing Instruction in Driver Education and Driver Training in the Cali- fornia Public High Schools, 1966-67 School Year, " October 1, 1967. (This entire report appears in Appendix A. ) 6First National Conference on High School Driver Education, Jackson' s Mill, West Virginia, 1949. Subsequent national confer- ences were held in 1953 (Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan), in 1958 (Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana), and in 1963 (National Education Association Education Center, Washington, D. C. ). There appears to be evidence of increasing concern with the driving record of the active or potential driver instruction teacher. In 1965 the National Education Association convened the National Con- ference on Teacher Preparation and Certification in Driver and Traffic Safety Education. The conference was attended by 150 leaders repre- senting state and local school systems, colleges and universities, governmental agencies, and private support organizations. A widely distributed conference report contained the following position state- ment: The primary factors insuring quality instruction in all subject areas of the school curriculum relate to the selection, prepara- tion, and performance of the teacher. Successful driver and traffic safety education programs are taught by carefully chosen, well-prepared, competent teachers. There are no exceptions to this rule. weaknesses in the preparation and certification of teachers have a profound and detrimental effect upon the performance of the high school teacher. And, as educators and laymen both know, the teacher! s performance affects the student! 3 perfor- mance. Any weakness in this chain inevitably carries to the learner and deprives him of needed knowledge, skills, and under- standings. Since there appeared to be great disparity among the various states in their official interpretation of what constitutes a ”good" driving record, the 1965 conference also recommended "a more precise 7National Commission on Safety Education, Policies and Guidelines: Teacher Preparation and Certification--Driver and Traffic Safety Education (Washington, D. C. : National Education Association, 1965), pp. 33-34. definition of ' good driving record' and a better means of implement— . . 8 . ing the recommendations. . . ." The Fourth Nat1onal Conference on Driver Education in 1963 had spelled out the criteria under the general heading Certification Requirements: a. Beginning teachers should have a valid driver license without a conviction for a moving violation or without a chargeable accident on record for the two-year period immediately prior to employment. b. Conviction for a moving violation for which a driver license is suspended or revoked should call for automatic suspension of authorization to teach [driver instruction] . c. Those whose authorization to teach has been suSpended should be required to maintain a driving record free of con- victions for moving violations or chargeab e accidents for a period of two years before reinstatement. California, even though long considered one of the leaders in the field of driver and traffic safety education and adequately repre- sented at all of the national conferences, curiously disregards all such driving record guidelines. The State Board of Education requires only cursory attention be given to the prior driving record of persons applying for certification to teach driver instruction in public secon- dary schools within the state and, once certification is awarded, the 8Ibid., p. 35. 9National Commission on Safety Education, Policies and Practices for Driver and Traffic Safety Education (Washington, D. C. : National Education Association, 1964). p. 14. teacher' s personal driving record is never again subjected to sur- veillance by the certification agency. 10 The State Board of Education has for years consistently refused to establish specific regulations and procedures that could be considered minimal standards of driving competency on the part of potential or active driver instruction teachers. There have been an increasing number of challenges to the continuation or expansion of the public secondary school driver instruction programs in California. Special interest groups, the commercial driving school operators in particular, point an accusing finger at the effectiveness of public secondary school programs. They cite as evidence research studies that cast doubt on the effec- tiveness of secondary school driver instruction. One such study was conducted by the California Department of Motor Vehicles. It con- tained the following conclusion: 10During the summer of 1967 the California Legislature passed what was purported to be a ”quality control" bill. It contained the following provision: "Section 6. Section 18252. 2 is added to the Education Code, to read: ' . . . The Department of Motor Vehicles shall notify the school district and the Department immediately upon suspension or revocation of a driver‘instruction teacher' s driver' 8 license. The Department of Education and the Department of Motor Vehicles shall jointly determine the details regarding procedures for notification. . . . ' Provisions of this bill, State of California Legis- lature, Senate, An Act to Amend Sections of the Education and Vehicle Codes Relating to Driver Education and Training (Carrell Act), S. B. #56, 1967, calling for this minimal surveillance of driving records, had not been implemented at the time of this investigation. After considering all the facts available from this study, the authors can find no evidence that, on a statewide basis, behind- the-wheel driver training is effective in reducing the frequency of accidents . . . although it is entirely possible that some pro- grams in certain individual school districts are effective, this finding raises serious questions about the general effectiveness of statewide driver training in reducing accidents. A 1967 study conducted by the Washington State Department of Motor Vehicles, however, indicated a very positive effect of driver instruc- tion on high school students' driving performance. The Need for the Study During the 1966-67 school year over $12 million was returned to California public secondary schools as reimbursement for the excess-costs of their behind-the-wheel programs alone. Driver instruction in the public schools is an extremer costly and adminis- tratively complex operation. There is a definite need for professional inquiry into every aSpect of the educational program to justify con- tinued moral and financial support by the general public. 11Ronald S. Coppin, et al. , The Teen-Aged Driver: An Evaluation of Age, Experience, Driving Exposure, and Driver Train- ing as They Relate to Driving Record (Sacramento, California: California Department of Motor Vehicles, February, 1965). 12Washington Department of Motor Vehicles, An Evaluation of Driver Training Based on Accident and Violation Rates, Report 004 (Olympia, Washington: The Department, 1967). 10 There have been a relatively small number of studies com- pleted in recent years specifically relating to secondary school driver instruction programs. The continuing controversy among educators concerning the legitimacy of driver instruction in the secondary school curriculum, coupled with increasing frustrations on the part of school administrators, seem to compel repeated inquiry into all aspects of the driver and traffic safety educational program. Typi- cally these studies have tended to attempt to show a cause and effect relationship between the driver instruction experience of high school students and their subsequent driving record. Experimental grouping of "trained" and "untrained" student drivers was the basis for many of these studies. 13 Other investigations have dealt with the various methodological approaches to the subject. The educational effect of using various types of instructional equipment and materials has also 3For example, "Driver Education Reduces Accidents and Violations, " American Automobile Association (Washington, D. C. , 1964), 16 pp. ; and "The High School Student and the Automobile, " Allstate Insurance Companies, Safety Department (Skokie, Illinois, 1960), 21 pp. David Klein, co-author of Accident Research: Methods and Approaches and Interviewing--Its Forms and Functions, rebuts findings of such studies, however, in his "A Reappraisal of the Violation and Accident Data on Teen-Aged Drivers. " His findings state ”there is no evidence whatever that driver education is directly responsible to any extent for reducing the accident or violation rates." Traffic Quarterly, #4, October 1966, and CALDEA Calen- Lar, Volume XIV, #2, January 1967, p. 20. 11 been studied. 14 Very little, however, has been done looking specifi- cally at the driver instruction teacher. State and national professional driver and traffic safety edu- cation associations are exerting increasing pressures on state certifi- cation agencies to apply stringent, objective standards of driving competency of driver instruction teachers. If existing standards are inadequate, the implementation of evaluatory and surveillance opera- tions would necessarily involve major operational changes within the State Department of Education. It would involve close cooperation between teacher education, certification authorities, and the State Department of Motor Vehicles. Before such organizational and opera- tional changes are made as the result of local, state, or national pressures, however, it would appear that an investigation is warranted to determine the effects of the existing minimal driver record stan- dards. If, in the absence of any previous critical evaluation and sur- veillance of the driving record prior to or following certification to teach, the driving records of California driver instruction teachers are shown to be poorer than those of the general driving population, it would indicate the necessity of a critical re-evaluation of the State 14For example, Robert O. Nolan, "A Comparative Study of the Teaching Effectiveness of the Multiple Car Off-Street Driving Range and the Aetna Drivotrainer" (unpublished Ed. D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965). 12 Board of Education' s traditional apathetic policy. If, on the other hand, the driver instruction teachers' driving records are shown to be litter; than those of the general driving population, it would tend to negate the necessity of complex operational procedures to evaluate and survey the driving record of potential and active driver instruction teachers as encouraged by national guidelines, or at least give rise to questioning the rationale for more stringent control measures. The Purpose of the Study The purposes of basic descriptive research are: 1. To secure evidence concerning an existing situation or cur- rent condition; 2. To identify standards or norms with which to compare pres- ent conditions, in order to plan the next step; and 3. To determine how to take the next step (having determined where we are and where we wish to go). In these terms this study was conducted to make a contribution toward meeting a basic need in educational administration within the State of California. This investigation had as its primary purpose and objective to provide essential information concerning the quality of driver instruction teachers' personal driving records. It is hoped that it 13 may shed light upon previously unknown phenomena and therefore prove of significance to education. By becoming aware of the existing condition of the driving records of active driver instruction teachers, educators will be in a better position to reSpond to the leadership and supervisory needs of teacher certification and preparation programs. A secondary purpose of this investigation was to gather a relatively large array of data on certificated driver instruction teachers that could be used to provide normative data for other traf- fic safety research projects. For this reason a concerted attempt was made to obtain the largest possible sampling of the active public secondary school driver instruction teacher population in the State of California. The Specific problems of this investigation were as follows: 1. Is there evidence to warrant more precise and critical evaluation of the driving record for purposes of initial and continued certification of driver instruction teachers in the State of California? 2. Is there evidence to show that the driving records of Cali- fornia public secondary school driver instruction teachers are different from those of the general driving population? 3. What is the relationship between the driving records of driver instruction teachers and their academic background, 14 phase of instructional assignment, and professional affilia- tion? 4. Is there evidence to imply that driver instruction teachers' driving records in combination with their academic fields of specialization, membership in professional organizations, or phase of instructional assignment could be used by sec- ondary school administrators to predict driving record for purposes of assignment within driver instruction programs? Definition of Terms Several distinct terms are incorporated in this report. These terms are defined as follows: "Driver instruction teacher" is defined as any California teacher who was teaching driver education and/or driver training in a public secondary school during the 1966-67 school year on a full- or part-time basis. "DIT" refers to data derived from the survey of 334 of the . 361 California public secondary school districts. "DMV" refers to normative data on the California general driving population as reported in the California Department of Motor Vehicles' 1964 California Driver Record Study. 15 "Driving record" refers to the number of accidents and con- victions that appear in the subject' 8 official driver record file main- tained by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Except for certain notations concerning conviction for major offenses, the driver record file contains only recorded accidents and conviction incidents occur- ring during the immediate previous three year period. "Accidents" refer to the total number of accidents involving the subjects that have been reported to the Department of Motor Vehicles. This includes all fatal and injury accidents, all accidents investigated by or reported to the California Highway Patrol either by individuals or local enforcement agencies, and all property damage accidents reported in compliance with California' S Financial Respon- sibility Law (those in excess of $100 damage). Since responsibility or culpability cannot be determined from a review of the driver record file, appearance of an accident involvement does not neces- sarily imply the subject was responsible for the accident. "Conviction” refers to traffic citation conviction through court adjudication. All recorded convictions were counted regardless of type. Multiple citations relating to a single incident, however, were counted as a single conviction. "Negligent operator point count" refers to the total number of "points" that could be assessed against the subject because of 16 accident and conviction incidence. The Vehicle Code defines a "negligent operator" as anyone who accrues at least 4 points in 12 months, 6 points in 24 months, or 8 points in 36 months. Points are assessed only for the violation of regulations involving the safe Opera- tion of the motor vehicle. 