- Results from several studies show that using in-vehicle monitoring technologies can significantly reduce the occurrence of risky driving among drivers.1
- Several studies suggest that one of the most effective strategies of in-vehicle monitoring technology in reducing risky behaviors of teen drivers is to employ systems that are designed to report driving behaviors directly to parents.2
- A U.S. study conducted by McGehee et al. (2007) found that the experimental intervention using visual feedback features to notify teens of a negative behavior, as well as reporting driver behavior to parents, dramatically reduced the safety-related events that occurred for the ‘high frequency’ (i.e. highest-risk) group of young drivers in the study . These findings imply that in-vehicle monitoring technologies have the potential to target and reduce the crash risk for teens that are at the greatest risk for being involved in road crashes.
- Guttman and Gesser-Edelsburg (2011) observed that young drivers may also be less susceptible to the dangers of the peer influences of teenage passengers if they know that their parents will see a report of their driving behaviors.
- A Dutch study evaluating the effects of pay-as-you-go insurance on teen speeding using GPS technologies found that relative to pre- and post-measurement and control groups, the use of this technology and resulting insurance fees significantly reduced speed violations of young drivers.3
- Little is known about which technologies provide the greatest benefit in reducing crash risk as many studies use more than one or a combination of multiple technologies, making it difficult to determine their individual effectiveness.
- These studies largely evaluate the effectiveness of using on-board safety monitoring systems and parental feedback and notification, but little research has evaluated the effectiveness of other devices such as smart keys, geofencing, or technology blockers. This can be attributed to the fact that their use has not been widely implemented or piloted by jurisdictions.
1Bolderkijk et al., 2011; Farmer et al., 2010; Horrey et al., 2012; Lerner et al., 2010; McGehee et al., 2007; Toledo et al. 2008
2Bolderkijk et al., 2011; McCartt et al., 2010a; Prato et al., 2010; Simons-Morton et al.,2013; Farah et al., 2014
3Bolderdijk et al., 2011
