**3. Effectiveness of the prevention model**

### **3.1 Education component**

Two studies were conducted to address the effectiveness of the education component. First, a 1-year pilot study was conducted in 2011 that involved teachers from the second largest school district in the state. Evaluations involved ease of usefulness and classroom benefit. A comparison of group differences was based on participation in monthly and weekly presentations. A t-test and ANOVA application was used for evaluation purposes. Next, a 3-year study was conducted with parents attending the Share the Keys, a parent orientation. It was speculated that the school-wide K-12 pilot program would bring community attention to traffic safety and further reduce crash rates over time and parents will actively remain involved in monitoring their novice teen's driving patterns.

#### **3.2 K-12 traffic safety program**

In fall 2011, the second largest school district in New Jersey participated in a pilot study of the traffic safety component. A coordinator training session and four auditorium programs were conducted by task force representatives. One hundred forty-two teachers used the 76 lesson plans and resources to instruct over 3600 students. This sample group represented elementary teachers (86%), high school teachers (8%), and kindergarten/middle school teachers (6%). The most frequently used lessons were on bicycle safety (27%) followed by pedestrian safety (22%). All

**193**

**Table 7.**

*A Multitiered Holistic Approach to Traffic Safety: Educating Children, Novice Teen Drivers...*

**Lessons plans (N = 142)** Bicycle 27 Bus safety 8 Driver education 10 Pedestrian 22 Traffic safety 17 Unspecified 16

high school teachers (10%) used the driver education unit because it corresponded

When the year ended, a brief survey on the usefulness of the lesson plans and resources was distributed to participating teachers. Self-reported responses (n = 137) addressed time appropriation for classroom use, age appropriateness of content, best features of lesson plans/resources, areas of improvement, and other comments. Seventy percent of the teachers reported that lessons were completed within a 45-minute class period. All respondents felt that the content was age appropriate for their grade level. When asked about the best features of the component, most mentioned content/activities (N = 53), followed by available lesson plans/cods (N = 39), and lessons were easily implemented (N = 25). Also, teachers confirmed that these "interactive" resources were successfully used by

Overall mean scores for usefulness of components and resources were established and then used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in user satisfaction of resources between monthly and weekly instructor groups. Participating teachers were asked to rate the usefulness of units/lesson plans and corresponding resources for their grade levels, based on the following scores: 1 = very useful, 2 = somewhat useful, and 3 = not useful. Overall responses ranged between 1.35 (introduction) and 1.54 (PowerPoints) with lesson plans and handouts receiving the highest rating of a 1.37 score. The overall, monthly, and weekly user group means for the lesson

Next, the t-test, assuming unequal variances are p = <0.05, df = 92, was conducted to determine differences between combined means of monthly and weekly user groups. The t-statistic (3.505) supported the failure to reject the null hypothesis; therefore, an ANOVA, two-factor without replication, was conducted using

Introduction 1.35 1.39 1.31 Benchmark 1.49 1.64 1.35 Plans 1.37 1.52 1.23 Handouts 1.37 1.51 1.23 Parent info 1.42 1.47 1.37 Power points 1.54 1.8 1.29 Teacher resources 1.45 1.56 1.34

**Overall mean (N = 142) Monthly mean (N = 93) Weekly mean (N = 39)**

with the New Jersey driver education manual (**Table 6**).

plan components and resources appear in **Table 7**.

*Usefulness ratings of lesson plan components and resources.*

substitute teachers.

**Table 6.**

*Percentage of lesson plans reviewed.*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86656*

*A Multitiered Holistic Approach to Traffic Safety: Educating Children, Novice Teen Drivers... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86656*


#### **Table 6.**

*Transportation Systems Analysis and Assessment*

4. Elective options\* • Military (3 points) • Post-secondary (3 points) • Traffic awards (7 points)

*Traffic safety specialist designation criteria.*

**Table 5.**

**Categories Level I Level II** 1. Patrol experience 3 years 5 years 2. TSS level designation N/A Level I

3. Certifications • Speed detection device

awareness techniques and practice of injury prevention behaviors, while middle school students address traffic safety issues through assessment and remediation of unsafe conditions. High school students are fully engaged in preparing for their roles as drivers and/or safe passengers, but not without the help of parents and the community. Conversely, the enforcement component provides law enforcement professionals with analytical tools for identifying potential crash conditions and potential crash hazards, which may/or may not be apparent to the general public. Furthermore, officer participation in the traffic safety specialist program enables

• Field sobriety test cert.

30 points 30 points

5. Written reports N/A Traffic study written report—Participant

• Reconstructionist, DRE, ACTAR cert., or

traffic engineering cert.,

• Instructor cert.

level

Two studies were conducted to address the effectiveness of the education component. First, a 1-year pilot study was conducted in 2011 that involved teachers from the second largest school district in the state. Evaluations involved ease of usefulness and classroom benefit. A comparison of group differences was based on participation in monthly and weekly presentations. A t-test and ANOVA application was used for evaluation purposes. Next, a 3-year study was conducted with parents attending the Share the Keys, a parent orientation. It was speculated that the school-wide K-12 pilot program would bring community attention to traffic safety and further reduce crash rates over time and parents will actively remain involved

In fall 2011, the second largest school district in New Jersey participated in a pilot study of the traffic safety component. A coordinator training session and four auditorium programs were conducted by task force representatives. One hundred forty-two teachers used the 76 lesson plans and resources to instruct over 3600 students. This sample group represented elementary teachers (86%), high school teachers (8%), and kindergarten/middle school teachers (6%). The most frequently used lessons were on bicycle safety (27%) followed by pedestrian safety (22%). All

them to share personal traffic safety accomplishments with their peers.