15 A complete listing of the negligent operator point counts according to types of violations appears as Appendix E. "Major conviction" refers to a conviction which counts double, or 2-points, in negligent operator point counts. They include drunk driving, hit—and-run, reckless driving, and driving with a sus- pended or revoked driver license. Refer to Appendix E. "Age" represents the midpoint of each subject's three year driver record interval. Thus, a subject whose midpoint age was 27 would, in actuality, vary from 25.5 to 28.5 years of age. This pro- cedure was consistent with the continuous nature of age and resulted in the driver record being equally divided on each Side of a given age point. "FTA" refers to a traffic citation for which the subject has failed to appear in court in accordance with a signed promise. Once the subject appears in court and the violation is adjudicated, it usually 15California State Department of Motor Vehicles, Vehicle Code (Sacramento, California: The Department, 1965). 17 becomes a regular conviction. FTA' S were considered as convictions since this procedure was followed in a Department of Motor Vehicles' previous study. "Traffic density" is a rate mathematically derived by divid- ing the total number of motor vehicles registered within each of the 58 California counties by the number of linear miles of roadway within each county. Refer to Appendix G. "Phase of instructional assignment" represents the school district' 3 official assignment of the driver instruction teacher. The terms driver education, driver training, and driver instruction are defined by the California Administrative Code, Title V16 and the California Education Code. 17 "Driver education" refers to the man- datory classroom instruction, while the behind-the-wheel practice driving in dual-control automobiles is designated as "driver training. " The term "driver instruction" is used when referring to both class- room and behind-the-Wheel courses. "Academic background" includes each subject' 8 undergradu- ate and graduate major field of preparation and the highest academic degree earned. 6California State Department of Education, Administrative Code, TitleV (Sacramento, California: The Department, 1966). 7California State Department of Education, Education Code (Sacramento, California: The Department, 1966). 18 ”Professional affiliation" refers to official professional membership in either the California Driver Education Association or the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association. Research Hypothesis and Problem One research hypothesis and one research problem were advanced for purposes of this investigation. They were: 1. Research Hypothesis: The driving records of California public secondary school driver instruction teachers are superior to those of the general driving pOpulation. That is to say, the mean numbers of accidents, convictions, and negligent operator point counts for driver instruction teach- ers are less than those of the general driving population. 2. Research Problem: What relationship exists between the driver instruction teachers' driving records and their aca- demic background, phase of instructional assignment, and professional affiliation? The research hypothesis and problem will be restated in testable form in Chapter III. Overview of the Study Chapter I has dealt with identification of the problems to which this investigation addressed itself. Background information 19 was supplied to establish the general need for the study. Specific terms that were to be used in the report of the investigation were defined, and the research hypothesis and problem were stated. Chapter II will deal exclusively with a resume of certain portions of the 1964 California Driver Record Study. 18 That study established normative data providing a comprehensive profile of the typical California motorist. It is to that normative data that compari- son was made of the driving records of California public secondary school driver instruction teachers. It is felt, therefore, that an entire chapter should be devoted to a review of that study. One might prefer, however, merely to scan Chapter II paying particular atten— tion to the chapter summary. Following reading of Chapter IV, where the statistical comparison of data is presented, a return to the details of Chapter II may prove of more value and interest. The design of this investigation is described in Chapter III. The procedures, methods, techniques, and instruments of the investi- gation are cited. What was to be done in the study, how it was to be accomplished, and what devices or instruments were used to obtain the data necessary to the solving of the problems under investigation will be presented. 18Ronald S. Coppin, et al. , The 1964 California Driver Record Study (Sacramento, California: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1964-67). 20 Chapter IV contains the findings that deal exclusively with the statistical comparison of driving records from the normative data supplied by the 1964 California Driver Record Study and data obtained in this investigation on California public secondary school driver instruction teachers. This statistical comparison was made in terms of driver record components, 1. e. , accidents, convictions, and neg- ligent operator point counts, by age, sex, and marital status. Chapter V is devoted to the analysis of data describing the relationship between the stated driver record variables and (a) aca- demic background, (b) phase of instructional assignment, and (c) pro- fessional affiliation. A comprehensive profile of the typical driver instruction teacher' 5 driving record will be presented in Chapter V. Conclusions reached, discussion of investigation findings, specific recommendations resulting from the analysis and interpreta- tion of data, and the implications for future research studies are pre- sented in Chapter VI. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF THE 1964 CALIFORNIA DRIVER RECORD STUDY The review of the 1964 California Driver Record Study1 will be presented through: (a) the statement of purpose, (b) the sample that was used, (c) resumes of Parts 1, 2, 5, and 7 of the total inves- tigation, and (d) the summary of significant findings. Purpose In September of 1963 the California Department of Motor Vehicles began data collection for an extensive study meant to provide a profile of the California driving population in terms of a number of variables, e. g. , traffic accidents, convictions, negligent operator point count, age, sex, and marital status. One of the primary pur- poses of that study, the 1964 California Driver Record Study, was to provide basic descriptive data on the characteristics and composition of the California driving population in order to establish normative 1Ronald S. Coppin, et al. , The 1964 California Driver Record Study (Sacramento, California: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1964-67). 21 22 data for use in comparative studies. That 1964 study will, therefore, be reviewed in some detail in this chapter. Data derived from the investigation of California public secondary school driver instruction teachers could then be compared statistically with the norms estab- lished by the 1964 Department of Motor Vehicles' study. Sample In the California Department of Motor Vehicles' study a two per cent random sample of the 11 million plus California licensed drivers was obtained. A total of 225, 393 driving records were derived from the random sampling procedure. This random sampling was achieved in the following manner: A terminal digit filing system is used in the central statewide driver record files. In this system all records with the same last two numerical digits are placed together. All driver license numbers ending in 00 are filed before those ending in 01, and so on through 99. Within any given terminal digit the licenses are arranged alphabetically and, within the alpha- betic prefix, by the first part of the permanent driver license number. The method used in California for issuing driver licenses has resulted in the earliest prefixes and lowest numbers representing the oldest licenses, and any given terminal digit, therefore, actually contains the entire chronological spectrum of licensees. In other words, any 23 given terminal digit represents and contains 1/100 of the entire 11 million plus driver record file population in which one out of every 100 drivers is assigned to that digit. With this in mind the investi- gators for the 1964 California Driver Record Study selected two terminal digits for their random sample. This resulted in the one driver in every 50, or two per cent sample, of the entire driver record file population. Since the data collected for the 1964 study were so extensive, it was decided that a series of separate reports on relatively homoge- neous aspects of the driver record data was to be presented rather than a single, comprehensive report. In this chapter briefs of the individ- ual reports that have been issued by the California Department of Motor Vehicles considered to be relevant to this investigation will be pre- sented. Each report will be presented in terms of the specific driver record variables under consideration, the methodology used, and se- lected findings and conclusions of the particular aspect of the study. Part 1--An Introduction and2 Methodological Description The investigators present basic methodological information. They emphasize that the sample had been selected randomly and is 21bid. , Part 1, December 1964. 24 representative of the population from which it was drawn. The methods and procedures of sampling were detailed. Data extracted from each sample subject's driver record file were coded onto code sheets in accordance with carefully delineated procedures. All coded data were then keypunched onto IBM cards and later converted to magnetic tape and edited and tabulated on an IBM 7090 computer. Analysis of the computer output indicated a usable sample of 223, 683 driver records from the original 225, 393 obtained in the random sampling procedure. Depending upon the nature of the variables to be considered, each of the subsequent reports utilized various propor- tions of this total usable sample. Part 2--Accidents, Traffic Citations, and Negligent Operator Count by Sex In this report the various components of the driving record-- accidents, traffic citation convictions, and negligent operator counts-- were considered. The data were analyzed to provide answers to the following questions: 1. How many California drivers are conviction and accident free? 2. How many accidents and traffic citation convictions has the average California driver? 3Ibid. , Part 2, March 1965. 25 3. What proportion of the California driving population can legally be classified as negligent operators? 4. How do men and women compare with regard to accidents and convictions? In Table 1 the investigators Show the proportion of licensed drivers with three-year accident free records to be 82. 8 per cent, while 60 per cent had not been convicted of a traffic violation during TABLE 1. -- 1964 California Driver Record Study: Percentage Distribution of Licensees by Total Number of Accidents and Convictions--1964 (Three-year prior record) Number of 1964 Accidents N = 148, 006 All drivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100. 0% No accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.8 1 ‘ 14.4 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 5 or more . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . --- Number of Convictions Alldrivers.....................100.0% No convictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.0 1 22.0 2 9.0 3 4.1 4 . 2.0 5 . 1.2 6 0.7 7 0.4 8 . . . . . 0.2 9 or more . 0.4 26 the same period of time. Less than one driver in 100 had more than five convictions or more than two accidents during the period under investigation. A total of 148, 006 licensed drivers were included in this sample. Table 2 provides a percentage distribution of the licensees by negligent operator point count and sex. It indicates the marked difference between males and females in recorded incidents. TABLE 2. -- 1964 California Driver Record Study: Percentage Distri- bution of Licensees by Negligent Operator Point Count and Sex (Three-year prior record) Number of Total Males Females Points N = 148, 006 n = 86, 726 n = 61, 280 All drivers . . 100. 00% 100. 00% 100. 00% 0 . . . . . 55.86 46.18 69.55 1 . 22.67 24.58 19.98 2 . 10.49 13.21 6.65 3 . 5.17 7.16 2. 35 4 . 2.56 3.76 0.85 5 . 1. 39 2.14 0. 33 6 . 0. 85 1. 34 0.15 7 . 0.43 0.69 0.07 8 . 0.26 0.42 0.03 9 . 0. 14 0.22 0. 02 10 or more 0.18 0.30 0.02 Miinpgfifw o. 90 1. 20 0.47 27 Table 3 illustrates the differences in the mean number of accidents, convictions, and negligent Operator point counts. An examination of this table reveals that males have over twice the inci- dence as do females. This finding held fairly stable throughout the study on most of the driver record variables. Attention was drawn, however, to the assumption that females drive much less and under different circumstances than do males. Exposure was not controlled in this study and, therefore, one might anticipate rather dramatic changes in the driver record differences if adequate exposure data could have been collected. TABLE 3. —— 1964 California Driver Record Study: Mean Number of Counts by Sex for Basic Driver Record Components (Three-year prior record) Mean Number of Counts Driving Record Component Total Male Female N = 148, 006 n = 86, 726 n = 61, 280 Total Accidents 0. 204 0. 260 0. 126 Total Convictions 0. 801 1. 103 0.374 Major Convictions 0. 017 0. 026 0. 004 Negligent Operator Count 0. 898 1. 197 0.474 It is interesting to note that the largest discrepancy among male and female subjects occurred when the major violation variable 28 was considered. The male rate is over six times the female rate. The smallest difference in any of the variables included in this report indicated that male accident involvement is twice that of females. All differences in other variables fell between these two extremes. The report also gave evidence that 0. 94 per cent of the males and 0. 07 per cent of the females can be legally classified as prima-facie negligent operators at any given time. In terms of proportional rate, males are 13. 