Seventeen thousand six hundred and sixty two Negligent Operators (NegOps) were randomly assigned to one of six treatments or a control. One treatment was the standard Group Educational Meeting (GEM). Three treatments were modifications of GEM; besides changes in methods of conducting meetings, these three treatments differed from GEM in two ways: (a) NegOps were sent programmed-learning homework before meetings and (b) NegOps who attended meetings and completed homework were offered an incentive (reward) for future good driving. Two other treatments did not involve meetings: (a) NegOps in one treatment were sent programmed-learning material and were told to return the completed homework, and (b) in the other treatment, NegOps were offered the good-driving incentive for returning their homework. The former treatment was called HI, the latter HI/PRI. Subjects' driving records were inspected for accidents and conviction during the one year after assignment. Only HI/PRI showed significantly fewer accidents than the control and that reduction was restricted to the second six months. When data for 6,513 additional GEM and control subjects were combined with original data, GEM's accident mean was significantly below the control's during first six months. All treatment except HI had significantly fewer convictions than the control. Among meeting treatments, there was no advantage to increasing length of classroom sessions nor did mandatory attendance (under threat of suspension) improve driving records. Data suggested that benefits were not related to the promise of the incentive than to its subsequent delivery. There was evidence that some meeting treatments and HI/PRI were more effective on drivers who had received prior warning letters (W/Ls). Recommendations: (1) continue GEM program (2) discontinue use of mandatory GEM notice, (3) drivers without prior W/Ls should not be scheduled for GEMs--but sent W/Ls instead, (4) validate research findkings for HI/PRI, (5) clarify or improve incentive treatment before implementing or studying it further, (6) explore methods of improving GEM's effectiveness in second six months, and (7) modify DMV's reporting and evaluation system PLCRES. /Author/

  • Corporate Authors:

    California Department of Motor Vehicles

    P.O. Box 11828, 2415 1st Avenue
    Sacramento, CA  United States  95813
  • Authors:
    • Marsh, W C
  • Publication Date: 1978-4

Media Info

  • Features: Figures; References; Tables;
  • Pagination: 186 p.

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00184563
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Source Agency: National Safety Council Safety Research Info Serv
  • Report/Paper Numbers: CAL-DMV-RSS-78-66
  • Created Date: Feb 3 1979 12:00AM