**3. Effectiveness of the prevention model**

in monitoring their novice teen's driving patterns.

**3.2 K-12 traffic safety program**

**3.1 Education component**

**192**

*Percentage of lesson plans reviewed.*

high school teachers (10%) used the driver education unit because it corresponded with the New Jersey driver education manual (**Table 6**).

When the year ended, a brief survey on the usefulness of the lesson plans and resources was distributed to participating teachers. Self-reported responses (n = 137) addressed time appropriation for classroom use, age appropriateness of content, best features of lesson plans/resources, areas of improvement, and other comments. Seventy percent of the teachers reported that lessons were completed within a 45-minute class period. All respondents felt that the content was age appropriate for their grade level. When asked about the best features of the component, most mentioned content/activities (N = 53), followed by available lesson plans/cods (N = 39), and lessons were easily implemented (N = 25). Also, teachers confirmed that these "interactive" resources were successfully used by substitute teachers.

Overall mean scores for usefulness of components and resources were established and then used to test the null hypothesis of no difference in user satisfaction of resources between monthly and weekly instructor groups. Participating teachers were asked to rate the usefulness of units/lesson plans and corresponding resources for their grade levels, based on the following scores: 1 = very useful, 2 = somewhat useful, and 3 = not useful. Overall responses ranged between 1.35 (introduction) and 1.54 (PowerPoints) with lesson plans and handouts receiving the highest rating of a 1.37 score. The overall, monthly, and weekly user group means for the lesson plan components and resources appear in **Table 7**.

Next, the t-test, assuming unequal variances are p = <0.05, df = 92, was conducted to determine differences between combined means of monthly and weekly user groups. The t-statistic (3.505) supported the failure to reject the null hypothesis; therefore, an ANOVA, two-factor without replication, was conducted using


#### **Table 7.**

*Usefulness ratings of lesson plan components and resources.*


#### **Table 8.**

*ANOVA results.*

the mean for each category, in order to determine if there were differences between and within groups on usefulness averages for monthly and weekly instruction.

There appeared to be some variation between the usefulness scores for lesson plan components and resources. However, the values differed between monthly and weekly users, who had rated the lesson plan/resources as being more useful than the other group (p = 0.003487). This finding indicates that a Type 1 error had occurred and a difference existed on usefulness of the traffic safety component (**Table 8**).

While further research is needed on difference in benefits for elementary, middle, and high school teachers, this study was successful in obtaining self-reported benefits and program enhancements. Forty percent of the respondents indicated that program changes were not needed and another group (N = 24) expressed the desire to continue the program in their district. Others felt strong about providing additional time for the lessons (N = 14), incorporating more movement/physical education/walking trips/demonstrations (N = 20) into the program, and additional videos (N = 6) would improve learning. Finally, 10 teachers reported that the lesson plans should be used in turnkey (before/after school) programs.

#### **3.3 STK parent orientation program 3-year analysis**

Fifty-three school districts participated in the 3-year study that netted 2817 parent/teen teams from 14 counties with a population of over 6,300,000 residents. Nearly half of the participants were from the South (45%), followed by North (42%) and Central (13%) regions of the state. The 2010 US Census county data was also used to identify demographics of this cohort. As the program expanded, the ethnic composition maintained a greater representation of Caucasians (55%) and fewer Asians (5%). Gender was evenly matched between males and females, and only 34% compared to 44% of the population at large had completed college and earned an income of \$73,653.

The NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) was accessed to identify the fatality rates of individuals between the ages of 16 and 20 on New Jersey roadways. The updated GDL restrictions had played a role in helping to reduce roadway fatalities for this population with a 63% decline in fatal crashes of 16–20-year-old drivers. The fatality rate of teen drivers had steadily declined from 52 to 33 roadway deaths in New Jersey, during this period. *Share the Keys* remained a voluntary program and was adopted by 10% of the school districts to support parents in enforcing and restricting the driving activities of their teens.

Chi-square and independent-sample t-test analyses were conducted to determine the differences between baseline and follow-up responses in all *domains*: *subjective norms, parental behaviors*, and *reported teen driving behaviors*. Most notably, there was a 5% overall reduction in *follow-up* responses (15% vs. 20%) between the two periods. Levene's test for equality of variance was used to identify whether or not variance of scores for the two groups was the same. Percentages, means, standard deviations, and t-scores were calculated for each of the 19 behaviors

**195**

**Table 9.**

*A Multitiered Holistic Approach to Traffic Safety: Educating Children, Novice Teen Drivers...*

the *parent behavior* and *practice driving hours domains* (**Table 9**).