5 times more prevalent in the 36 month negligent operator population than are females. Negligent operator points are assessed for convictions of violations involving the safe operation of the motor vehicle. A listing of the various sections of the California Vehicle Code carrying one and two point counts is presented in Appendix E. Part 5--Driver Record by Age, Sex, and Marital Status The framework of Part 5 is oriented around the relationship existing between the driver record and three descriptive subject variables--age, sex, and marital status. The investigators present information in a basically descriptive form without the employment of complex mathematical curve-fitting procedures. They warn that spe- cific shapes of the trends and relationships of this particular sample 4Ibid. , Part 5, June 1965. 29 should be generalized cautiously in terms of the overall population of drivers. The sample for this investigation included 86, 717 males and 61, 273 females. The method and rationale for determining the mid- point age of the subjects was explained, as was the procedure for categorizing the marital status for all drivers included in the study. Some of the more pertinent trends presented in this report were as follows: 1. Accidents and citations tended to decrease with age, except at extremely old ages where there was a tendency for acci- dents to increase slightly. The decrease in accident and conviction frequency with age was much sharper for males than for females. Married female drivers had driving records that were superior to those of the single female driver in all age groups. On most driver record variables the Single females had almost twice the accident and conviction frequency of their married counterparts. A similar observation was made in respect to male drivers with a few exceptions noted in the younger age categories where married male drivers had a poorer driving record. In general, single and married males had over twice as many driver record incidents than did female drivers. Driving record differences with reSpect to sex and marital status in the conviction variable comparison were greater than were the differences in the accident variable comparison. Males had approximately three times as many convictions as did their female counterparts, and slightly over twice as many reported accident incidents. Tables 4 and 5 illustrate the percentage distribution of male and female licensees by age and the total number of reported acci- dents, while Table 6 provides the average number of total accidents by age, sex, and marital status. 30 -- so.o so.o so.o ww.~ 42.42 an.mw mam.a tm>onxzwms -- -- -- oH.o mm.H mm.mH 22.4m has.” ms-as mo.c -- mo.o om.o mm.H mm.¢~ mm.mw mn¢.m os-mm -- -- «o.o mm.o mm.m mm.ma Hm.Hw wom.w mm-am No.o -- -- 4m.o o¢.m «v.mfi om.ow 44m.m om-mm Ho.o -- so.o mm.o om.” CH.SH «m.om mm¢.s mm-am -- Ho.o so.o 4m.o «s.m sm.ma sm.ow 24o.a om-m« Ho.o ac.o mo.o s¢.o mm.m NH.SH ms.ow sma.oa mw-aw -- -- mo.o mm.o mm.m pa.s~ mm.ms msm.ofi o4-mm Ho.o «o.o ma.o am.o HH.m mw.ma om.mu oom.o~ mm-fim Ho.o mo.o OH.o sm.o as.m ma.ma mm.ms mmm.m om-mm -- Ho.o ma.o as.o no.4 mw.o~ mm.ms mam.m mm-H~ -- 85 3.0 $4 8;. 3.3 3.3 Sax. 5.825 .sao.o .sao.o .Sofi.o .Smm.o .sOm.m §a¢.sa _s@m.ws has.mm mmmmHa< whoa .8 m m w m m H o .5955: 93w 1 H38. mucmgoozw Aphooop pmomuoounHv 3.530ko Sophomom mo pongsz 2309 93 om< 43 moomnoofid 332 m0 COESQEEQ ommpcoopom “Spam Upcomm .HoZSQ wwcpofifimu 3:3 I. .v mqmdfl. 31 -- 3.0 - 35 3.: 3.3 34 .88 E8 3 - -- 35 35 3.: 3.3 33 3-3 - - 3.0 3 .o 33 3 .3 m3 .2 3-3 -- - 3 .o S .H 3.3 3.3 33.3 3-3 - -- 3.0 35 3.3 3.3 83 .3 3-3 - - 35 3.0 3.3 3.3 33.... 3-3 -- -- S .o 3 .o 3 .S 3 .3 33 .3 3-3 -- 3.o 35 3.2 3.3 8.3 3: .3 3-3 - -- Ed 35 3.3 3.3 N33 3-3 - - S .o 3; 3.3 3.3 3...; 3-3 -- 35 SS 35 33 3.3 33.3 3-3 - mod 2 .o 3.2 3.3 3 .3 o3 .3 3-3 - -- 3.o 33 3.2 3.3 33.3 3 .825 - SS .o 3.2 .o 33 4 3o .2 .33 .3 33 .3 .83 3. whoa .8 m w m m H o .8355: omd- 889 mucoEoo/V 33830ko pmfiomom mo nonESZ HmuoH paw owl“. 43 Apnooon “mom-093.5 moomcoofi Ewe-pom mo SOSSQEEQ owgcoonom ”th3% ppoomm nofipm macho-«Sang vmmfi -- .m mam»;- 32 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 0 00 000.0 000.0 000 0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 0 000.0 000.0 00 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 0 000 0 000 0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00 000.0 000.0 000 0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00 000 0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 0 000.0 00 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 0 000.0 00-00 000 0 000.0 000 0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 0 00 000.0 000 0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00 000.0 -- 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 000 0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000 0 000 0 00008000. 000 0 000.0 000 0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000000< 000.000 080.0800 88.0 8000000 000.0802 008.0. 000000 080.0802 0000.0. ow< 3000th moi-.2 0000.08 Amoomnoofi cam .03 .00 00.00090 hawk-oops“ no pom-mmc mgmum 0.3.0.0002 new 08m .830 .3 00080080. 00000 00 80802 E80): 800830 ”0.000000 0.8800 83.30 000800000 0000 -- .0 03000.0 .Eopon 09.... 0000000000000 00 @0538 005 80.0.0 00.300690 0003006000 mEH .30 .0090 00 00 mm 000000000me0 on. 00. 3000.00 000 00005.03 :50 0000 00. 000.000 @0080: m3 oiooop 300305 .0 0000: 6900000090 .3000 Mama-mouse 00. 630050 0000003 .3033 003000.000: 8008.85 00.00. 00000 3.000.330 00 005000500 20.005 00.09, 0. So pom-ma 00.000 000.000 Amok-ooh: :00 so mEo .009». 00 00.0 000.8000 och-0. ¢mH.o HwH.o mmH.o ¢mH.o mpfi.o om0.o omH.o Hmm.o mHN.o mvm.o pom.o mmm.o bmfi.o mmm.o me.o mHN.o 0H~.o mwo.o moo.o pmo.o moH.o mmo.o wHH.o moH.o OHH.o moH.o mHH.o ©HH.o mwo.o moH.o ooH.o moH.o N¢H.o mmH.o NHH.O wHH.o ¢NH.O on.o mmfi.o NNH.o NNH.o mHH.o mmH.o NmH.o wmo.o wNH.o mHH.o wHH.o HON-o omn.o mmm.o mom.o mHN.o mwm.o mum.o 00m.o mom.o H>N.O Ham.o mmm.0 me.o mom.o bfim.o mam.o mmH.o HrH.o me.o omw.o mmm.o vmm.o mmm.o mNN.o mwm.o mmm.o mmm.o mum.o wwm.o me.o mmm.o mum.o oom.o th.o mmH.o mmm.o wmm.o mmm.o me.o 0mm.o omN.o mom.o >0m.o mum.o on.o wwm.o wam.o omm.o wbH.o mmfi.o mmH.o bmH.o omH.o PmH.o mmm.o mmm.o mom.o mmm.o omN.o mwm.o mmm.o mam.o Ham.o mmm.o me.o mmH.o ¢©H.o me.o wwH.o whfi.o mmH.o m>H.o me.o me.o mmH.o Hom.o mmH.o oom.o 0mH.o me.o mwfi.o mmH.o mmfi.o me.o me.o 000.0 wwH.o NwH.o mmH.o me.o ¢HN.o wfim.o Hmm.o mNN.o HNN.o mHN.o .095 paw m 0. mrnfir ovnwm mm-Hm omnmm mmufim omnmw mflufiw ovumm mm-Hm on mm mm um mm omncm “00:50:00 nu .m H1332”. 34 Tables 7 and 8 report the percentage distribution of male and female subjects by age and total convictions. Table 9 indicates the average number of total convictions by age, sex, and marital status. An examination of Table 10 gives evidence of the age, sex, and marital status comparison in terms of the average number of convic- tions for major violations, e. g. , drunk driving, hit-and-run, reck- less driving, and driving after a license had been suspended or revoked. Tables 11, 12, and 13 Show the average number of negli- gent Operator point counts by age, sex, and marital status. Throughout all sections of the study the authors consistently used the term "driving record" rather than "driving performance. " They indicated the latter term would incorrectly imply that exposure to accidents and convictions had been held statistically constant and the comparative performance of the various groups evaluated on the basis of accident and conviction rates. Given knowledge that traffic exposure is definitely correlated with accident and conviction fre- quency, and also with age, sex, and marital status, it would be safe to assume that the driver record differences reflected in the data would shrink if corrected for differences in exposure. They also point out that regardless of the effects of other uncontrolled variables, the tabulated accident and conviction frequencies represent the abso- lute frequency of accident and conviction occurrence relative to any given age, sex, or marital status stratification. 35 00000000280 00000.0. -- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00. 00.0.0 .095 00:0 00 In - 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 0.0.00 0.00.0 0000. 00.0 - 00.0 00 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0. 00.00 0.0.00 000.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 000.0 0000 00 .0 00 .0 00 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 0.0.00 000.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 000.0 0000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 000.0 0000 00.0 00.0 00 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 .0100 .00 00-00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 0.0.00 00.00 000.00 0000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 000.00 0000 00 .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 000.0 0000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 000.0 0000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 0.00.0 00 .000ch 00000 .0 000000 .0 F000 .0 0000 .0 0000 .0 0000 .0 00000 .0 0000 .00 0000 .00 00000 .00 000 .00 000.0. 0000- 0.00000 .00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000000: 0000 0.08.0. 20.00090 0090-00.03.00 90000002000 0308 000.000 00¢ 03 350080010 @0002 .00 00000050000000 wwwucmopmm £00030 00.00030 0003.000 300.00.000.00 0000 u: .0 001000040. 36 -- -- -- -- -- 8.0 00.0 3.0.. 00.2 2.2. $0. 3.62800 :: :: :: :: :: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00..00. 000 00.:00. :: :: :: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00. 000.0 00.:00 :: :: :: :: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0.0 00.00. 000..0 00:00 :: :: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00. 0.00.0 00:00 :: :: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00..0.0 00.00. 000.0 00:00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0.0 00.00. 00.0.0 00:00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00. 000.0 00:00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00. 000.0 00:00 :: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0.0.0 00.0 00..0.0 00.00. 000.0. 00:00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00 .0 0.0.0 0.0.0 00.0 00 .00 00.00. 00.0.0 00:00 00.0 0.0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 000.0 00:00 0.0.0 0.0.0 00 .0 00.0 00.0 00 .0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 0.00.0 00 000GB $00.0 $00.0 $00.0 $00.0 $00.0 $00.0 $00.0 $00.0 $00.00 $00.00. 00.0.00 000.0 004 0.00000 .00 0 00005:: 030.0. 00¢. 000000002000 00000. 00.00090 0090:0930; 00000000380 030.0. 00.8 000. .3 mommcmofi 000008.00 00 203050.530 ammucoogmm ”.0030 0.8030 003.20 «000.00.000.05 0000 :: .0 00.000000. 37 M0w.o mmN.o 00m.o m0v.0 mmo.0 omm.0 mwN.0 mmm.o 00o.0 mm coo.0 Nam.o oom.o 000.0 mem.0 omm.0 00m.0 mmo.0 000.0 00 wom.o o00.o 0mm.o 000.0 0mm.0 mm0.0 000.0 moo.0 mom.0 mm 000.o 000.0 oom.o m00.m 000.0 @00.m m0w.0 wO0.0 mm0.0 mm mm0.o 00¢.o 0mm.c mom.m 000.0 000.0 000.0 0mm.0 000.0 0N mmm.o mwm.o mm¢.o 000.0 000.0 m0m.0 omm.0 000.0 00m.0 mm-0m 000.0 00m.o 0mm.o mm¢.m omm.m 000.0 0mm.0 00m.0 000.0 om 000.o 0mm.o ©w©.o mmm.m 0m0.m 000.0 mam.0 00m.0 mmw.0 00 000.0 0mm.o 0mm.o 000.0 0mm.m 000.0 m0m.0 000.0 000.0 00 --- coo.0 omm.o oom.m ooo.w 0mo.m m¢m.m om0.0 mmm.m 00 000.0 000.0 mm©.o 000-0 mm0.m 0mm.m 000.0 00m.0 om0.0 00.0mn:0_ 0mm.o 00m.o 00m.o 0mm.0 mom.o MO0.0 oom.0 mm©.o 0o0.o mmmm00< 20:00 060..me 0300. 00050 0.2232 0.260. 2050 050.522 030.0. 00¢ 000080.00 000002 0000.0. 0000000000 000 .0.00 .00 000000 0000:0005. 00 00000000 0330 00000002 000 x00 .00¢ .3 000000003000 00000. .00 00006570 0000300 00m00>¢ ”.0030 0000000 00.0000 0000000000 0000::.0 00.000090. 38 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000. 000.0 000.0 000.0 HOOOOOO 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00>o 0:0 00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00 00 00 00 00 00:00 0000000000 :: .0 00.000¢.H 39 moo.o 0oo.o moo.o omo.o mmo.o omo.o 00o.o 0mo.o 00o.o mm 00o.o 0oo.o moo.o 0mo.o mmo.o mmo.o omo.o omo.o mmo.o «a --- --- --- m¢o.o mmo.o 0mo.o mmo.o mmo.o omo.o mm moo.o 0oo.o moo.o 00o.o mwo.o m¢o.o o¢o.o 00o.o amo.o Nu -.- moo.o 0oo.o m¢o.o coo.o 0mo.o wmo.o 00o.o 0mo.o 0N moo.o 0oo.o moo.o mwo.o 00o.o m0o.o mmo.o omo.o 00o.o 00-00 --- --- --- 0mo.o 00o.o mmo.o 00o.o 00o.o 00o.o om --- 0oo.o --- m0o.o w0o.o 00o.o mmo.o 00o.o amo.o m0 woo.o --- voo.o mmo.o 00¢.o 00o.o 00o.o m0o.o 00o.o m0 --- --- --- --- mmm.o 00o.o --- om~.o 0mo.o 00 0oo.o 0oo.o --- mmo.o m¢o.o 0mo.o mmo.o 00o.o mmo.o 00upmcca. 0co.o woo.o woo.o 00o.o «No.o 00o.o 0mo.c m0o.o 00o.o mmmm0a< 2050 80.0me 0800 20:00 BEES 0800 2050 80.0ng 0300 00¢ 000080.00 000002 0000.0: 0000000000 000 .000 .00 000000 0000:0005. no 0000000 03.30 0300002 0200 x00 .00¢ .3 0000000., :coU 00:00 00005000 .00 0000000370 00000020 00000>¢ “.0050 0000000 003000 0000000000 0000 :: .00 M01000¢H 4O 00000000000 00 0000000000 0000: 0005.000 000 .000300 00000000 .0000 000 0.0: 000300 000000 “0000000000 :0 00000000 00000 000.0 000 00000. 000000000 0 3.000.000 0 000000000000 00 03:00 00.000000 00000? 000 00 0000002000 00000 000.000 ¢ .00:00 000000 00000000 ”00070 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 .000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 000.0 00>0 0:0 0 0 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 00:00 .00:00 00 00 00 00 00 00:00 0050000000 :: .00 m0m¢H 41 25 Ed 85 Ed 85 35 no.0. 5.0 3.3 $.30 «5.0 .095 cum 2. mod 25 85 £5 and mm; 30 $5 2.8 3.3 god 3-: mod 85 25 $5 $5 3.0 Ea mad 2.0.0 no.8 30.0“ 3-8 mod 25 25 $5 $5 S.~ SA“. 3.: 3.3 3.3. 08.0. 3-3 35 25 85 3.0 3.0 85. mm; and 8.3 3.3 3mg.“ 84% 35 mod 85 3.0 3.0 SYN $5 8.2 3.3 3.3 $0}. 3-3 35 «To 3.5 $5 3.0 30 Sam. 3:2 223 Not? god 8.3 £5 was $5 $5 3.0 $0 3.0 3.2 3.3. $3. 30.3 21:. Ed 35 $5 3.0 80 35 $0 3.2 mw.mm 3.3. 3.0.2 21% 35 $5 35 cm; 80 2.0. is 8.3 3.3 2.23 03.3 3.; 3.0 $5 2.0 8.0 35 and. 3.0 $13 2.5 3.3 .935 8.3 3.0 2.0 3.0 85 $4. 3.0 3.: «mg: 3.3 «0.0m mama film $0 3.0 $0 $4. 5.0 $5 2.2 8.: 3.3 SAN 2mg. S0025 $35 $35 $35 $0”; $30 $2.5 $0.0 $3.2 $3.0m $8.3. 50.3 00033. 0.008 .8 m w 0 m m w m m 0 o 0008:: 9.03. 0300. 0 93.00 9562 + 0000mm $000000 000500095 0 LEE 90302 + 00300 “fiom 00000000 000m3w0z 000 09% 0A0, 00000005 0002 .00 0035900000Q 0w0000000m S055 00000m 00309 3000.02.00 «.000 u- .: Madman. 42 .. n- I- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.2 50.2. 00¢ 096 new 00. u- I- E. u- 3.0 00.0 004 00.0 5.00 5.2. 000 00-: 00.0 00.0 00.0 3.0 0H0 «v.0 00.0 0.0.0 0.0.3 00.: 0004 00-00 00.0 3. .. 0.0.0 2.0 00.0 00.0 00;. 00.0H 00.: 000.0 00uH0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.0 2.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.3 «0.: 000.0 0000 00.0 .. 00.0 00.0 3.0 00.0 04 :0 3.2 00.: 000.0 00nH0 v0.0 H00 00.0 0H .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 $00 00.3 00.3. 2.0.0 0000. 00.0 n. 00.0 2.0 H00 00.0 0H .m 00.0 00.00 00.00 02.0 00.3. 