short and long term effects of moped rider training: a field experiment

Transportation Research Part F 7 (2004) 1–16

www.elsevier.com/locate/trf

Short and long term effects of moped rider training:a field experiment

Charles Goldenbeld *, Divera Twisk, Saskia de Craen

SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research, Duindoorn 32, P.O. box 1090, Leidschendam 2260 BB, The Netherlands

Received 25 September 2002; received in revised form 12 August 2003; accepted 5 September 2003

Abstract

In a field experiment on moped rider training, young moped riders were tested one week before, two

weeks after and eleven months after participation in a practical moped riding training course. As a result ofrider training the group trainees performed considerably better at a riding task than the group non-trainees

two weeks after the training. However, this performance difference was not present anymore at follow-up

testing 11 months later. The group that did not follow the course significantly improved their driving skill.

However, the group that had already improved their driving skill with the training, did not improve any

further. Those moped riders that improved most from the 16-h training course at the post-test also declined

in performance considerably at the long term follow-up. Knowledge that relies of an understanding of how

behaviour should change in a dynamic situation was more strongly related to actual riding skill than

knowledge that was based on memorising fairly straightforward situation-rule connections. Implicationsfor moped training are discussed.

� 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Moped rider; Adolescent; Perception; Behaviour; Test; Driving (veh); Driver training; Driving aptitude; Skill

(road user); Comprehension; Vehicle handling; Safety; Evaluation (assessment)

1. Introduction

Mopeds can be defined as powered two-wheelers with an engine capacity less than 50 cc. Inmost European countries mopeds now have a speed limit of 45 km/h. The minimum age forriding a moped varies between 14 and 18 years. In 1995 about 14 million mopeds were officially

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-703-17-3364.

E-mail address: [email protected] (C. Goldenbeld).

1369-8478/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.trf.2003.09.003

mail to: [email protected]

2 C. Goldenbeld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 7 (2004) 1–16

registered in Europe. The yearly number of moped fatalities in Western European countries isabout 2500 (Noordzij, Forke, Brendicke, & Chinn, 2001).

In several European countries moped riders are amongst the highest risk groups in traffic. Forexample in the Netherlands, the accident (fatal/injury) involvement of moped riders is nearly fortytimes higher than that of the average Dutch road user (Van Schagen, 2000). In Europe, high trafficrisks for young moped riders have also been reported for Germany, France and Switzerland(Hubacher & Ewert, 1995; Noordzij et al., 2001; Steffens, Gawatz, & Wilmes, 1988).

Because of the high accident rate of mopeds, there is a clear need for effective safety measures.One particular measure is to enhance the knowledge level of young moped riders. From a the-oretical viewpoint, the development of complex skills starts as the interpretative application ofdeclarative knowledge (Anderson, 1983). For driving and riding in traffic, the elements of de-clarative knowledge are to a large extent contained within the traffic laws and regulations. In theNetherlands, as of June 1996, moped riders are required to pass a theory test to gain a mopedcertificate. It was expected that this measure would have a positive effect on the risk level ofmoped riders. In evaluation research it was shown that the measure actually improved the generalknowledge level of moped riders (Twisk, Bijleveld, & Gundy, 1998). However, it was not possibleto show an effect of this measure on accident involvement of moped riders (Van Schagen, 2000).The introduction of a practical moped riding exam in addition to a theory test is now beingconsidered in the Netherlands. As part of the decision-making process an experiment was set up inorder to study two questions:

1. If improvement of theoretical knowledge alone cannot influence traffic risk, can we obtainevidence that additional practical training can bring about better and safer moped riding?

2. If improvement of theoretical knowledge alone is not related to safe riding, does this mean thatwe have to study or screen knowledge in a different way?

To study these two questions, an experiment was set up in which subjects who had receivedtheir theory certificate but no practical training, were compared with subjects who had receivedboth theory certificate and practical training. Given the great difficulties in establishing the effectsof practical training on accident rates (Haworth, Smith, & Kowadlo, 2000), we chose to assess theeffects of training on riding competence as the next best feasible option.

