Assessing the American public's preferences for reforms to teen driving licensure systems: a discrete choice experiment.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Emmanuel Fulgence Drabo, Jeffrey Paul Michael, Johnathon Pouya Ehsani
{"title":"Assessing the American public's preferences for reforms to teen driving licensure systems: a discrete choice experiment.","authors":"Emmanuel Fulgence Drabo, Jeffrey Paul Michael, Johnathon Pouya Ehsani","doi":"10.1136/ip-2023-045221","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To analyse factors influencing the American public's preferences for changes to teenage driver licensing requirements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with 808 participants from National Opinion Research Center's AmeriSpeak panel to assess preferences for two existing elements (on-road testing and intermediate licensure period) and a new feature (driver monitoring with telematics during the intermediate licensure period) of licensing system. Multinomial and mixed logit models were used to estimate preference weights, marginal rates of substitution and the relative importance of each attribute.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 730 respondents who completed all DCE choice tasks, we found robust support for changes to teenage driver licensing requirements, with preferences varying by individual characteristics. Respondents expressed a high baseline support for changes to teen driving licensure policies. They favoured testing, prioritising easy tests and opposed prolonged driver monitoring and extended intermediate licensure periods. Baseline preference weights exhibited substantial heterogeneity, emphasising the diversity of public preferences. The marginal rates of substitution revealed a preference for extended driver monitoring over an extended intermediate licensure period. An easy test was valued at 2.85 times more than a hard one. The most influential attributes were the length of intermediate licence period and testing requirements, with the former twice as important.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our study found robust support for reforms to teenage driver licensing requirements, favouring easier on-road driving tests over an extended period of intermediate licensure and driver monitoring. Public preferences for licensing systems need to be balanced with the broader policy objectives including optimising mobility and maximising safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ip-2023-045221","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To analyse factors influencing the American public's preferences for changes to teenage driver licensing requirements.

Methods: We employed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) with 808 participants from National Opinion Research Center's AmeriSpeak panel to assess preferences for two existing elements (on-road testing and intermediate licensure period) and a new feature (driver monitoring with telematics during the intermediate licensure period) of licensing system. Multinomial and mixed logit models were used to estimate preference weights, marginal rates of substitution and the relative importance of each attribute.

Results: Among 730 respondents who completed all DCE choice tasks, we found robust support for changes to teenage driver licensing requirements, with preferences varying by individual characteristics. Respondents expressed a high baseline support for changes to teen driving licensure policies. They favoured testing, prioritising easy tests and opposed prolonged driver monitoring and extended intermediate licensure periods. Baseline preference weights exhibited substantial heterogeneity, emphasising the diversity of public preferences. The marginal rates of substitution revealed a preference for extended driver monitoring over an extended intermediate licensure period. An easy test was valued at 2.85 times more than a hard one. The most influential attributes were the length of intermediate licence period and testing requirements, with the former twice as important.

Conclusions: Our study found robust support for reforms to teenage driver licensing requirements, favouring easier on-road driving tests over an extended period of intermediate licensure and driver monitoring. Public preferences for licensing systems need to be balanced with the broader policy objectives including optimising mobility and maximising safety.

评估美国公众对青少年驾驶执照制度改革的偏好:离散选择实验。
目标:分析影响美国公众对修改青少年驾驶执照要求的因素:分析影响美国公众对修改青少年驾驶执照要求的偏好的因素:我们采用离散选择实验(DCE)的方法,从美国国家舆论研究中心(National Opinion Research Center)的 AmeriSpeak 小组中抽取了 808 名参与者,评估他们对驾照制度中两个现有要素(路面考试和中间执照期)和一个新特征(中间执照期内通过远程信息处理系统对驾驶员进行监控)的偏好。采用多项式和混合 logit 模型估算了偏好权重、边际替代率和每个属性的相对重要性:结果:在完成所有 DCE 选择任务的 730 名受访者中,我们发现他们对修改青少年驾驶执照要求的支持度很高,但不同个体的偏好有所不同。受访者对修改青少年驾驶执照政策的支持度基线较高。他们赞成考试,优先考虑简单的考试,反对延长驾驶员监控时间和延长中间许可期。基线偏好权重表现出很大的异质性,强调了公众偏好的多样性。边际替代率显示,人们更倾向于延长驾驶员监督时间,而不是延长中间执照有效期。简单考试的价值是困难考试的 2.85 倍。影响最大的因素是中间执照有效期和考试要求,前者的重要性是后者的两倍:我们的研究发现,青少年驾驶执照要求的改革得到了强有力的支持,他们更倾向于更容易的道路驾驶考试,而不是更长的中间执照期和驾驶员监控。公众对驾照制度的偏好需要与更广泛的政策目标相平衡,包括优化流动性和最大限度地提高安全性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信