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H .0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 20.0 00-00 H00 000 00.0 2.0 00.0 00.0 0H0 H00 H00; 3.: 000.0. 00-; 00.0 00.0 00.0 3.0 3.0 0.0.0 00.0 0H0 00.2 0000 3.0.0 0000 3.0 0.0.0 2.0 S .0 00.0 004 00.0 3.0 00.00 00.00 03.0 00-3 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 $0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.00 00.00 0.00.0 Hm .8ch 0000 .0 0000 .0 0.00.0 .0 $3 .0 $00 .0 0000 .0 0.000 .0 v0.00 .0 Q0000 .3 D000 .00 00.0 40 0000 :< 988 go 0 0 N. 0 0 v 0 0 fl 0 .3355 mm< 23.0.0 0 _<.H,m 0:302 + 350& Avuoomu 009000.205 0 LEE 0:302 + 0550 050nm 030.300 0:00:me cam 90¢ may mmmmcmowd mHmSmh 00 cofisflfimfim 90.0300an ”.355 Upcomm 09>wa «3.30200 $03 In .NH Mdmma. 43 mNo.H mvm.o mm¢.o mpv.fi mmo.~ moo.H wum.~ Nwo.H o¢H.H mm mvfi.fi www.o owm.o mhm.fi map.fi mam.~ mm¢.H NNH.H mwm.fi wm HNH.H mm¢.o oom.o oom.~ wow.fi w>m.~ wow.fi mHH.H HmM.H mm Hpm.o mom.o mfim.o omH.m pmm.fi mpo.m mpm.fi FHH.H mmv.fi mm owm.o mom.o «mm.o wvm.m wmp.m mm¢.m mmm.~ mam.fi mwm.H Hm mam.o om¢.o 0mm.o wmm.H mmm.H mmm.H mfip.fi mmH.H mmm.~ mm-fim mfim.o wmm.o wmp.c mmm.m p¢w.m cpw.m mwm.fi mwm.fi m¢p.~ om Hom.o vm>.o www.o omm.m wmm.m pom.m wwo.m wmm.fi www.H aH amm.o map.o wow.o mw¢.m HHH.m om¢.m Nmm.H mow.fi mmw.~ ma mmm.o ooo.H oom.o mpm.m mmm.m Hmo.m m¢m.m ooo.m oov.m PH www.o ofip.o mow.o mm«.m mam.m mmm.m oam.~ mpm.fi www.H Hm_gmvc5H map.o mo¢.o pp¢.o mam.H moo.fi mom.H mam.H amp.o woa.o mmmmfifi< BwEm 82me as: Bmfim @2222 1309 23% 8:32 :38. mm< mmHmEmm mmHmE 130B Ammmmcmo: cam .53 mo Upoomp pwmmummpfi co Ummmmc 353m H3332 vsw xmm .mm< ma m LEE m5>o§ + 350m no“ -mpmao 29¢:me eflo 358:2 AS333 mwmpm>< macaw UgOomm mepQ wapofiflmu vmmfi 11m; HJanH .pcmgoom comm gem “Son 95 95 sewage; 03.3.3 :393550: 30mm 3 9503 m0 .3985: Umpmzwfimmc mg mg .3033 \3 Umfigpmumv mum? 333 “Eon moumpmao Emmfimmz .cmgvmsom mm “.300 5 pmmmam 44 3 nmdfl man HomFSm 05 £033 :0 c0330? oflmmfi 93>po a go.“ 20333 m mg 433 wfi>o§ < ”302 mw¢.o Hmm.o wfiv.o Hep.o mpm.o mHm.o mom.o wwm.o mmm.o pm>ofizzwm> mm¢.o mom.o oo¢.o Hmv.o wfim.o mmm.o mwm.o omm.o mmm.o muufip mwm.o omm.o mmv.o www.o mmm.o cum.o bmm.o omm.o mwm.o ovumm vhm.o mmm.o Hw¢.o mmo.H >>>.o mfim.o Hm>.o mmm.o mum.o mmufim mom.o vmm.o mmv.o HHo.H wwm.o mmw.o ou>.o mum.o mam.o omumm mvm.o wmm.o mH¢.o mpo.fi pr.o www.o Hmw.o vpm.o mam.o mmufim >¢>.o Now.o wm¢.o mum.fi 5mm.o wbm.o Hoo.H wH>.o mop.o omuow mom.o cam.o ¢mv.o wum.~ omm.o mmo.H omH.H mmp.o mv>.o mwufiv mvm.o m~¢.o >m¢.o mum.H who.H FHH.~ mmH.H wuv.o mmw.o ovumm vmm.o mwm.o wm¢.o pmv.H NpH.H wmm.H mam.H omw.o www.o mmnfim mmm.o 0mm.o mm¢.o wmm.fi wom.H Hmm.H ¢m¢.H omm.0 wwm.o om mmo.H om¢.o oom.o ouc.~ mwm.H omv.H mHm.H wmm.o m¢o.~ mm mmw.o owm.o mmv.o wHw.H >m¢.a mmm.H Hom.H Hmm.o mmo.H mm www.o wov.o omv.o mom.fi wmm.fi umm.~ mow.H ch.H moH.H um oww.o mo¢.o vm¢.o mmm.H Ham.fi mmm.H on.H mmc.H wwH.H mm on.o mo¢.o mm¢.c mum.H Hv¢.H pcm.H mm¢.H oom.o m>Q.H omumm UmSGfi—GOUII .mH madmgdH 45 amp .3; n 77..“ mpmfipv . . . . . . . 2: En w 3 m H w «.m v N. m w w w m om maggot/coo Ho .3383: 532 9533280 no.3 SA mm.mm mp6. wwh mm.w 56m 133 m0 unmopmm mmd mod mmd Hod Hod no.0 wed whoa no m pad oo.o 3V6 Hod cod 3.0 :6 w wed mo .o mo; mod Hod mod mmd m mm; NH .o mo.m $6 omd mad aim m Sim voA 3.2 mod mmfi. mvd 5.3 H «Jig om.wm mo.mm mm.mm NH .mm mafia 32mm 0 oboe .ooH Oboe .ooH oboe .ooH excoo .ooH o\ooo .ooH oxooo .ooH o\ooo .oofi 3:500 Z< mEchmwm hm? wafimmwm mwfixpwfi 98 EB vcw ”2853sz 90.32 @995 .maamgm mo .mfixmtmkwo £3:me mcofiognoo . Ema . . ‘8 wading. wcffipm mama pmngz cofiofiwcoo mo mmhh. Acpoooh hmmhummhnHv *maamm TECH a u mEnH E 2033280 Mo 833255 mmficmopmm ”Exam Eoowm $2.29 358:5 $2 -- .E mam/E 46 Part 7--The Relationship Between Types of Convictions and Accidents This report attempts to answer questions concerning the na- ture of the conviction-accident relationship as it applies to various violation categories. Prior to this report, convictions had been dealt with as one collective unit. Convictions were grouped into seven cate- gories in this report, i. e. , (1) signs, signals, and markings; (2) driv- ing, overtaking, and passing; (3) right-of-way; (4) turning, stOpping, and signalling; (5) speed; (6) major violations; and (7) equipment. With a few exceptions convictions falling into each of these categories are considered to be violations involving the safe operation of the vehicle. A complete listing of the various California Vehicle Code violations that were grouped into the seven categories used in the 1964 California Driver Record Study and replicated in the current investigation is presented in Appendix F. Part 7 of the study is of interest to the extent that it provides a breakdown of the types of convictions recorded for the general driv- ing population. The report is primarily concerned with the magnitude and shape of the relationship between each of the traffic conviction categories and accident involvement. For purposes of comparison with data collected on the driving records of California public 5Ibid. , Part 7, March 1966. 47 secondary school driver instruction teachers, however, only that aspect of the report dealing with the percentage distribution of con- victions by type was considered relevant. Table 14 illustrates the types of convictions that were recorded for the sample of 144, 726 licensed drivers during the three year period under investigation. Summa ry In this chapter a brief review has been presented of those portions of the 1964 California Driver Record Study considered to be relevant to this investigation concerning the driving records of Cali- fornia public secondary school driver instruction teachers. One of the stated objectives of the Department of Motor Vehicles' study was to establish normative data describing the typical California general driving pOpulation in terms of selected driver record components. Specifically, the following descriptive data on the California general driving pOpulation were presented and illustrated with appropriate tables in this chapter: 1. Percentage distribution of licensees by total number of accidents and convictions. 2. Percentage distribution of licensees by negligent operator point counts and sex. 3. Mean number of accidents and convictions by age, sex, and marital status. 48 Mean number of negligent Operator point counts by age, sex, and marital status. Percentage distribution of convictions by type. An analysis of data presented reveals the following profile of the California general driving population: 1. Six out of every 10 licensees had no convictions on their official record for the three year period immediately prior to the investigation. The average motorist had .80 convic- tions (males had 1. 10 convictions while females had .37). Better than 8 of every 10 licensees were not involved in an accident during the three year period. The average motorist had . 20 accidents (males had .26 while females had . 13). Slightly over half of the licensees (55. 86%) had "0" negligent operator point counts on their three year record. Less than one driver in 100 had more than 5 convictions or more than two accidents during the three year period under investiga- tion. Less than 1 per cent of the total driving population can be considered as negligent operators at any given time. Of the males, . 94 per cent were considered prima-facie negligent Operators while only .07 per cent of the females were so classified. The average licensee had . 9 negligent operator points on his record (males had 1. 20 while females had . 47). No attempt has been made to critically evaluate or provide a comprehensive analysis of the entire 1964 California Driver Record Study. Only those portions considered to be relevant to make a sta- tistical comparison with the driver records of the driver instruction teachers were reviewed. In the next chapter a listing will be made of the procedures, methods, techniques, and instruments that were used to enable the 49 statistical comparison of the two samples of the California licensed driver population. A concerted effort was made to follow the care- fully delineated procedures that were the basis for the Department of Motor Vehicles' 1964 study. CHAPTER III DESIGN What was to be done in the study, how it was accomplished, and what devices or instruments were used to obtain the data neces- sary for the solving of the problems under investigation will be pre- sented in this chapter through statements concerning (a) the sample, (b) the instrumentation, (c) the procedures used to obtain data, (d) the statistical hypotheses, (e) the statistical methods of treatment and analysis employed, and (f) the summary. For purposes of this investigation the assumption was made that the official driver record file for each of the subjects contained all accident and conviction involvements and, by the very fact that they appear on the official legal record, are an indication of the sub- ject' 3 "success" in driving a motor vehicle during the previous three year period. Sample This comparative analysis aspect of investigation was con- cerned with two samples drawn from the licensed driver population of 50 51 the State of California. The normative data derived from the 1964 California Driver Record Studylwere used for comparative purposes with the data obtained in this investigation. As described earlier in Chapter II, the sample of the 1964 Department of Motor Vehicles' study contained a two per cent randomly selected group of licensed drivers from the 11 million-plus total population of licensed Califor- nia drivers. The actual sample of 225, 393 subjects represented the entire spectrum of the general driving population in terms of age, sex, and marital status. The sample that was drawn for purposes of this investigation contained only California public secondary school teachers of driver instruction who were also licensed drivers. The group contained only those teachers who actually had driver instruction "teaching" assign- ments during the 1966-67 school year as opposed to administrative or supervisory—type positions. A total of 4, 584 driver instruction teach- ers were identified and drawn from the 361 public secondary school districts within the State of California. Of the 361 school districts surveyed to obtain the sample, 334 (92. 5%) reSponded in time for data to be included in the study. This represented a sampling of 56 of the 58 California counties. The 4, 584 driver instruction teachers 1Ronald S. COppin, et al. , The 1964 California Driver Record Study (Sacramento, California: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1964-67). 52 comprised 75. 3 per cent of the 6, 091 full- or part-time driver instruc- tion teachers claimed by the State Department of Education to be active during the 1966-67 school year. 2 The total was later reduced to a useable sample of 4, 558 subjects. A concerted attempt was made to draw as large a sampling of the total population of driver instruction teachers as was possible within the time limitations of the investiga- tion. It was felt the sample that was obtained truly represents the total population of California public secondary school driver instruc- tion teachers. Instrumentation Three separate instruments were used to obtain data relative to the problems under investigation: 1. A survey—questionnaire instrument was used to obtain data necessary to identify those public secondary school teachers with driver instruction assignments during the 1966-67 school year. The original questionnaire format was reviewed by selected State Department of Education personnel, college driver instruction professors, secondary school administra- tors, and high school driver instruction teachers. The 2California State Department of Education, ”Data Concerning Instruction in Driver Education and Driver Training in the California Public High Schools. " 53 questionnaire was designed to obtain data in two general areas: (1) to obtain that information necessary to make positive identification of the subject with the official driver record file maintained by the California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1. e. , full name, date of birth, and driver license number, and (2) to obtain information from the school dis- trict personnel file relative to the subjects' academic back- ground, phase of instructional assignment, and certification authority for assignment as driver instruction teachers. The questionnaire and covering letters of transmittal appear in Appendix B. The Department of Motor Vehicles' "Request for Driver Record Information," Form DL—254, was used to obtain the official report of recorded accident and conviction incidents for each of the 4, 584 subjects included in the sample. The current status of the driving privilege plus indications of atypical administrative actions, if any, were obtained through use of this instrument. This "Request for Driver Record Information" form appears in Appendix C. Official membership rosters for the 1966-67 school year were obtained from the California Driver Education Associa- tion and the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education 54 Association. Data from these records were used to deter- mine professional affiliation of the sample subjects. Procedures In order to obtain a high rate of return of the completed survey-questionnaire forms, arrangements were made to have the forms mailed directly to the individual public secondary school dis- trict administrative officials by the State Department of Education. The forms were included in a routine mailing of the Department's annual request for information concerning district involvement in driver instruction activities. Results of that annual survey are used to compile the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education' 3 annual report of "Data Concerning Instruction in Driver Education and Driver Training in the California Public High Schools, " and return of information generally approaches 100 per cent. Because of time limi- tations arbitrarily imposed on this investigation, however, survey- questionnaire data from only 334 of the 361 public secondary school districts were received in time to be included in the study. A list of the 361 public secondary school districts in Califor- nia was compiled on the basis of information taken from the Directory of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel in California Public 55 Schools3 and the California School Directory. 