No response 64 (02) 24 (06)

No response 294 (10) 30 (07)

No response 338 (13) 71 (16)

No response 541 (20) 92 (21)

No response 404 (15) 91 (21)

No response 468 (17) 152 (35)

No response 269 (09) 47 (11)

328 (12) 2268 (81) 549 (19)

2586 (92) 231 (08)

2382 (85) 435 (15)

2434 (86) 383 (14)

2645 (94) 172 (06)

*3-year analysis of group differences: Percentages, unadjusted means, and t-test results.*

*\*n = 2668 sample size for the parent behavior domain found in post-survey*

**Domains & categories Baseline (n = 2817)\* Follow-up (n = 437)**

being measured. No significant differences between the means were present in the *subjective norms* and *reported teen driving domains*, while differences were found in

Pstyle 1—permissive 1315 (46) 1.53 0.49 190 (43) 1.57 0.49 −1.21 Pstyle 2—uninvolved 125 (05) 1.90 0.29 52 (11) 1.82 0.38 4.14 Pstyle 3—authoritative 1237 (44) 1.47 0.49 140 (33) 1.61 0.49 −5.32 Pstyle 4—authoritarian 76 (03) 1.91 0.29 31 (07) 1.90 0.31 1.10

Understand GDL 2330 (87)\* 1.13 0.33 366 (84) 1.16 0.36 −1.90\*\*

Practice driving 2127 (80)\* 1.20 0.40 345 (79) 1.21 0.40 −0.37

Enforce GDL 2264 (85)\* 1.15 0.36 346 (79) 1.21 0.40 −2.75\*\*

Control keys 2200 (83)\* 1.18 0.38 285 (65) 1.35 0.47 −7.19

0–3 hours 747 (27) 1.73 0.44 149 (34) 1.66 0.47 3.13\*\* 3–5 hours 433 (15) 1.85 0.36 69 (15) 1.84 0.36 0.22 5–7 hours 460 (16) 1.84 0.37 52 (12) 1.88 0.32 −2.60\*\* 7+ hours 908 (33) 1.68 0.47 120 (28) 1.73 0.44 −2.06\*\*

Curfew 2489 (88) 1.12 0.32 344 (79) 1.21 0.41 −4.70

1.19 0.40 93 (21)

1.08 0.27 356 (82)

1.15 0.36 291 (67)

1.14 0.34 290 (67)

1.06 0.24 381 (87)

366 (84) 71 (16)

81 (08)

146 (33)

147 (33)

56 (13)

1.16 0.37 1.70

1.19 0.40 −5.41

1.33 0.47 −7.61

1.34 0.47 −8.51

1.13 0.34 −4.03

**N (%) M SD N (%) M SD T**

2523 (90) 1.10 .31 407 (93) 1.07 .25 2.02

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86656*

**Subjective norms**

Self-reported good driving role model

**Parent behavior**

**Practice driving hours**

**Reported teen driving behavior**

*p > 0.05 for comparison characteristics of the sample.*

*\*\*Sig. (two-tailed) value is equal to or less than 0.05.*

No response Passenger No response

Seat belt No response

Ask permission No response

No text/cell No response

No alcohol No response *A Multitiered Holistic Approach to Traffic Safety: Educating Children, Novice Teen Drivers... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86656*

being measured. No significant differences between the means were present in the *subjective norms* and *reported teen driving domains*, while differences were found in the *parent behavior* and *practice driving hours domains* (**Table 9**).


*p > 0.05 for comparison characteristics of the sample.*

*\*n = 2668 sample size for the parent behavior domain found in post-survey*

*\*\*Sig. (two-tailed) value is equal to or less than 0.05.*

#### **Table 9.**

*3-year analysis of group differences: Percentages, unadjusted means, and t-test results.*

*Transportation Systems Analysis and Assessment*

Total 0.347693 13

**Table 8.** *ANOVA results.*

Error 0.061971 6 0.010329

the mean for each category, in order to determine if there were differences between and within groups on usefulness averages for monthly and weekly instruction. There appeared to be some variation between the usefulness scores for lesson plan components and resources. However, the values differed between monthly and weekly users, who had rated the lesson plan/resources as being more useful than the other group (p = 0.003487). This finding indicates that a Type 1 error had occurred and a difference existed on usefulness of the traffic safety component (**Table 8**). While further research is needed on difference in benefits for elementary, middle, and high school teachers, this study was successful in obtaining self-reported benefits and program enhancements. Forty percent of the respondents indicated that program changes were not needed and another group (N = 24) expressed the desire to continue the program in their district. Others felt strong about providing additional time for the lessons (N = 14), incorporating more movement/physical education/walking trips/demonstrations (N = 20) into the program, and additional videos (N = 6) would improve learning. Finally, 10 teachers reported that the lesson

**Source of variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit** Rows 0.061943 6 0.010324 0.999539 0.500216 4.283866 Columns 0.223779 1 0.223779 21.66598 0.003487 5.987378

plans should be used in turnkey (before/after school) programs.