In our experiment we defined riding competence as the optimum level of safe riding in trafficthat a person can exhibit on the basis of his training, experience, and talent. To exhibit a high levelof riding competence in traffic, a broad range of skills is needed; such as the ability to control,steer and brake the vehicle (vehicle control), the skill to apply knowledge of traffic rules and signsand various cognitive-perceptual skills to enable the moped rider to cope with the current traffictask demands (Fuller, 2000). In practice, the actual performance may be less than optimal due tointerfering human factors such as tiredness, being under the influence of alcohol, being distractedby passengers, or test anxiety.

1.1. Influence of training and experience on moped riding in traffic

Only a few studies have investigated moped riding as a skill. In the mid-eighties Steffens et al.(1988) investigated the short and long term effects of obligatory moped training which was

C. Goldenbeld et al. / Transportation Research Part F 7 (2004) 1–16 3

introduced on 1 October 1985 in former West-Germany. In this study, three groups of mopedriders (no training; theoretical and practical training at school; theoretical and practical trainingat a driving school) were interviewed at the beginning of their moped career and a year later. Alarge sub-sample was unobtrusively observed and assessed while riding in traffic. The researchersfound that riders who had been trained at school or at a driving school rode more cautiously andconformed better to traffic rules than self-taught riders. Since this study lacked random assign-ment and the authors found differences in social background between formally trained and self-taught moped riders, they concluded that their results should be understood as a consequence ofinteraction between formal training and self-selection.

In the present experiment we compared novice riders who had passed a theory exam but hadnot received practical training with riders who had passed a theory exam and had received sub-sequent training. In order to avoid self-selection effects we randomly assigned subjects to con-ditions. We expected that the latter group would have more riding competence than those whoonly had passed their theory exam. Consequently, training would lead to a better skill of ridingin traffic (Hypothesis 1).

To improve riding competence it is necessary to provide inexperienced trainees with a minimumlevel of vehicle control skills. The importance of technical vehicle control skills for moped ridingwas demonstrated by a study ofWierda (1990). He investigated the extent to which mental capacityneeded for moped vehicle control interfered with general attentional capacity. The researcherconcluded that inexperienced moped riders lacked elementary vehicle control skills that made themvirtually unable to divide their attention between vehicle control and a secondary detection task.With passing of time, moped riders gained some experience and their vehicle control skills im-proved somewhat. But this self-taught improvement was not enough to ensure that vehicle controlwould not detract from other attentional tasks while riding. Since an important part of the studiedpractical training was directed at improving elementary vehicle control skills, we expected that thegroup who had followed training in addition to the theory exam, would perform better at vehiclecontrol tests than the group who only had passed their theory exam (Hypothesis 2).

In our experiment we tested riding competence both a few weeks after training and elevenmonths after training. In the follow-up measurement the additional effect of unsupervised expe-rience on moped riding is reflected. Without doubt, practice or training is a prerequisite for de-veloping skill or competence at a complex task such as moped riding or piano playing. Researchindicates that the relationship between practice and skill development can be described best by apower function (Groeger, 2000). According to this function, the gain from practice becomes in-creasingly less. An important question is how skill development by unsupervised experiencecompares with skill development by supervised experience (training). In general, apart fromtraining, unsupervised experience appears to affect drivers and riders in two ways. With increasedexperience, riders develop a better technical ability and develop more confident, decisive, routineriding competence (B€achli-Bi�etry, 1990; Klein, Vincent, & Isaacson, 1998; N€a€at€anen & Summala,1976; Summala, 1985). At the same time, a more experienced riding style includes less concern forsafety and more risk taking (N€a€at€anen & Summala, 1976; Summala, 1985). With increasedpractice, drivers learn to conform to the pace of other drivers and follow informal rules, which aremore liberal than the formal traffic rules (Heikill€a, 2000).

The unfavourable effect of riding experience has been explained in terms of selective learningand differential feedback (Fuller, 1988; Lajunen & Summala, 1995). ‘‘The unfavourable effect of


driving experience is due to selective learning and differential feedback. The safety-oriented re-sponses––either inherent or learnt in driving schools––tend to drop out when drivers learn thatthey are not needed––why keep one�s distance or reduce speed for potential threats which are onlyhave a very low probability’’ (Lajunen & Summala, 1995). In one study supporting the differentialfeedback hypothesis, Duncan, Williams, and Brown (1991) found that experienced drivers per-formed relatively poorly in aspects of mirror checking, anticipation, and setting safety margins,for which it can be reasoned that immediate feedback from the driving situation is usually weak.