4 Administrative code numbers assigned to individual school districts appearing in those two directories were used for school district identification purposes. Individual counties were arranged alphabetically and numbered con- secutively from 01 through 58. School districts within each county were also numbered consecutively. The code number used, therefore, identified the school district within a particular county, e. g. , Alameda County was coded 01 and the first school district in Alameda County, Alameda City Unified, was coded 010. Therefore, the code 01-010 was placed on the survey-questionnaire instrument to identify data concerning driver instruction teachers within the Alameda City Unified School District in Alameda County. Following the return of the survey-questionnaire form by the 334 public secondary school districts to the State Department of Edu- cation, individual subject identification data (full name, date of birth, and driver license number) were transcribed onto the Department of Motor Vehicles' "Request for Driver Record Information" Form DL-254. Each subject was given a code identification number which 3California State Department of Education, Directory of Administrative and Supervisory Personnel in California Public Schools (Sacramento, California: State Printing Office, 1966). 4California Association of Secondary School Administrators, California School Directory (Burlingame, California: The Associa- tion, 1966). 56 was placed on the original survey-questionnaire instrument as well as on the DL-2 54 form to ensure the positive matching of the driver record search results with the subject within the particular school district. The DL-2 54 form was then forwarded to the Department of Motor Vehicles for the official search of the subjects' driver record files. This search resulted in the positive identification of all but 15 of the original 4, 584 subjects. Certain clerical transcription errors that appeared on the districts' completed survey—questionnaire forms were corrected from data in the official driver record file. In addi- tion to the 15 that were not positively identified because of insufficient or inaccurate information on the survey-questionnaire instrument, 8 subjects were identified as not possessing a driver license, while 3 subjects did not hold a valid California driver license, but did hold an out-of—state driver license. These 26 subjects were removed from the total sample of 4, 584, reducing the useable sample to 4, 558 driver instruction teachers with valid California drivers licenses. Official 1966-67 membership rosters from the California Driver Education Association and the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association were matched by full name and school district of the 4, 558 subjects. A total of 504 of the sample subjects appeared on the official membership rosters. This information was 57 transcribed onto the survey-questionnaire instrument representing the subjects' reporting school districts. Following return of the completed DL-254 forms from the Department of Motor Vehicles containing the official driving record of each of the 4, 558 subjects, the driver record components were coded and transcribed onto the appropriate survey—questionnaire instrument representing the individual subject! 3 reporting school dis- trict. At this point all descriptive data concerning the individual subjects were transcribed from the survey-questionnaire instrument onto an intermediary code sheet. Information so transcribed included data identifying the subject by school district, his driver record, and information concerning his academic background, phase of instruc- tional assignment, and professional affiliation. The coding sheet for- mat appears in Appendix D. The coding and transcription operations were done by a specially-trained clerical staff. A cross-checking procedure was used to reduce possibility of error. Later editing by a CDC—3600 computer further reduced the probability of clerical errors. Data from the coding sheets were keypunched onto IBM cards and verified for accuracy. After initial frequency distributions were tabulated with data processing machines, data were transferred onto 58 magnetic tape and processed through a CDC-3600 computer. Data were statistically treated and interpreted to make a comparison be- tween the 1964 California Driver Record Study normative data on the general driving population and the data derived in this investigation on the public secondary school driver instruction teacher population. The statistical treatment involved testing for the significance of observed differences between mean numbers of recorded accidents, convictions, and negligent operator point counts by age, sex, and marital status. The critical ratio or t-test method of determining significant differences between means of the two populations was used to determine whether any observed differences were true differences or merely due to chance fluctuations in sampling. A stringent region of hypothesis rejection was desired, leading to the decision-rule to reject the null hypothesis if t>2. 58 or at the 1 per cent confidence level. Any observed difference that large would occur due to sam- pling differences less than once in every 100 such comparisons and it would not be reasonable to attribute the difference to chance, but rather that a real difference could be assumed to exist between the two sam- ples and, by inference, between the two populations from which they were drawn. The t-test statistic was deemed appropriate for the signifi— cance test even though both groups' frequency distributions of recorded 59 accidents and convictions were positively skewed. Since both groups' distributions were skewed in the same direction in approximately identical proportions, it was felt the statistical results of the critical ratio test should not be distorted. The question of the form of the original distributions becomes irrelevant because of the large sample sizes involved. The central limit theorum was applied: As both N1 and N2 grow infinitely large, the sampling distri- bution of the difference between the means approaches a normal distribution, regardless of the form of the original distributions. The t-test was also considered to be most conservative since the assumption of equal variances between the two sample groups was not made. The following formula was used: 1 2 t: s2+52 __1_ _2_ N1 N2 Possible non-normality in the two populations and the con- comitant violation of specific theoretical assumptions in the use of the t-test statistic, led to the decision for the rigorous 1 per cent confi- dence level rejection interval. Cockrin, in a review of studies dealing 5William L. Hays, Statistics for Psychologists (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1963), p. 316. 60 with theoretical assumptions for tests of significance of differences, concludes " . . . the consensus from these investigations is that no serious error is introduced by non-normality in the significance level of the . . . two-tailed t-test."6 It was recognized that major dissimilarities were present in the two sample groups and would likely influence the statistical com- parison. For example, the Department of Motor Vehicles' sample was a randomly selected group (223, 683) containing a cross-section of the entire California driving population of over 11 million licensed drivers. The driver instruction teacher sample, however, repre- sented a unique group (4, 558) in terms of age distribution, sex ratios, and occupational status. The driver instruction teacher sample group did not contain any subject under the age of 21, and only a single sub- ject over the age of 65. This group was composed of approximately 96 per cent males and only 4 per cent females. Since age and sex have long been isolated as major factors in any discussion of differ- ences in accident and conviction incidence, this dissimilarity in the two sample groups had to be taken into account. In most instances the two groups were statistically equated in order to enable a 6W. G. Cockrin, "Some Consequences When the Assump- tions for Analysis of Variances Are Not Satisfied, " Biometrics, III (1947): pp. 22-38. 61 legitimate comparison in driver record components. The Specific details of this Operation are described in Chapter IV. Data obtained in this investigation were additionally analyzed to provide a characteristic profile of the California public secondary school driver instruction teacher in terms of his driving record and academic background, phase of instructional assignment, and profes— sional affiliation. The chi square statistic was used in this within— group analysis as a test for independence of the variables as well as a test of hypothesized expected frequencies. A one-way analysis of variance technique was used to test for significant differences among means . Statistical Hypotheses The statistical hypothesis for that part of this investigation concerning the comparison of driving records of California public secondary school driver instruction teachers and the general driving population was stated as follows: Null' hypothesis: There is no significant difference in the driver record mean numbers of accidents, convictions, and negligent operator point counts for the driver instruction teacher sample when compared with those of the general driving population sample. 62 Symbolically: HO: M1 = #2 Driver record variables-- driver instruction teacher population Legend: p. 1 Driver record variables-- general driving population “2 Alternate hypothesis: The mean numbers of accidents, con- victions, and negligent Operator point counts for the driver instruction teacher sample will be significantly lower than those of the general driving population sample. Symbolically: HA: pol < #2 Driver record variables-- driver instruction teacher population Legend: /~L 1 ll Driver record variables-- general driving population (‘2 To test for significancy of differences in the means of the driver record variables when considering academic background, phase of instructional assignment, and professional affiliation, a one-way analysis of variance technique was applied for each variable. The driver record variable was represented by the mean number of negli- gent operator point counts. The statistical hypothesis for each of these analyses was: 63 Null hypothesis: There is no significant difference in driver record mean number of negligent operator point counts between: 1) those who have earned bachelors, masters, or doctoral degrees; 2) undergraduate and graduate major fields of preparation; 3) those assigned to classroom teaching only, behind-the-wheel teaching only, or combina- tions of the two; 4) those who are professional members of CALDEA and/or ADTSEA and those who are non-members. Symbolically: H0: H1 = #2 = #3 . . . = “k HA: not HO Legend: ILL = the mean number of negligent operator point counts for each variable. The formula that was used to test for significancy of differences in the computed variances was: MS between F : MS within 64 To test the strength of the relationship between traffic density and the driver record (as represented by the mean number of negligent operator point counts) a coefficient of correlation (product-moment correlation) was computed. The test of significance of the correlation was a test of the null hypothesis, i. e. , the obtained correlation in this sample is not different from a correlation of zero. Any difference can be ascribed easily to a chance variation about population correla- tion of zero. The significance test formula that was used was: Summary In this chapter there have been presented the procedures, methods, techniques, and instruments that were used in the investi- gation. Specifically cited were the two sample groups drawn from the 11 million-plus licensed driver population in the State of California. Normative data on the typical general driving pOpulation were drawn from the 1964 California Driver Record Study, which used a random sample containing 225, 393 subjects representing 2 per cent of the total licensed driver population. Data from a sample of 4, 584 sub- jects representing 75. 3 per cent of the public secondary school driver 65 instruction teacher population were used for driver record compara- tive purposes. A survey-questionnaire instrument was used to identify the driver instruction teachers; their driver record files were searched by the Department of Motor Vehicles; their professional affiliation was determined by an examination of official membership rosters of the professional driver and traffic safety education associations; and all personal and driver record data were coded and transcribed by a specially-trained clerical staff onto IBM cards and magnetic tape before being edited and processed through a CDC-3600 computer. The research hypothesis and problem were restated in testable form and presented in the null form. The statistical com- parison of the two sample groups was accomplished by means of t- tests to determine the ratio of variability between mean differences. A one-way analysis of variance technique was applied to test for the presence of statistical relationship between the driver record and academic background, phase of instructional assignment, and pro- fessional affiliation. A product-moment coefficient of correlation was computed to test the strength of the relationship between traffic density and the driver record variables. In the next chapter the findings of the statistical comparison of the driving records of public secondary school driver instruction teachers and those of the general driving population will be presented. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS: THE COMPARISON OF DRIVER RECORDS OF DRIVER INSTRUCTION TEACHERS AND THE GENERAL DRIVING POPULATION Previous chapters contained the methodology and research tools that were used in this investigation and a summary of a pre- vious investigation that provided normative data on the driver rec- ords of the California general driving population. This chapter will contain the analysis of data from the official driver record files of 4, 558 California public secondary school driver instruction teachers. Data for this sample group were statistically compared to the norma- tive data on the general driving population to provide the basis for possible support or rejection of the research hypothesis, i. e. the driver records of driver instruction teachers are superior to those of the general driving population. The findings will be presented under the following five headings: (a) general observations; (b) driver record by age; (c) driver record by sex; (d) driver record by marital status; and (e) summary. 66 67 Throughout the remainder of this report the term ”DIT" will be used to represent data specific to the driver instruction teacher sample group, while the term "DMV" will designate data Specific to the general driving population sample group as reported in the 1964 California Driver Record Study. 1 To delineate a driver record profile of the California public secondary school driver instruction teacher population, the official driver record components, i. e. reported accidents, con- victions, and the resulting negligent operator point counts, were tallied and summarized. Only those driver record entries for the three year period immediately prior to the date of the investigation, June 1, 1967, were included in the study. Data were analyzed and interpreted to provide answers to the following general questions: 1. How many California driver instruction teachers have clear driver records, 1. e. accident and conviction free for a three year period, and how do they compare pro- portionally to the general driving population? 