Home > Promising Practices > Georgia's Teenage and Adult Driver Responsibility Act

Georgia's Teenage and Adult Driver Responsibility Act

An Evidence-Based Practice

Description

The Georgia General Assembly enacted the Teenage and Adult Drivers Responsibility Act (TADRA) in 1997. The comprehensive legislative package aimed to reduce fatal crashes among teenage drivers by targeting three major contributors to fatal crashes by teenage motorists: inexperience, driving under the influence of alcohol, and excessive speeding. TADRA adopted every graduated driver's licensing provision recommended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, a "zero tolerance" policy of underage impaired drivers, and a process of automatic license revocation for driving more than 25 miles per hour over the posted limit. The graduated license includes the following three stages: (1) an instructional permit; (2) an intermediate license with restrictions on the time of day and they type of passenger the driver may carry; and (3) a full license awarded to drivers aged 18 and older who have incurred no major traffic convictions during the previous 12 months.

Goal / Mission

The goal of TADRA is to reduce fatal crashes among teenage drivers.

Impact

After the implementation of TADRA, speed-related fatal crashes were cut by 42%, and alcohol-related fatal crashes decreased nearly 60%.

Results / Accomplishments

The impact of TADRA was studied using a pre-and post-comparison. During the time period before the law was enacted, 317 Georgia drivers aged 15 were involved in a fatal crash (57/100,000 person-years) compared to 230 in the post-enactment period (36/100,000 person-years; risk ratio 0.63; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.75), a 37% reduction. Speed-related fatal crashes were significantly cut by 49% (RR 0.51; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.69) and alcohol-related fatal crashes significantly decreased by 62% (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.80), without displacing fatal crashes to older age groups. These reductions greatly exceeded those noted in the three comparison states (Alabama, Tennessee, and South Carolina).

About this Promising Practice

Organization(s)
Governor's Office of Highway Safety
Primary Contact
Georgia Governor's Office of Highway Safety
7 Martin Luther King Jr. Drive
Suite 643
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404)-656-6996
http://www.gahighwaysafety.org/tadra.html
Topics
Community / Public Safety
Community / Transportation
Health / Alcohol & Drug Use
Organization(s)
Governor's Office of Highway Safety
Source
Annals of Emergency Medicine
Date of publication
Apr 2006
Date of implementation
1997
Location
Georgia
For more details
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16546622?itool=...
http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(06)0...
Target Audience
Teens

Related Promising Practices

  1. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving: Sobriety Checkpoints
  2. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving: Ignition Interlocks
  3. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving: Maintaining Current Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) Laws
  4. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving: Mass Media Campaigns
  5. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving: Multicomponent Interventions with Community Mobilization
  6. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Reducing Alcohol-Impaired Driving: 0.08% Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Laws

More

Related Content for: Georgia's Teenage and Adult Driver Responsibility Act

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.