Fifty-three school districts participated in the 3-year study that netted 2817 parent/teen teams from 14 counties with a population of over 6,300,000 residents. Nearly half of the participants were from the South (45%), followed by North (42%) and Central (13%) regions of the state. The 2010 US Census county data was also used to identify demographics of this cohort. As the program expanded, the ethnic composition maintained a greater representation of Caucasians (55%) and fewer Asians (5%). Gender was evenly matched between males and females, and only 34% compared to 44% of the population at large had

The NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) was accessed to identify the fatality rates of individuals between the ages of 16 and 20 on New Jersey roadways. The updated GDL restrictions had played a role in helping to reduce roadway fatalities for this population with a 63% decline in fatal crashes of 16–20-year-old drivers. The fatality rate of teen drivers had steadily declined from 52 to 33 roadway deaths in New Jersey, during this period. *Share the Keys* remained a voluntary program and was adopted by 10% of the school districts to support parents in

Chi-square and independent-sample t-test analyses were conducted to determine the differences between baseline and follow-up responses in all *domains*: *subjective norms, parental behaviors*, and *reported teen driving behaviors*. Most notably, there was a 5% overall reduction in *follow-up* responses (15% vs. 20%) between the two periods. Levene's test for equality of variance was used to identify whether or not variance of scores for the two groups was the same. Percentages, means, standard deviations, and t-scores were calculated for each of the 19 behaviors

**3.3 STK parent orientation program 3-year analysis**

completed college and earned an income of \$73,653.

enforcing and restricting the driving activities of their teens.

**194**

The t-test results confirmed that there were no significant changes between the baseline and follow-up responses for parenting behavior; therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. Next, chi-square results were examined to further identify trends in behavior over time. Interestingly, a shift occurred in the *subjective norms domain* between *authoritative* (44–33%), *uninvolved* (5–11%), and *authoritarian parenting styles* (3–7%)*. Parent behaviors* remained consistent in all categories except for *control keys* (83–65%) which decreased by 16%, 1 year later. There were few changes in the *practice driving hours domain*, while results were not as positive in the *reported teen driving behaviors domain.* Compliance with *passenger limits* (81–84%) increased, but all other driving behaviors had decreased between 7% and 19% over time and netted a 10% average reduction in teen compliance with safe driving behavior.

Additional independent MANOVA tests were conducted to examine the relationship of driving phases to *control keys* behaviors that had shifted over time in the t-test. Results confirmed that fewer parents *control keys* (M1 = 1.44, SD = 0.50; M2 = 1.24, *SD*2 = 0.43) during the probationary phase and afterward. Also, teen compliance with the *driving curfew* (*M1* = 1.41, *SD1* = 0.49; *M2* = 1.12, *SD2* = 0.32) and *passenger restrictions* (*M1* = 1.27, *SD*1 = 0.44; *M2* = 1.09, *SD2* = 2.9) had decreased at the probationary phase, not when teens were fully licensed. *Ask permission* to drive appeared to be influenced by the licensing phase, since mean scores continually decreased over time (*M1* 1.43, *SD*1 = 0.50; *M2* = 1.31, *SD2* = 0.46; *M3* = 1.24, *SD3* = 0.43).

The overall results identified that there were insignificant differences between baseline and follow-up scores in the 19 behaviors used to prove the null hypothesis of GDL compliance over time. However, the STK interactive intervention was also examined in relation to changes in *subjective norms* (i.e., parenting styles), during the three driving phases. The MANOVA results confirmed changes in levels of parental involvement had occurred during the probationary phase of licensure, not at full licensure, as projected. *Authoritarian* roles increased during the probationary phase, while *authoritative* roles appeared to be strongest after teen drivers earned their basic license. *Permissive* and *uninvolved* roles remained relatively consistent throughout the three driving phases. Interestingly, all types of parents appeared to have benefited from attending the orientation, and they remained actively involved in enforcing the GDL restrictions, 1 year later.

In the *parent behavior domain*, parents reported comparable levels of involvement in the following behaviors: *understand GDL*, *practice driving*, and *enforce GDL*. *Control keys* of their teen drivers*,* the only category not mandated under the GDL, had considerably decreased over time. There also appeared to be a relationship between parental enforcement and teen driver compliance with the GDL restrictions, especially with *control keys* and *ask permission* to use the car. Although these behaviors netted a 65% compliance level, 36% of teens had received their "unrestricted" basic license 1 year later.

The *practice driving hours domain* remained consistent*,* except during year 1 when a downward trend appeared in the 7+ hours behavior. There was potential significance in several categories (Year 1–7+ hours, Year 3–0–3 hours, 5–7 hours, and 7+ hours), but proved to be insignificant based on the t-test results. As mentioned, authoritative parents tended to increase practice driving hours when teens received their basic license.

#### **3.4 Enforcement component**

#### *3.4.1 Crash investigation program*

Examination scores were used to assess whether or not students were successfully learning new information. Basic crash investigation test results were examined in **Table 10** to measure improvements over time. The pre−/posttest scores for 2015

**197**

*A Multitiered Holistic Approach to Traffic Safety: Educating Children, Novice Teen Drivers...*

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86656*

**Mean**

> **Pair 1**

Pair 2 Pair 3 **Table 10.**

*Paired sample incorrect test scores (95% confidence interval).*

**2015 pre**

2016 pre−/post

2017 pre−/post

34.0000

23.98147

7.58361

16.84469

51.15531

4.482

9

0.002

34.70000

21.51511

6.80368

19.30902

50.09098

5.100

9

0.001

**−/post**

**20.8000**

**16.08864**

**5.087**

**9.29088**

**32.30912**

**4.088**

**9**

**0.003**

**Std. div.**

**Std. error mean**

**Lower**

**Upper**

**t**

**df**

**Sig. (two-tailed)** *A Multitiered Holistic Approach to Traffic Safety: Educating Children, Novice Teen Drivers... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86656*