2. What are the mean numbers of accidents, convictions, and negligent Operator point counts appearing on the driver records of driver instruction teachers and how do they compare to those of the general driving population? 3. What proportion of driver instruction teachers can legally be classified as prima-facie negligent operators and how does it compare to that of the general driving population? 1Ronald S. Coppin, et a1. , The 1964 California Driver Record Study (Sacramento, California: California Department of Motor Vehicles, 1964-1967). 68 How do the driver records of male and female driver instruction teachers compare to those of the general driv- ing population? How do the driver records of married and unmarried driver instruction teachers compare to those of the general driving population? What types of traffic violations result in convictions for driver instruction teachers and how do they compare pro- portionally to those of the general driving population? General Observations In analyzing the data obtained from the official search of the official driver record files maintained by the Department of Motor Vehicles for each of the 4, 558 subjects included in the DIT sample group, the following observations not specific to age, sex, or marital status were made: 1. Less than half of the driver instruction teachers had an accident and conviction free driver record file during the three year period immediately prior to the investigation. The DIT group showed 49. 9 per cent without a recorded accident or conviction, while 52. 7 per cent had a "O" negligent operator point count. The DMV group had been reported to have 55. 8 per cent with a "0" negligent opera- tor point count. When the two groups were equated in terms of age and sex ratios, however, this percentage 69 with "0" negligent Operator point counts dropped to 46. 0 in the DMV group and 52. 6 in the DIT group. Justifica- tion for equating the two groups will be explained later in the chapter. A total of 41 driver instruction teachers could legally be classified as prima—facie negligent operators having an excessive number of points assessed against their driver record within a limited period of time. This total repre- sents 0. 89 per cent of the total sample and compares to the 0. 94 per cent in the prima-facie negligent operator classification at any given time within the male general driving population. A total of 10 of the prima—facie negli- gent operator driver instruction teachers were found to be employed by a single secondary school district. A total of 15 driver instruction teachers had been convicted during the three year period under investigation of a major traffic violation, e. g. drunk driving, hit-and-run, and driving after their driver license had been suspended or revoked. Four of the driver instruction teachers had multiple major convictions on their record, while one subject had been convicted of a major violation on five separate occasions. An additional 35 had been convicted 70 of one or more of these major violations at some time previous to the three year period under investigation. A total of 22 driver instruction teachers had previously had their driver license Officially suSpended or revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles because of illegal driving behavior or the accumulation of an excessive number of negligent operator points. A total of 21 driver instruction teachers' files indicated the Department of Motor Vehicles had established a "special" file, indicating in general that some action had been taken or was contemplated by the Department for medical or driver behavior purposes. A total of 9 driver instruction teachers had official "holds" placed on their file because of their failure to appear in traffic court to answer a traffic citation after having given their written promise to appear. One subject had an uncleared FTA on his driver record since 1959, indicating his driver license had not legally been renewed since that time. He was assigned behind—the-wheel instructional duties within his school district. Eight driver instruction teachers were found to be non- drivers. An additional three held only an out-of—state 71 driver license in violation of regulations requiring possession of a valid California driver license. Driver Record by Age The average (mean) age of the driver instruction teachers in the sample was 36. 4 years. Over 50 per cent of the male teachers were under 35 years of age, while slightly over 50 per cent of the female teachers were under the age of 30. Tables 15 and 16 TABLE 15. -- giver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Licensees by Total Number of Accidents-—Total Samples (Three-year prior record) Driver Instruction Teachers General Population Number of Acc1dents Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Total Sample 4, 558 100. 0% 148, 006 100. 0% 0 3,780 82.9 122,549 82.8 1 686 15.0 21,313 14.4 2 83 1. 8 3, 404 2. 3 3 7 0 2 592 0. 4 4 2 0. 1 148 0. 1 5 or more I —-- --- —-- --- Mean Number 018; . 19 .20 Accidents Starldafd . 45 . 50 Dev1ation at = 1. 48 (not significant) 72 show that 82. 9 per cent of the driver instruction teachers did not have an accident recorded on their official driver record for the three year period immediately prior to the investigation, while 58. 3 per cent did not have a recorded conviction for a traffic violation. TABLE 16. -- Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Licensees by Total Number of Convictions--Total Samples (Three-year prior record) Number of Driver Instruction Teachers General Population Convictions Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Total Sample 4, 558 100. 0% 148, 006 100. 0% 0 2,656 58.3 88,804 60.0 1 1,212 26.6 32,561 22.0 2 441 9.7 13,321 9.0 3 136 3.0 6, 068 4. 1 4 66 1. 4 2, 960 2. 0 5 21 0. 5 1, 776 1. 2 6 20 0. 4 1, 036 0. 7 7 2 0. 1 592 0. 4 8 3 0. 1 296 0. 2 9 or more 1 -- 592 0. 4 Mean Number of .67 . 80 Convictionsa~ 5:31:12: 1-03 1-36 at = 7. 67 (significant beyond the 1 per cent level of confi- dence) 73 Tables 15 and 16 also provide a proportional comparison of the driver record components for the DIT and DMV sample groups. Data for the general driving population were previously reported in Table 1 on page 25. The two groups appear remarkably alike when considering the proportions of subjects involved in accidents. The DMV group shows 82. 8 per cent to be accident free, while the DIT group shows 82. 9 per cent. The similarity was also evident, but to a lesser degree, in the comparison of conviction incidence--60. 0 per cent conviction free in the DMV group to 58. 3 per cent in the DIT group. Figure 1 graphically illustrates the proportional similarity of the mean numbers of accidents and convictions for the two sample groups. Moon Moon Moon Accidents Convictions Neg. Optr. Points I.00 I.00 .75 - .75 .50 - .50 .25 b .25 - ’/ .20 .0 //- , L.0. DIT DMV DIT DMV DIT DMV FIG. 1. -- Mean Numbers of Accidents, Convictions, and Negligent Operator Point Counts for Driver Instruction Teachers and the General Driving Population. 74 When the critical ratio, or t-test, was applied, the differ- ence between the means proved non-significant in terms of accident involvement. There was a highly significant difference between the two groups, however, in terms of mean numbers of convictions. This finding was significant beyond the 1 per cent level of confidence, indicating the difference was unlikely to be the result of chance fac- tors alone and it would be found in 99 of every 100 such comparisons. While this investigation was essentially conducted to pro- vide descriptive data on the California public secondary school driver instruction teacher population, it was not considered within the scope of the study to investigate possible causal-relationship factors for any of the phenomena that might be revealed. However, in the interest of accounting for the apparent substantial difference in the mean number of convictions for each of the two sample groups, both groups were reexamined in terms of age and sex ratios. The DMV group was made up of more than 148, 000 subjects ranging in age from 16 to over 76. There were approximately 87, 000 male subjects representing 58. 6 per cent of the total sample. The DIT group, on the other hand, was composed of 4, 558 subjects ranging in age from 22 to 68, with only a single subject over the age of 65. Males comprised over 95 per cent of the sample. It was 75 obvious the two groups had differing age and sex ratios and any sta- tistical comparison that failed to take such differences into account could produce distorted results. The 1964 California Driver Record m, as well as numerous other driver record studies, reported that male drivers had substantially higher rates of accident and conviction involvements than did their female counterparts. Younger (under 21) and older (over 65) drivers were also involved in a dis- proportionate number Of accidents and convictions. Since the DIT sample group contained over 95 per cent males (who normally have higher accident and conviction rates than do females) and did not contain any subjects in the very young or very old age groups (who also have higher accident and conviction incidence rates), the sta- tistical comparison of group means would be relatively meaningless if compared to the more normally distributed DMV sample group in terms of age and sex. In an attempt to equate the two sample groups to enable a more realistic and meaningful comparison of data, all data on subjects under the age of 21 and over the age of 65 and all female subjects were removed from both samples. This age and sex adjust- ment resulted in a final sampling of 75, 691 male licensed drivers between the ages of 21 and 65 in the DMV group and 4, 368 males in the same age categories in the DIT group. 76 Tables 17, 18, and 19 show the percentage distributions by accidents, convictions, and negligent operator point counts for both sample groups after the age and sex data adjustments were made. By removing all females and younger and older subjects TABLE 17. -- Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Male Licensees Between the Ages of 21-65 by Total Number of Accidents (Three-year prior record) Driver Instruction Teachers General Population Number of Acc1dents Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Total Sample 4, 368 100. 0% 75, 691 100. 0% 0 3,624 83.0 59,796 79.0 1 659 15.1 13,092 17.3 2 76 1 . 7 2, 329 3. 1 3 7 0. 2 388 0. 5 4 2 0. 1 71 0. 1 5 or more --- --— 15 0.0+ Mean Number of . 19 . 26 Accidents Stafdafd . 45 . 55 DeV1ation a t = 9. 92 (significant beyond the 1 per cent level of confi- dence) 77 TABLE 18. -- Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Male Licensees Between the Ages of 21-65 by Total Number of Convictions (Three-year prior record) Driver Instruction Teachers General Population Number of Conv1ctions Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage TotalSample 4,368 100.0% 75, 691 100.0% 0 2,535 58.0 37,632 49.7 1 1,166 26.3 18,787 24.8 2 429 9.8 9,173 12.1 3 128 2. 9 4, 492 5. 9 4 65 1. 5 2, 314 3. 1 5 20 0. 5 1, 301 1. 7 6 20 0.5 794 1. 0 7 1 0. 0+ 449 0. 6 8 3 0. 1 259 0. 3 9 or more 1 0. 0+ 490 0. 6 Mean Number of ,67 1. 07 . . a Conv1ctions Stapdatrd 1.03 1. 57 Dev1ation at = 24. 11 (significant beyond the 1 per cent level of confi- dence) 78 TABLE 19. -- Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution of Male Licensees Between the Ages of 21-65 by Total Number of Negligent Operator Points + Moving FTA' s (Three-year prior record) Number of Driver Instruction Teachers General Population Points Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Total Sample 4, 368 100. 0% 75, 691 100. 0% 0 2,298 52.6 34,823 46.0 1 1,254 28.7 18,931 25.0 2 497 11.4 10,096 13.3 3 190 4. 4 5,414 7. 2 4 68 1. 6 2, 819 3. 7 5 37 0. 8 1, 549 2. 0 6 17 0. 4 936 1. 2 7 3 0. 1 481 0. 6 8 3 0. 1 287 0.4 9 or more 1 0. 0+ 355 0. 5 Mean Number of .79 1.18 Points 32:22:21 :10 1-59 at = 22. 13 (significant beyond the 1 per cent level of confi- dence) from the DMV sample group, the mean number of accidents rose from . 20 to . 26; the mean number of convictions rose from . 80 to 79 1. 07; and the mean number of negligent operator point counts rose from . 90 to 1. 18. When the DIT sample group was adjusted for age and sex, however, the means remained relatively unchanged. To measure the significance of variability between these equated sample groups, the t-test statistic was again applied. The DIT group had significantly lower mean numbers of accidents, convic- tions, and negligent operator point counts than did the DMV group. These findings were significant beyond the 1 per cent level of con- fidence. Total accidents. -- Table 20 shows the percentage distri- bution of mean numbers of accidents for the various age groups within the DIT sample. While over 82 per cent of the DIT sample subjects did not have a recorded accident on their record during the three year period prior to the investigation, 2 out of every 100 driver instruction teachers had been involved in from two to four reported accidents during the period. Comparison of data in Table 20 with accident involvement data for the general driving population, reported in Table 6 on pages 32-33, reveals a general consistency in pattern or trend between the two sample groups. A curious departure within the 55-65 ages within the DIT group, how- ever, is noticeable. Figure 2 graphically illustrates these mean 80 23 .o u 8:533 352:..sz 3 .o u 30.852 232 n E .3 u 8:2..er 33:39 3 .3 u 53. S825 --- --- -- -- 2:2: 8.2: 35 : 3-3 .1 -- 3.5 3.3. 3.3 3 .3 3.: 2. 3-3 -- 31o -- 3 .3 3 .3 3 .3 3.3 2: 3-3 -- 2; 33 3.3 3 .3 3.3 S .5 OS 33.3 --- -- 3.: 3.3 3.3 m: .3 3;. 33 3-3. -- -- 3.: 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 Em 3-3 .1 -- 3 .o 3 .3 3 .3 3.3 S. .S :3 213 3 .o m: .o 3.: S .3 3 .3 3.3 3.3 3a.: 3.3. 35 35 3.3 :3 3.3 3.3 3.3 33 3-3 --- 35 3.3 3.3 3 .3 23.2. 3: 33 3-3 :- :- -- :- .-- ..- .i- u..- 5 hops-D .25 .o .3: .o 23 4 23 .3 s3 .3 -- 3o .2: 33 .5 33. :4 e m. m H c 30.852 85852 30.852 33:. mo :39:- 359 534 £35255. 25.09 2 .85 mo 2 Achooo: Lorna hawk-@0255 32830354 popaoomm .5 2.53332 130B paw om< mp GOSDQEEMQ mwmucoopmm 8.23.3me con—0:33: aofiafl -- .om EJm..H.HQ II .MN mgmCOU uwvhoowm HO hflflgz ~da0h. mun-d wi hfl Eofiuflflwhumwg OUNuGQOhvm uthSUMOH. GOmuUEum—nm hw>mho II .mN HJQ

