The objectives of the NovEV project were to: gve countries experience in designing and implementing 2nd phase post-licence training for novice drivers, to evaluate the effects of the training, in terms of changes in the participants’ skills, knowledge, attitudes and behaviour. Effects on accident reduction could not be measured due to the small sample sizes and limited duration of the project. Pilot projects were set up in Belgium, France, Germany, Netherlands and Spain (2). The new obligatory multiphase driver training programme in Austria was also included. The training programmes were based on guidelines established in the EU Advanced project. They included group discussions, on-road ‘feedback’ drives and track modules. The focus of the training was designed to be on the higher levels of driver behaviour; the methods were supposed to be coaching rather than instruction, and participant-centred activities. Apart from in Austria, where participation is obligatory, participants in all other countries were novice drivers taking part on a voluntary basis. The exact selection criteria varied from country to country, but the participants were all young drivers (between 18 and 24) with between 4 months and 3 years driving experience. Incentives to participate ranged from an interest in road safety, to a desire to win a prize (e.g. a new car) or to reduce their probationary period by one year (Germany only). Before-and-after evaluation designs with control group were set up in France, Netherlands and Spain (2). Control groups were randomly selected from the original list of participants. Belgium dropped out of the project. Austria conducted a before-and-after evaluation (no control group) and Germany carried out a process evaluation (single measurement). Some significant positive changes in self-reported driving behaviour, knowledge and/or risk awareness were found in all countries where a before-and-after evaluation design with control group was used. In one case, this significant positive change was appraised by trainers (on-road audit). A negative trend was found in one training centre in the Netherlands. Participants in the Austrian multiphase were satisfied with the training. The German programme was largely being implemented as planned. There were indications that, in at least two countries, the message of the track training was considered by participants (and seminar leaders and track trainers in Germany) to be skills-based as well as risk awareness-based (unintended effect). 2nd phase programmes can positively influence the behaviour of young drivers. They can also have a negative effect if implemented incorrectly. Programmes on paper can be implemented differently in practice. Proper training-of trainers and ongoing quality control is vital, particularly as far as track modules are concerned. 2nd phase training should address primarily the higher levels of driver behaviour, be participantcentred and spread out over time. The intervention period should ideally be in the first year of independent driving after the licence. More practical examples of useful exercises in class, on-road or track are needed. Training-of-trainers is equally as important. A training programme to develop coaching skills should be developed. Comprehensive, independent quality control is essential to ensure that the goals of the programme are delivered in practice. (Author/publisher)
Abstract