**Table 10.**

 *Paired sample incorrect test scores (95% confidence interval).*

*Transportation Systems Analysis and Assessment*

The t-test results confirmed that there were no significant changes between the baseline and follow-up responses for parenting behavior; therefore, the null hypothesis was accepted. Next, chi-square results were examined to further identify trends in behavior over time. Interestingly, a shift occurred in the *subjective norms domain* between *authoritative* (44–33%), *uninvolved* (5–11%), and *authoritarian parenting styles* (3–7%)*. Parent behaviors* remained consistent in all categories except for *control keys* (83–65%) which decreased by 16%, 1 year later. There were few changes in the *practice driving hours domain*, while results were not as positive in the *reported teen driving behaviors domain.* Compliance with *passenger limits* (81–84%) increased, but all other driving behaviors had decreased between 7% and 19% over time and netted a 10% average reduction in teen compliance with safe driving behavior.

Additional independent MANOVA tests were conducted to examine the relationship of driving phases to *control keys* behaviors that had shifted over time in the t-test. Results confirmed that fewer parents *control keys* (M1 = 1.44, SD = 0.50; M2 = 1.24, *SD*2 = 0.43) during the probationary phase and afterward. Also, teen compliance with the *driving curfew* (*M1* = 1.41, *SD1* = 0.49; *M2* = 1.12, *SD2* = 0.32) and *passenger restrictions* (*M1* = 1.27, *SD*1 = 0.44; *M2* = 1.09, *SD2* = 2.9) had decreased at the probationary phase, not when teens were fully licensed. *Ask permission* to drive appeared to be influenced by the licensing phase, since mean scores continually decreased over

The overall results identified that there were insignificant differences between baseline and follow-up scores in the 19 behaviors used to prove the null hypothesis of GDL compliance over time. However, the STK interactive intervention was also examined in relation to changes in *subjective norms* (i.e., parenting styles), during the three driving phases. The MANOVA results confirmed changes in levels of parental involvement had occurred during the probationary phase of licensure, not at full licensure, as projected. *Authoritarian* roles increased during the probationary phase, while *authoritative* roles appeared to be strongest after teen drivers earned their basic license. *Permissive* and *uninvolved* roles remained relatively consistent throughout the three driving phases. Interestingly, all types of parents appeared to have benefited from attending the orientation, and they remained actively involved

In the *parent behavior domain*, parents reported comparable levels of involvement in the following behaviors: *understand GDL*, *practice driving*, and *enforce GDL*. *Control keys* of their teen drivers*,* the only category not mandated under the GDL, had considerably decreased over time. There also appeared to be a relationship between parental enforcement and teen driver compliance with the GDL restrictions, especially with *control keys* and *ask permission* to use the car. Although these behaviors netted a 65% compliance level, 36% of teens had received their "unre-

The *practice driving hours domain* remained consistent*,* except during year 1 when a downward trend appeared in the 7+ hours behavior. There was potential significance in several categories (Year 1–7+ hours, Year 3–0–3 hours, 5–7 hours, and 7+ hours), but proved to be insignificant based on the t-test results. As mentioned, authoritative parents tended to increase practice driving hours when teens received their basic license.

Examination scores were used to assess whether or not students were successfully learning new information. Basic crash investigation test results were examined in **Table 10** to measure improvements over time. The pre−/posttest scores for 2015

time (*M1* 1.43, *SD*1 = 0.50; *M2* = 1.31, *SD2* = 0.46; *M3* = 1.24, *SD3* = 0.43).

in enforcing the GDL restrictions, 1 year later.

stricted" basic license 1 year later.

**3.4 Enforcement component**

*3.4.1 Crash investigation program*

**196**

showed a mean reduction that ranged between 21 and 35% of "incorrect" answers. which realized a 50% increase over time (3/6%). Further examination of the baseline (pre-test) and posttest results confirmed that overall reduction of incorrect answers had dropped between 12% (*tire marks)* and 50% (*reaction)*. During 2016, in only one area (*understanding of imprints*), there was no difference between the pre-test and posttest scores. These results confirmed instructional benefits that students receive from their crash investigation faculty.

A paired sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of pre- and posttest scores for basic crash investigation. There was a significant decrease in the 2015 posttest scores (e.g., improvement) from Time 1 (M = 40.80050, SD = 20.08759) to Time 2 (M = 20.0000, SD = 7.78888, t (9) = 4.088, p < .003 (two-tailed)). The mean decrease in posttest scores was 20.8000 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 9.39088 to 32.30912. The eta-squared statistic (9.0) confirmed this effect, too. There was an even greater variance between the 2016 pre-test and posttest scores from Time 1 (M = 55.50000, SD = 26.53405) to Time 2 (M = 20.8000, SD = 11.36075, t (9) = 5.1000, p < 0.001 (two-tailed)). The mean decrease in posttest scores was 34.70000 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 19.30902 to 50.09098. The eta-squared statistic (9.0) further confirmed this effect in size. The variance was also significant between the 2017 pre-test and posttest scores from Time 1 (M = 46.3000, SD = 23.54688) to Time 2 (M = 12.300, SD = 6.12917, t (9) = 4482, p < 0.001 (two-tailed)). The mean decrease in posttest scores was 34.0000 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 16.84969 to 51.15531. The etasquared statistic (9.0) further confirmed this effect in size.