OE T mun—SCU ur—«CRH LCuflLDn—c uflmumzwvz 5:5 XUT. ~AQ Esquflfimhumma Quads—OSLO; um..G£UGO.—t CCwu.:—._«m:~ Lag/T;— II .PN u_.—m—Ahh. 96 8... u 8.333 285%. 2. ... n .3532 :82 n a... .w n 8.3.50 2855. .3 a... u om... :82... --- --- --- --- :- -..- --- --- --- 8...... 8...... No... . 2.... --- --- 2.. -1 s... ts 3.... 2...... 9...... 2...... 8.. S. S-.. --- -..- --- a...» 8.. 8s a... 8.2 8...... 8...... -.~ 2.. 8-8 --- --- --- 8.. S... 8.. 8.... S... 2.... 3.... 2...... .m... s... 2-... --- --- --- --- --- 8... 5.. 2... 9...; 9...... 3.8 8... z... of... l- --- --- --- 3... 2.. 2.... 2.... 2...... 2...... 3.8 2...... 8.. 3-... 2 ... i- m... ... m. ... m. ... E .. 8 .m 2 .2 :. .am no .8 ... .8. 8 .m. E... 3-... --- 8... --- mm... 2.... 8.. a...” .3... a...” 3.2 2.3 8.... 3.... mm-..“ --- S... --- 8.. «m... 8.. 8.. 3.... 2.... 2...... 2.8 2.... a... 2..-...” --- ..-- 3.... --- Z... 2.... $5 8.... .3...” 8....” $2.... 3... SN 3-; nun o..- .3: un. In- I... .3- a-.. u: I: u-.. n-» .3- .mno—ED $8... $8... $8... $8... $3... $8.. $3... $3... $3...“ $8.2 i- $.......... 8.”... 83.2 a .. .. c a e m N . .. homes... .3852 838:2 - a .5... + 29.5.. 8.22.0 28.302 ”Mum.“ “6...... .33 a3... a 3.800.. .8th hawhuwmhfiv .332. m 9...... 3.8.2 + 3.500 «50m assuming «nowwammz v.3 mmd hp cowuaeuumwfl owaucounom “9.0598... cofiogumcm Logan— uu .mm M4m3 “coo pom H mg 98me unwoflflswfimv co .m u u .m . . -- -- -- . . . 253m 3 o S o 3 om S 2 mm o em 8539:: and and 3.0 35 2.” 3:9 8.? 8.2 can Emma 2. .0 51¢ 8 .o 3 .o mm. .2 cm .2 3 .3 5 .mw «S .m 3232 0 mg 3.0 25 $35 $25 $94 $8.2 $3.2 $853 $26 #3on :33on nongz v m m H o MMMWMZ pongz madam. 238mm :32 $5289.35 no as 389 $2ng Gnoooa Lora nmomnoounfiv 32830ko bozooom mo songz H.309 paw msumum H3332 mo, :ofiusnfifimflfl ommpcmouom "whoSQMmH £335.39: .3in nu .Hm mdmafl. 101 groups had a very similar mean number of accidents--0. 17 for those in the DIT group to 0. 18 for those in the DMV group. The unmarried driver instruction teacher, however, had a higher mean number of accidents (0. 32) than did his counterpart in the general driving popu- lation (0. 27). Figure 8 illustrates the differences within the DIT group in terms of accident involvement, total convictions, and neg- ligent operator point counts by marital status. Mean Mean Mean Neg. Optr. Accidents Convictions Points I25 L35 ”.25 I .o ”5 - LG .75 S M S M- Married s- Single 1 FIG. 8. -- Driver Instruction Teachers: Mean Numbers of Accidents, Convictions, and Negligent Operator Point Counts by Marital Status. Figure 9 illustrates the negligent operator point count differences by marital status between the DIT and DMV sample groups. 102 MEAN NEGLIGENT OPERATOR POINT COUNTS Married Single I.25 I.O .75 .78 .69 .50 .25 .0 DIT DMV DIT DMV FIG. 9. -- Mean Numbers of Negligent Operator Point Counts by Marital Status for Driver Instruction Teachers and the General Driving Population. Total convictions. -- Table 32 shows the percentage dis- tribution of driver instruction teachers by marital status and total number of recorded convictions. It indicates that 60. 9 per cent of the married subjects were conviction free during the three year period under investigation, while only 41. 7 per cent of the unmar- ried driver instruction teachers did not have a recorded conviction on their driver record. When compared to data on the DMV group 103 Amocovanoo «o 3%: Eco you ~ 55 98th unmofimmcmumv 3. .w u u a . «.... --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 5.3 2.3 3 22% S c o “55.3ch 9.." mu.“ :6 and and ma.“ mm.“ :6 egg. 3.2 modm :2: cum Swim mad and ..-- mod --- mmd mud 34 mm.~ 5.x moan omdm «.86 82.52 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5% no a 5 o $3 0 $8 a $3 a $3 o $3. o $3 H swam N 923 m $3 on aim no man v "anon. cofiatfifl «nongz m w v o w v m m H c hongz 253m “Kannada .332 2332250 "30,—. 2308 H3232 3.300.” hora naahumaunhv 2822280 82000.: no 35532 ”Sou. can £53m 33.32 .3 cog—£329 omauamouom ”muonomok ”830335 .83.;— : .Nm mqmgh 104 previously reported in Table 9 on pages 37-38, both married and single subjects in the DIT group had a lower mean number of con- victions than did their counterparts in the DMV sample group. Table 33 shows the percentage distribution of driver instruction teachers by marital status and conviction of the major (double point) traffic violations. Marital status does not appear to be a determining or predictive factor in the appearance of major convictions on the DIT group driver records. Refer to Table 10 on pages 39-40 to make a comparison of data with the DMV sample group. TABLE 33. -- Driver Instruction Teachers: Percentage Distribution by Marital Status and Major (Double-Count) Convictions (Three-year prior record) Marital Total Major Conv1ctions Mean Standard Status Number 0 1 2 Number Deviation Total Sample 4, 558 99. 67% 0. 29% 0. 04% -- 0. 07 _11_l ._1J Married 3,914 : 99.69 0.28 0.03 —- 0.06 2 I 1 I Single 620 99.52 0.32 0.16 0.01 0.10 Undefined Status 24 100.00 -- -- -- -- 105 Negligent operator point counts. -- Table 34 presents the percentage distribution of driver instruction teachers by marital status and negligent operator point counts. FTA' s on moving viola- tions were considered as convictions for purposes of this study, While FTA' s for non-moving violations were not included in either the total convictions or negligent operator point count calculations. This was consistent with the procedures used in the 1964 California Driver Record Study. The unmarried subjects in the DIT group had over twice the mean number of negligent operator point counts as did the married driver instruction teachers. This pattern exceeds that of the DMV group as reported in Table 13 on pages 43-44. Table 35 provides the breakdown of total convictions involv- ing driver instruction teachers according to the type of violation: (a) signs, signals, and pavement markings; (b) driving, overtaking, and passing; (c) right-of-way; (d) turning, stopping, and signalling; (e) speed; (f) major violations; and (g) equipment. It shows that violation of speed regulations accounts for over 40 per cent of the total convictions, while violations of traffic control signs, signals, and pavement markings account for an additional 24 per cent. Com- parative data on the DMV sample group were previously reported in Table 14 on page 45. Generally, the types of convictions within the DIT group follow the same pattern as was apparent within the DMV 106 30:25:00 uo $.32 “coo Lon a 05 95th anmocmcwflmv mm .m u a a . . -- . . . 253m 3 a :. o --- --- --- --- --- --- - on 2 8 3 S 2. g 8532: 2. A an 4 8 .c 2 .o «a .c 3 .c S. .N 8 .v 3 .w «a .2 mm .3 3 .3 c8 swam 8 ._ S .o --- 8 .o 8 .c 8 .c S .o 3 ._ S. .n S .2 S .3 8 .3 «S .m 8232 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395m 8 H 2. o 4.8 a $8 o $8 a .8" o $8 a $3 _ $3 a $2. 2 4.5 3 *3. mm. Sm. e 369 85.825 «.3392 m m p m n v m N n o gonfisz magnum 235% 5o: 38. 32¢: m 33h + 350nm pauauoao «cemzmoz 3.30mi nor:— uaahlmoazhv a Lab wage—2 + 3.500 afiom uoaauoao «cowfimoz one 2.3% 33.33 .3 :owunflfimmn— ouauaoouwnm "whose—won. campushamfi amino -.. .vm mdgh 107 moo .m n no Hand 85. a n 2.... 9833280 .Ho :oSo H280 .Ho 09?. mmm pH mom H omm SH mmm m: Qumngz H.308 mnofigflooH pom muvg. pmd ¢¢.mm 22m Ho.m 5mg. we .3 9833280 .Ho gonads/H cmoH>H . . . . . . . mcoHHoHZHoU Hum HH um c we ow mm m cm. w. wH HH mu mm HmuoHHoEmonom mod ..-- HH.o -..- in nu. in 9:05 .8 m :6 I-.. wad No.0 --- ..-- 56 He mmd --- mad pod --- bod mH.o m 2.6 vod om.m mmd Heed mmd omH m mH.v mad No.3 mad mm.m wmd mmHH H wmdm 35m 8.2. :2: woSm mH.mm mmém 0 $8 .8: $8 .8: $8 .8: $8 .8: $8 .8: $8 .8: $8 .8: 3:80 :3 mcHHHmcme hm? qummMnH mwfixpmz HGmEQszmH nonmSH voomm H88 .Ho paw paw 95302500 . . .wfiamoam .m:§mfim>O .mHmcmHm . . . Ema . . 8 mficth wcHZanH mcmHm umngz 9833280 mo cofisnEpmHQ owwusooumnH Apnoea.“ hora umohnmmanv mmHQEmm HmuoHunoamH t3 “muonommh. :oHuosfi—maH noZuQ u- .3 @1333. 108 sample. Violation of speed regulations and traffic control signs, signals, and pavement markings account for 64. 8 per cent of the total convictions for driver instruction teachers and 58. 9 per cent of the total convictions within the general driving population. Summary The research hypothesis for the comparison of driver records of the driver instruction teachers and the general driving population was, "The driving records of California public secondary school driver instruction teachers are superior to those of the general driving population. That is to say, the mean numbers of accidents, convictions, and negligent operator point counts for driver instruction teachers are less than those of the general driving population. " A significant difference appeared to exist between the two populations. The results of the tests of significant differences suggest that it would be safe to assert that driver instruction teachers do in fact have lower mean numbers of accidents, convic- tions, and negligent operator point counts than does the general driving population. These statistical results are non-committal as to reasons for these differences, if such exist. This study has shown an association between the two populations, but the degree to which this finding enhances educational knowledge is debatable. 109 When the criterion of strength of association was applied to the t—test results, it became obvious that the difference in sample sizes had probably negated possibility of predicting anything of edu- cational value from the comparison of driver records of the two populations. Detection of trivial associations was a real problem. For this reason judgment was suspended on the rejection of the null hypothesis of no difference between the driver records of the two populations . This chapter has presented the findings relating to the com- parison of driver records of 4, 558 California public secondary school driver instruction teachers with those of the general driving population as represented by normative data provided in the 1964 California Driver Record Study. These findings, in terms of age, sex, and marital status, showed the driver instruction teacher sample group had significantly lower mean numbers of accidents, convictions, and negligent opera- . tor point counts than did the general driving population. These find- ings were significant at the l per cent level of confidence. Female driver instruction teachers, however, were found to have signifi- cantly higher means in each of the driver record components when compared to the female general driving population. The younger, unmarried driver instruction teacher had a significantly poorer 110 driver record. This finding was consistent with age and marital status data reported in the 1964 California Driver Record Study. The next chapter will be devoted to the analysis of data describing the relationship between the driver records of the driver instruction teachers and their (a) academic background; (b) phase of instructional assignment; and (c) professional affiliation. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF DATA AND FINDINGS: THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRIVER RECORD VARIABLES AND ACADEMIC BACKGROUND, PHASE OF INSTRUCTIONAL ASSIGNMENT, AND PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION In Chapter IV study findings were presented from the statistical comparison between the driver records of California public secondary school driver instruction teachers and those of the California general driving population. An additional objective of this investigation, however, was to provide a profile of driver instruction teachers in terms of an intragroup comparison of rela- tionships between driver record and various specialized major fields of academic preparation, Specific instructional assignments, and membership in the professional driver and traffic safety education organizations. These intragroup findings will be presented in this chapter under the following five headings: (a) driver record by aca- demic background, (b) driver record by phase of instructional assignment, (c) driver record by professional affiliation, (d) driver record by traffic density, and (e) summary. 111 112 The negligent operator point count is considered by many to be the single most appropriate indication of the overall driver record of an individual since it is a compilation of only those "countable" convictions and accident involvements. It weighs, to a certain extent, these offenses in terms of seriousness. For purposes of determining the relationship of the driver record with the academic and professional variables, therefore, the overall driver record was represented in this portion. of the investigation by the mean number of negligent operator point counts that appear on each sub- ject' 8 driver record for the three year period immediately prior to the date of the driver record search. Tables 36 and 37 provide a summary of the driver instruction teachers' driver records by sex and marital status. The critical ratio test indicated the observed differences in mean numbers of accidents, convictions, and negli- gent operator point counts between male and female driver instruc— tion teachers were not significant. The t-test did, however, reveal significant differences between means when the marital status of the driver instruction teachers was considered. Driver Record by Academic Background Academic background was divided into three separate cate- gories: (a) highest academic degree earned, (b) undergraduate major field of specialization, and (c) graduate major field of specialization. 113 ficmoHHchHm 85 AucmonHanm 85 AnamonchHm 85 u-.. HmMWHHMMMm H. n H an. n H mm. nu HmoHHHMHU NH .H mu. Ho.H mm. 3.. mm. omH onEom oH.H as. mo.H rm. mw. mH. wmmJV onH>H . . . . . . . macaw oH H 3. mo H pm mv mH 9.3 H. H308 :03chon :8on :83cher :8on coHHmH>oQ H832 pamvswaw pampcmpm pnwpnwpm Honda—Z xom m H.308 “580 HEOnH 9832280 mace 80¢ pouwgmao :89me Z . . p. 22809: hora :wohnmounHv 338m Ema exam H8320 paw xom .3 mmHnmEm> pnoomm poZaQ .8 .CmEESm ”mponomoh. GoHposaHmcH anHQ u- .mm. Mdmfia. 114 8283800 8 Ho>oH «coo .83 H was. 98th EmoHHHcmHmm 35328.8 2335 3:82:88 2335 3:83:86 38:5 «3:28»: . - . - . - --- 89:. 2:3: 8 m - : 8 a - : 8 m - : :mosco . . . . . . mgflm 8 2. :m «... ::V :N am 828ch 8.: 8.: 8.: m: .: 2... mm. 8:: 228 8.: 8. 8. 8. 8. S. :8 .m 8:23): o: .: 8. 8.: 8. ... . 8:. 8. 2.25m :. m :. :35 in... ...... .8... ...... . ... n e :m o :c :m E c :m 30:82,: 823m 3568 :53: :38. 3:3): mcoHHotfioO 3:888on :onnoaO HommHHmm Z 953m H3832 .3 mmHanpm> puooom .83.:Q Ho humagm 8.800.: :oHHd :mmmnoonshv 333:: 36:. 0:3: :8320 28 ”mhmflowmrfi GOwaHthmCH .merwhm II .bm m‘HmAWrH. 115 Graduate majors were considered only if the subject had earned a Master' s or a Doctor' 3 degree. Thirty-one different fields of specialization were reported. These 31 areas were later reduced to seven broader fields of specialization for purposes of this investiga- tion. Highest academic degree earned. -— Data from the 334 California public secondary school districts that responded to the survey-questionnaire indicated 53. 