1. A three-year follow-up of a sample of 4,o81 negligent drivers who had their first driver improvement contact with the Department in 1955-56 indicates that approximately 85 per cent improved their driving record in terms of both violations and accidents. 2. Improvement after action was significantly greater for violations than for accidents. 3. Despite the improvement, the post-action driving records of the negligent drivers were still significantly poorer than the record of the average"California driver for both violations and accidents. 4. Generally speaking the younger age groups showed less improvement after action than the older age group. 5. Consistent with Departmental philosophy, Probation was by far the most common action taken. Together with the Warned or no action group, they accounted for almost 90 per cent of the actions. 6. As the severity of action increased the median annual mileage was found tedecrease, showing that the department took mileage exposure into account in deciding what action to take. This is also consistent with Departmental policy. 7. In terms of the number of subsequent actions, improvement generally decreased with the severity of action. That is, the more severe action groups accrue a greater number of subsequent actions than the less severe action groups. 8. Holding age constant, is was found that the higher exposure (mileage) groups tend to have poorer post action records than the generally held belief that there is some relation between mileage, accidents and violations. 9. A high incidence of driving while under suspension or revocation was found. Fully, 53.7 per cent of the revoked drivers were actually convicted of further traffic violations during their revocation period. 10. More severe action was taken against the group that did not appeared. The non-appear group had significantly worse driving records before action. Also, the non appear group was characterised by a significantly greater proportion of persons under 26 years of age.
Samenvatting