### *3.4.2 Traffic safety specialist program*

The traffic safety specialist program is unique because it awards police officers who have accomplished significant experience, education, training, and proficiency in highway safety and traffic law enforcement. Level 1 recognizes over 100 individual accomplishments, while Level 2 represents leaders of the traffic safety community. The first cohort of Level 2 designees recently received this award in October 2018. Officers were required to document 3 years of independent traffic control experience, provide documentation of speed detection certification, maintain the Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Certification, and earn 30 professional credit points. Level 2 requirements are similar, except the officer must submit a local traffic study for approval.

#### *3.4.3 2018 Best practices: TSS-level 2*

Since the program is relatively new, officers have submitted traffic studies that address similar conditions. Two reviews involved intersections in North and South Jersey, while the third study addressed traffic safety around a school district. In addition to examining collected data, officers sought legislative guidance on the proposed countermeasures. A brief review of each "best practice" appears in the remainder of this section.

#### **3.5 South Jersey county intersection study**

The purpose of this project was to study the intersection of a county road that needed an alternative method of traffic control to make an intersection safer for motorists. A thorough study of this intersection included photographing the intersection with different approach angles and distances, performance of two independent traffic counts during the morning and afternoon hours, and retrieving and

**199**

*A Multitiered Holistic Approach to Traffic Safety: Educating Children, Novice Teen Drivers...*

analyzing crash data from 2013 through 2016, to examine potential factors such as pedestrian travel, roadway conditions, and obstructions of view. Crash reports from 2013 to 2016 were retrieved and examined for collisions within the intersection. The findings determined that there was a total of 17 collisions caused by vehicles from

Crash reports from 2013 to 2016 were examined for collisions within the intersection. The findings determined that there was a total of 17 collisions caused by vehicles from the northbound direction entering the travel lanes of the county route. There were four collisions as a result of vehicles traveling west and attempting to turn left onto a street and colliding with vehicles. The majority of collisions were caused by drivers traveling northbound and failed to yield or observe vehicle traffic along the county route. After reviewing the US Department of Transportation Manual on Uniformed Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), it was established that a traffic signal within the intersection would not satisfy any of the nine warrants

Other alternatives were prohibiting left turns onto the route from vehicles traveling northbound. It was not feasible, as prohibiting left turns on northbound route would dramatically increase thoroughfare traffic and drivers would use the additional side streets for access. Prohibiting left turns from residential side streets would also force additional traffic to an intersection that was not wide enough to handle the increased vehicle flow. Taking all information into consideration, erection of signage prior to the intersection showing "Intersection Ahead" and another showing "Cross

A township traffic safety department received complaints from residents (e.g., one per month) about an intersection. One of the five crashes, occurring between January and February 2014, resulted in a vehicle winding up on the front lawn of a resident. While the section is straight and leveled with a minimum grade, it contains a curve and has a downhill east to west grade that levels out to the roadway. The

Along with the installation of stop signs at the intersection, 100 feet of advanced warning markings were installed in the roadway in June 2002. This action was in response to a citizen's concern over increased intersection crashes. The goal was to warn both lanes of travel that vehicular traffic was mandated to stop at the approaching intersection. All traffic control devices are in compliance with the MUTCD. During this period, a brief study netted contributing crash factors that included driver inattention [7], failure to yield [8], and failure to obey traffic control [8]. Most were Right Angle Turns [2], while Left Turn and Side Swipes netted [1] each. There are several recommendations that would improve visibility at this intersection. First, the light bulb needs to be changed to a LED on the 8″ flashing signal. By using a LED light, the flashing light would be more visible during daylight hours when all of the crashes occurred. This action was taken and provides more advanced warning for motorists. Another recommendation to improve visibility is the solar panel LED-blinking stop signs. Driver inattention and failure to observe a traffic control device have contributed to crash circumstances, so more visible stop signs will add reinforcement to the drivers who do not come to a complete stop. The solar panel will avoid electrical costs to operate, and the battery will be charged during sunlight hours. The final recommendation is to install an "Intersection Ahead" (W-1) sign on the northbound and southbound roadways. A supplementary sign stating "Intersection Ahead" should be posted below the intersection symbol to

Traffic Does Not Stop" prior to the intersection was deemed appropriate.

the northbound direction entering the travel lanes of the route.

required to substantiate the creation of a traffic signal.

**3.6 North Jersey County intersection study**

speed limit is 25 mph and serves a through street.

alert drivers of the upcoming intersection.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86656*

#### *A Multitiered Holistic Approach to Traffic Safety: Educating Children, Novice Teen Drivers... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86656*

analyzing crash data from 2013 through 2016, to examine potential factors such as pedestrian travel, roadway conditions, and obstructions of view. Crash reports from 2013 to 2016 were retrieved and examined for collisions within the intersection. The findings determined that there was a total of 17 collisions caused by vehicles from the northbound direction entering the travel lanes of the route.