5 per cent of the driver instruc- tion teacher sample group held a Bachelor' 8 degree, although 79 of the subjects did not hold any academic degree. Over 43 per cent of the total sample held advanced degrees, either the Master' 3 or the Doctor' 3 degree. Table 38 shows the percentage distribution of negligent operator point counts for each of the academic degree categories. Those subjects who had earned only the Bachelor' 5 degree had a higher mean number of negligent Operator point counts than did those who had earned the advanced degrees. When these differences in means were subjected to a one-way analysis of vari- ance they proved to be significant beyond the 1 per cent level of confidence. A value as large or larger than the obtained F-ratio (7. 37) would occur due to chance factors fewer than once in every 100 such comparisons. It could be assumed that real differences 30:03:80 Ho :32 «:00 .80 H of 0:930 0:005:93 rm .H. n 0200-..: NH. .0 bvd :I --- u.. I‘. 4" --- 0H 0.0 whm «..vm 0.n 3: 00:20—83 36 88 -.. --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 0.8 0.8 +0.0 N 33280 SH 2.0 +0.0 +0.0 --- ~.0 m0 0.: NH. H.HH «.mm 5mm. adv mam; 3.8822 6 1 1 wHH 00.0 --- H0 «.0 0.0 HH H.m 0H. 0.: ~.m~ «Hm mam wmv.~ mZonnoam . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285mm 0H H E. 0 $.+0 0 $.H 0 $H 0 $3. 0 $0 0 $0 H $0 v $31: $0.0m $3 an $00 00H 0mm H. H089 :38?an 0.89552 0 0 H. 0 m. H. m N H 0 H089 000552 umchmm Emvcflm :8on m .<.H.r.H + 350% .88.:000 chuHHwoz .8 aka Hm8.H. 00.:me 2.800.: .820 hawhuoopzb umgmm 000000 .3 u .<.H..m “5.82 + 3550 «50m .88.:090 80023.2 .8 song—H530 ouaucwuuom “muonuawh .830:th 8>EQ -- .00 NAM—<9 117 exist between driver records in relation to the level of academic degree earned. Undergraduate major field of specialization. -- A total of 110 subjects could not be identified by academic field of specializa- tion. Table 39 shows the distribution of driver instruction teachers according to their reported undergraduate major fields of speciali- zation: TABLE 39. -- Driver Instruction Teachers: Frequency and Percentage Distributions of Undergraduate Majors Undergraduate Total % of Major Numbers Total Language Arts 230 5. 0% Math/Science 372 8. 2 Social Science 1, 091 23. 9 Fine Arts 146 3. 2 Physical Education 1, 686 37. 0 Industrial Arts 496 10. 9 Others 427 9. 4 Undefined 1 10 2 . 4 Totals 4, 558 100. 0 Table 40 shows that driver instruction teachers with undergraduate physical education and social science fields of specialization had the 118 30:03.:80 no "0?... 0:00 000 g 05 0:93: ucsmficwwmv «0 .m u « 0 3:83:02... .0... 3. u can)...“ 8... on... --- --- --- --- .... --- .... ...: ......N ...... «.N .... 35.3.... J . . I: u..- a: . . . . . . . 2050 Na .... .. N .. N .. N . .. N. 4 .. m ..N .. S .. N ..Nv 22.8%.... .... ... .... ... --- --- --- N... .. ... N.. N .N ... .... N ...N .. ...... N .... ...... at... 2.532. ..N.. ...... --- .... .... N... .... .... Nd ...: .....N ...... .....N 8.... 838:5 .. .83»: .... ... .... ... --- --- --- .. ... --- .... v .N ...: N ...N a .3 N.N ...; at... as... ... .. .... ... --- . ... --- N ... . .. o... n ... m .N. .....N . .N... m .8 z... .. 8.88m .308 . ...... Ne... --- --- N... --- m... .... N.N ...... N.NN ...3 N... NE 85.03532 ...... ...... --- -..- «... --- v... N.N ...N N... .....N ...... ...m .....N 3.3. «Nana... ... A 2.... $1.... .... ... .... ... a...... .2. ... o.... .. ....” ... «a .2 ...... ...N ...... .N... ...... ...... we. ... £95m .30... gzflmswvn— dhggz a w b m m ¢ m N m O “mach. hongz ”WWW.“ E _ um .30: 0 LEE + 350& 0300000 «003302 .0 .0 18°F 3030930039 2.0.300.“ hora uaohuomushv 93?: 303.009.0609 an a 22% ”5.52 + 3550 «50m 038000 0:00.302 .0 0332.539 emaucoouom ”0.85.008 00309505 00300. .. .00 mAm0Q 0000052 m m 0. w n v m N 0 o 2300. 020852 320 285% :82 0o .0. 380 0 LEE + 350nm 00000000 «nomfiwoz 300000 00000 0000:0003: «00803004 “000303035 .00 0025 hp m 23?.“ w5>02 + 30300 050nm 0300000 «009302 .00 0030500030 0m300000nm “00000009 003030005 0030a I. .9. Ndmgh 124 official 1966-67 membership roster of the California Driver Educa- tion Association (CALDEA), 492 were found to be members; when the names were matched with membership information from the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association (ADTSEA), 132 were found to be members. When these sub-groups' (members and non-members) driver records were compared there was no sig- nificant difference in mean numbers of negligent operator point counts. The obtained t-score of l. 22 indicated the differences could well have been due to chance factors. Table 44 provides the driver record comparison between the professionally affiliated (504) and non-affiliated (4, 054) sub-groups. Driver Record by Traffic Density California is a large state with extreme variations in traffic density. In particular, there are three extremely large metropolitan areas, i. e. the Bay Area in Northern California (San Francisco), the Los Angeles/ Orange County Area, and the San Diego Area in Southern California. Traffic is more highly congested in these areas when compared to outlying areas within the state. The Department of Motor Vehicles established a measure of this congestion, or traffic density, by mathematically dividing the total number of registered vehicles within a given county by the number of linear miles of 125 3000000030 005 mm; u 00 an" --cmcozmzv 00000000wm< 00:00:0m boumm 00:00H 0cm 0m>00Q 00000000400 Naviflfim. 83383. 828:5 .835 “ESE“? 000802 . . . . . . . . . . 00D -- .3. m4mHE 3.3.2. "hug Megan—.50 conson— uo oEmz "huflo " £3.83 $60.35 (11311 SIVLLNEIEIHD DNIHOVEJ. VINEOJI‘IVO £85m LNEIHNDISSV NOILDQHLSNI 30228 Jag—m ZOEDEMZH UZHE~<§o< 2. mmhmm flan .Qg mm abomm axommm MHE. >m>gm ZOHHEQ 156 Iezsmucnous Log, commune M msmvcnon CERTIFICATION 51mm CCII'MNS A-B- C CCLUME Q : COLUMN E : CCLUMF E : COLEflQ g : ccum. L1 : 90mins I_-'-J_ : CCH'MIS b-L : CCL'LII__-_Il_. L.— gcum.‘ 2; : CO L1 3:32 C : cum: 2: : g: 1.2.121. _., : ‘ a v - v\ L-stut II . fl - 1.” HC R 3 I (THIS FORM SHOULD BF TYFED) Type last name in capital letters. Give entire first and middle names - no initials or "nicknames." Write "None" if there is no middle name. e.n. 7/15/30 e.g. G 19b986 - List leiflgggig license number only. e.g. 23 LD 15688 - The teacher might held several teaching credentials. but only the ggg_authogizing aegiggment ig_Drivez Education agg_Drive; Training should be listed here. Use the following key to indicate specific Driver Instruction credentials held: 1 = Special Secondary in Public Safety & Accident Prevention Standard Designated Subjects (Public Safety & Accident Prevention) Provisional or partial-fulfillment type credential for either 1 or 2 above None of these listed. 2 3 I; Use the following key to indicate gthgg California credentials held: 1 = General Secondary 5 = Standard or General (Provisional) 2 = General Elementary 6 = Standard or General Administrative/ 3 = Standard (Secondary) Supervision/Pupil Personnel u = Standard (Elementary) 7= None Use the following key to identify undergraduate and graduate MAJORS: A = Anthropology K = Health Education U = Political Science 8 = Art L = History V = Psychology C = Biology M = Home Economics w = Safety Education a = Business Education N = Industrial Arts x a Social Science/Studies E = Chemistry 0 = Journalism Y = Sociology F = Drama P = Mathematics Z = Speech G = Economics Q = Music AA = Zoology H = English R 8 Philosophy BB = Administration I = Foreign Language 3 = Physical Educationcc = Elementary Education J = Geography T = Physics DD = Secondary Education EE = Other se the above key to identify undergraduate and graduate MINORS : se the following key to identify the highest degree attained: = A.A. (Associate of Arts) n = M.A. (Master of Arts) 0 = A.B. (Bachelor of Arts) 5 = 14.3. (Master of Science) = 9.5. (Bachelor of Science) 5 = Doctorate ndicnte total number of years of driver instruction experience, either full-time or part-time. 13 se the following key to indicate what phases of Driver Instruction the teacher is currently assigned: 1 7 3 l! l 2 3 h I U l l = Driver Education (classroom only) - = Driver Training (behind-the-wheel only) Both classroom agg_behind-the-wheel the following key to indicate the times of Driver Instruction assignment: Before/After School Hours. including Saturdays and Holidays During Sumner Sesr ions only Durirg regular school hours Both during regular school hours and before/after school hours rdicate the total number of periods of Driver Instruction assigned: se the following key to indicate whether the teacher was assigned Driver nstruction duties last year (1965-66) : = Yes L) 0 ll II II 1' 157 RONALD W. COX muss.- PINIG Inst-si- A S 6 Ch 1 ssoc:ato uponnisn am: is. h and Dino‘s o! “as... D|V1I|On 0! Public School Administration FRANCIS W. DOYLE Deputy Supennlsndem: Chi-l. DIVJIOI'I oi Special Schools and Saunas PAUL F. LAWRENCE Associate Superintendent Chief. EVERETT T. CALVERT Chis! Deputy Superintendent Afi‘ffl: (£1333... STATE OF CALIFORNIA omen 0! Higher Education tots . WILSON c. was Léiwzflsq°|"agggIZl DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Director oiCompsnsoiory Educ-anon m CAPITOL MALL. sscuumo. museums 05m some 2 mice March 22, 1967 TO: County Superintendents of Schools and High School Principals SUBJECT: Driver Instruction Certification Survey The Bureau of Teacher Education and Certification is cooperating with the California Department of Motor Vehicles and the California State College System in conducting a survey of all certificated teachers involved in driver instruction programs in California secondary schools. The purpose of this survey is to verify existing Bureau information and to determine the status of teachers currently engaged in driver education and driver training assignments with a view toward development and implementation of standards and procedures necessitated by recent Federal and State legislation. We hope, therefore, that you will complete all the items on the questionnaire to the best of your ability. When completed return it with the driver education and driver training questionnaire so that both reports will reach the Bureau of Secondary Education by May 12. Your cooperation will be appreciated very much. Sincerely yours, QM/ 2” Carl A. Larson, Chief Bureau of Teacher Education and (‘crtification CALzsr 158 use an! nouns w. cox WW mM‘fith%mm FRANCIS W. com: m T. CAI-m Deputy Superintendent; Chief. “WWW DivmolSDeciclichooleudm ‘ ’ PAUL P. LAWRENCE mm, sun: or CALIFORNIA meme? “2%?" M7 Ibis . WILSON C. an: mm 12» DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 0....”de um... RICAPHOLMW.WAISIM nonmam - uflfi‘m. April 10, 1967 To: County Superintendents of Schools mm: It: Rafferty, Superintendent of Public Instruction and Director of Education SUBJECT: Annml Study of the Status of miver Education and Driver 'h'aining and River Instruction Certification Survey As you know, each year the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education has found it necessary to gather data concerning the driver education and driver training programs. In addition, this year the Bureau of Teacher Education and Certification is requesting information on the training and certification of teachers of driver instruction. This is done in order to meet requests for in- formtion directed to us by members of the California Legislature and by other interested state and natioml groups. Under separate cover, we are sending three copies of the driver education and training questionnaire and three copies of the certification study for each high school in your county, which was reported by your office last year as having driver education, with extra copies for new schools. his will permit each school to retain one copy of each questionnaire, your office to retain one, and theorigimlofeachtobesentto: Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education State Department of Education 721 Capitol Mall - Rom hat acrusento, California 95811} If a local aduinis‘u'ator wishes to submit a district driver education and train- ing report rather than a school-by-school report, this is quite acceptable. In such a case, be sure that the number of schools included in the district report is indicated plainly. Please call this to the attention of the superintendent in each district mintsinipgg big}; schooTl. in your county. Additional cepies of the questionnaires will be sent to you upon request. Suf- ficient copies of each letter to principals are being sent under separate cover so that one say be available for each high school. Please have the remrts and surveys in the Menu of Elementary and Secondan min in a.Achrasiento by My I2, 1935}. Enclowres 159 RONALD W. COX Associate Superintendent: Chief. Dunsion ol Public School Administration FRANCIS W. DOYLE Deputy Superintendent: Chief. annular! “meatd'ubllsma eadDhestsrslldasadea mm 1'. CALVERT and Deputy Supoflnbndogn Division of Spatial Schools and Services PAUL P. LAWRENCE A t t S t ndenl; Chief. flffflififfiffififim STATE or CALIFORNIA 3.33.3.7. mat one...” (007 St 1 Bid . WILSON C. In.“ L“ ‘Mg‘; 90312) DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Director of Compensatory Education 721 CAPITOL MALL. SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA ISO“ DONALD E. m Acttn Chief. Division o instruction April 10, 1967 TO: Principals of High Schools Offering Driver Education Only, or Driver Education and Driver Training PROM: Glen D. Saith, Acting Chief. Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education by John R. Eales, Consultant in Secondary Education SUSJECT: Annual Study of the Status of Driver Education and Driver Training Each year the Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education gathers data con- cerning the driver education and driver training programs to meet requests for information directed to us by members of the California Legislature, and by other interested state and national groups. He shall appreciate your provid- ing the information requested on the enclosed questionnaire. Of the three copies which you have received, keep one for your own record and Iggu;n_£hg the or 1 and one c to the o ice count or cit r ntend t of schools from which you received them. Governor Reagan and Superintendent Rafferty have approved participation in the nationwide study of driver education made by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. and the Bureau of Secondary Education has been assigned the responsibility for gathering the desired information. In order that we may meet our deadlines. your replies should be returned to the county or city superintendent whence the questionnaire came in order that he may transmit thu WW- Enclosure APPENDIX C REQUEST FOR DRIVER RECORD INFORMATION-- DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES FORM DL-254 161 sec 4 52 .H «:3. urecreate 'Dfllun— . 8:5 _I 88m $5823 £28m 984 I_ ammhum Sub .mm fiofim D 39.5.. ezDeccOU D 2.02 accruing mmmZoo 38m 2582mm ..ofi 12:3: chasm 20:88:th cozofihfi Sean D U . .3 ”to“ _|. nouomfim .5855qu .2 ..m UNI—".8! £2.93 .8. :3: E: 2.52 4.0 .3.— o>£aom Db s2 ‘ a: ...—3:8! 838- 3.. 200 its 5:2 322i :3 .63: E: x.“ 200 toou sEoZ DmOOHm ow mDH