Crash reports from 2013 to 2016 were examined for collisions within the intersection. The findings determined that there was a total of 17 collisions caused by vehicles from the northbound direction entering the travel lanes of the county route. There were four collisions as a result of vehicles traveling west and attempting to turn left onto a street and colliding with vehicles. The majority of collisions were caused by drivers traveling northbound and failed to yield or observe vehicle traffic along the county route. After reviewing the US Department of Transportation Manual on Uniformed Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), it was established that a traffic signal within the intersection would not satisfy any of the nine warrants required to substantiate the creation of a traffic signal.

Other alternatives were prohibiting left turns onto the route from vehicles traveling northbound. It was not feasible, as prohibiting left turns on northbound route would dramatically increase thoroughfare traffic and drivers would use the additional side streets for access. Prohibiting left turns from residential side streets would also force additional traffic to an intersection that was not wide enough to handle the increased vehicle flow. Taking all information into consideration, erection of signage prior to the intersection showing "Intersection Ahead" and another showing "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop" prior to the intersection was deemed appropriate.

#### **3.6 North Jersey County intersection study**

A township traffic safety department received complaints from residents (e.g., one per month) about an intersection. One of the five crashes, occurring between January and February 2014, resulted in a vehicle winding up on the front lawn of a resident. While the section is straight and leveled with a minimum grade, it contains a curve and has a downhill east to west grade that levels out to the roadway. The speed limit is 25 mph and serves a through street.

Along with the installation of stop signs at the intersection, 100 feet of advanced warning markings were installed in the roadway in June 2002. This action was in response to a citizen's concern over increased intersection crashes. The goal was to warn both lanes of travel that vehicular traffic was mandated to stop at the approaching intersection. All traffic control devices are in compliance with the MUTCD. During this period, a brief study netted contributing crash factors that included driver inattention [7], failure to yield [8], and failure to obey traffic control [8]. Most were Right Angle Turns [2], while Left Turn and Side Swipes netted [1] each.

There are several recommendations that would improve visibility at this intersection. First, the light bulb needs to be changed to a LED on the 8″ flashing signal. By using a LED light, the flashing light would be more visible during daylight hours when all of the crashes occurred. This action was taken and provides more advanced warning for motorists. Another recommendation to improve visibility is the solar panel LED-blinking stop signs. Driver inattention and failure to observe a traffic control device have contributed to crash circumstances, so more visible stop signs will add reinforcement to the drivers who do not come to a complete stop. The solar panel will avoid electrical costs to operate, and the battery will be charged during sunlight hours. The final recommendation is to install an "Intersection Ahead" (W-1) sign on the northbound and southbound roadways. A supplementary sign stating "Intersection Ahead" should be posted below the intersection symbol to alert drivers of the upcoming intersection.

*Transportation Systems Analysis and Assessment*

students receive from their crash investigation faculty.

squared statistic (9.0) further confirmed this effect in size.

*3.4.2 Traffic safety specialist program*

fic study for approval.

remainder of this section.

*3.4.3 2018 Best practices: TSS-level 2*

**3.5 South Jersey county intersection study**

showed a mean reduction that ranged between 21 and 35% of "incorrect" answers. which realized a 50% increase over time (3/6%). Further examination of the baseline (pre-test) and posttest results confirmed that overall reduction of incorrect answers had dropped between 12% (*tire marks)* and 50% (*reaction)*. During 2016, in only one area (*understanding of imprints*), there was no difference between the pre-test and posttest scores. These results confirmed instructional benefits that

A paired sample t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of pre- and posttest

posttest scores was 34.70000 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 19.30902 to 50.09098. The eta-squared statistic (9.0) further confirmed this effect in size. The variance was also significant between the 2017 pre-test and posttest scores from Time 1 (M = 46.3000, SD = 23.54688) to Time 2 (M = 12.300, SD = 6.12917, t (9) = 4482, p < 0.001 (two-tailed)). The mean decrease in posttest scores was 34.0000 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 16.84969 to 51.15531. The eta-

The traffic safety specialist program is unique because it awards police officers who have accomplished significant experience, education, training, and proficiency in highway safety and traffic law enforcement. Level 1 recognizes over 100 individual accomplishments, while Level 2 represents leaders of the traffic safety community. The first cohort of Level 2 designees recently received this award in October 2018. Officers were required to document 3 years of independent traffic control experience, provide documentation of speed detection certification, maintain the Standardized Field Sobriety Testing Certification, and earn 30 professional credit points. Level 2 requirements are similar, except the officer must submit a local traf-

Since the program is relatively new, officers have submitted traffic studies that address similar conditions. Two reviews involved intersections in North and South Jersey, while the third study addressed traffic safety around a school district. In addition to examining collected data, officers sought legislative guidance on the proposed countermeasures. A brief review of each "best practice" appears in the

The purpose of this project was to study the intersection of a county road that needed an alternative method of traffic control to make an intersection safer for motorists. A thorough study of this intersection included photographing the intersection with different approach angles and distances, performance of two independent traffic counts during the morning and afternoon hours, and retrieving and

scores for basic crash investigation. There was a significant decrease in the 2015 posttest scores (e.g., improvement) from Time 1 (M = 40.80050, SD = 20.08759) to Time 2 (M = 20.0000, SD = 7.78888, t (9) = 4.088, p < .003 (two-tailed)). The mean decrease in posttest scores was 20.8000 with a 95% confidence interval ranging from 9.39088 to 32.30912. The eta-squared statistic (9.0) confirmed this effect, too. There was an even greater variance between the 2016 pre-test and posttest scores from Time 1 (M = 55.50000, SD = 26.53405) to Time 2 (M = 20.8000, SD = 11.36075, t (9) = 5.1000, p < 0.001 (two-tailed)). The mean decrease in

**198**

## **3.7 North Jersey traffic stop at the school zone study**

Safety concerns associated with all-way stops include pedestrians, bicyclists, and all road users expecting other road users to stop. In accordance with the MUTCD, the decision to install multi-way stop controls requires an engineering study to determine the following:

Where traffic control signals are justified, the multi-way stop is an interim measure that can be installed quickly to control traffic, while arrangements are being made for the installation of that signal. Five or more reported crashes on a road, during a 12-month period, make it a candidate for a multi-way stop installation. Such crashes include right-turn and left-turn collisions as well as right-angle collisions:


The proposed intersection fell below the vehicular volume to be considered an all-way stop, but the large volume of crashes would have been avoided with such a treatment. An all-way traffic stop intersection was created at the designated location and included two 30-inch retroreflective stop signs (two already existed), two 10-foot u-channel posts and base posts, four all-way supplemental plaques, and restriping of the intersection to include four 4-inch hashed crosswalks, four stop bars, rumble strips at all four approaches, and yellow curbing 25 ft of all crosswalks and 50 ft of all stop signs. After implementation, zero motor vehicle crashes have been reported at the intersection.

### **4. Conclusion**

An effective Strategic Prevention Framework (SPF) was established by SAMSHA and adopted in New Jersey to better understand community traffic safety needs and promote sustainability for achieving and maintaining long-term results. Once safety issues are identified through analysis of crash data, available resources are reserved such as manpower, equipment, or training to support a formal plan based on the logic model. Actions are then implemented to address the identified safety needs. A major focus of the education component has been teacher approval of traffic safety program, while little is known about student benefits related to participation. While the lessons were adaptable to a 45-minute period, they promote student engagement that will have a long-term effect on community safety. A second 3-year study, involving parents of novice drivers, will be conducted in

**201**

*A Multitiered Holistic Approach to Traffic Safety: Educating Children, Novice Teen Drivers...*

summer 2019. Past research has proven that parental monitoring of teen's driving behaviors serves as a prevention of uncheck reckless behavior that is likely to occur

Most importantly, community leadership needs to be promoting outreach activities based on this prevention model. Through the university, a student internship program has been established to bring the message to the community, which is similar to the role of TSS officers. Interestingly, the crash investigation component continues to operate with law enforcement serving as traffic safety advocates and monitoring the environment on preventing potential crashes. Best practices have been established in New Jersey by the four TSS-Level 2 leaders, with over 100 more TSS officers waiting to qualify for this second tier. Future plans involve an outreach program for officers to develop traffic safety programs in their communities while qualifying for the TSS-Level 2 designation. This injury prevention framework has proven to be effective in utilizing education and enforcement to advocate for the adoption of traffic safety goals. Further research needs to be done, especially in the

Technical support was received from Derek DIStaso (NJSP) and the New Jersey Division of Highway Safety on oversight and funding of law enforcement education. The contributions of Nicholas Schock (President) and the Police Traffic Officers Association of New Jersey are nationally recognized as "best practices" for reducing traffic fatalities. Also, Peter Cokelet, Michael Peraset, and Michael Tullio serve as resource specialists and editors for the development and revision of technical resources. Lastly, students and police officers are recognized for their continuing

area of roadway injury reduction involving community support.

efforts regarding improvement of traffic safety in their communities..

but is not directly affected by publication of this research study.

C.M.K., S.P., R.A.J., A.P., and G.P. have no competing interests to disclose. C.M.K. has received a grant from the New Jersey Division of Highway Traffic Safety, the organization that funded this study. G.P. represents the funding organization,

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86656*

without direct supervision.

**Acknowledgements**

**Conflict of interest**

*A Multitiered Holistic Approach to Traffic Safety: Educating Children, Novice Teen Drivers... DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.86656*

summer 2019. Past research has proven that parental monitoring of teen's driving behaviors serves as a prevention of uncheck reckless behavior that is likely to occur without direct supervision.

Most importantly, community leadership needs to be promoting outreach activities based on this prevention model. Through the university, a student internship program has been established to bring the message to the community, which is similar to the role of TSS officers. Interestingly, the crash investigation component continues to operate with law enforcement serving as traffic safety advocates and monitoring the environment on preventing potential crashes. Best practices have been established in New Jersey by the four TSS-Level 2 leaders, with over 100 more TSS officers waiting to qualify for this second tier. Future plans involve an outreach program for officers to develop traffic safety programs in their communities while qualifying for the TSS-Level 2 designation. This injury prevention framework has proven to be effective in utilizing education and enforcement to advocate for the adoption of traffic safety goals. Further research needs to be done, especially in the area of roadway injury reduction involving community support.