In line with the theoretical prediction that experience decreases concern for safety and decreasessafety margins, Steffens et al. (1988) found that after a year of riding, moped riders drove withhigher speeds and were involved in more critical traffic situations (i.e. situations in which a seriousconflict may arise) than one year earlier. This was more so the case for self-taught riders than forformally trained riders. In this study, differences between formally trained and self-taught riderswere most marked amongst those with little (<100 km) or moderate experience (100–1000 km)and were much smaller amongst those with more experience (>1000 km). With increasing expe-rience, formally trained and self-taught riders tended to become more alike.

The studies of Steffens et al. (1988) and Duncan et al. (1991) raise the question as to whetheracquired skills will deteriorate over time as a consequence of the selective effects of unsupervisedexperience. The Steffens et al. study is not conclusive since the subjects in this study were unawareof being observed in traffic and could possibly have shown better competence if they would havebeen properly motivated to do so. The motivational issue is also not clear in the Duncan et al.study which does not describe the kind of instruction the subjects received before they engaged inthe driving task. As Heikill€a (2000) showed, it is relevant how subjects are instructed to go about atask. He found that driving-school students made fewer errors on an on-road driving test thanexperienced drivers. His explanation is that driving school students experienced the test as achallenging task, whereas the experienced drivers may just have applied their normal driving style.In the present experiment we were specifically interested in the effects of training on competence,the upper level of ability. By paying our subjects for their participation in the experiment, byinstructing them to drive according to the rules and safely and by providing them with positivefeedback after the test, we attempted to ensure optimal motivation to show competence. Since thetesting in our experiment was not an official examination, the phenomenon of test anxiety sup-posedly did not play a role. In an attempt to replicate the findings of Steffans et al. and Duncanet al. with more consideration for the motivational issue we hypothesised that differences in ridingskill between trained and non-trained riders would diminish over time (Hypothesis 3).

1.2. Relationship between knowledge and traffic behaviour

There are many studies which indicate that the relationship between knowledge of traffic rulesand actual traffic behaviour is weak or sometimes even absent (B€achli-Bi�etry, 1990; Rothengatter,1981; van Schagen, Wierda, & Brookhuis, 1987; Steffens et al., 1988; Zeedyk, Wallace, Carcary,Jones, & Larter, 2001).

The type of knowledge we study may be of importance here. Traditional knowledge teststypically focus on whether subjects know how to apply one-dimensional rules (e.g. priority rules)to right–wrong choice dilemmas. This type of testing induces subjects to memorise the kind ofrules which can be relevant for different traffic situations. The test provides subjects with situa-


tions where they have to recognise the relevant rule. However, traffic participation involves notjust applying one-dimensional rules to a sequence of situations but also requires the cognitive skillto apply multiple behavioural rules in one particular situation where unexpected changes occurs.Even a fairly straightforward analysis of the traffic task indicates that in a standard traffic situ-ation, riding involves several interrelated facets; such as speed, priority, distance to other roadusers, and position on the road.

Klein et al. (1998) studied cognitive processes in inexperienced and experienced drivers. Theyused cognitive task analysis interviews that were focused on the participant�s understanding of thedriving task and changes in understanding with driving experience. The interview explored anumber of hypothetical driving situations. They found different levels of understanding. The firstlevel of cognitive expertise was purely declarative knowledge ‘‘Declarative knowledge representthe factual and procedural statements that are learned in classes and guide novice behaviours’’(Klein et al., 1998, p. 1272). With more experienced drivers they found evidence for higher levelsof cognitive comprehension of the driving task. ‘‘The two higher levels, anticipation and broadview, were more characteristic of the experienced drivers than of the inexperienced ones. Theselevels required more complex integration of perceptual cues. They build on an awareness ofcontingencies and a recognition of prototype situations’’.

Following the lead of these researchers, we sought to study knowledge which would be moreindicative of subjects� cognitive understanding of riding and specific contingencies in situations.We hypothesised that this type of knowledge would have a stronger association with ridingcompetence than the standard declarative knowledge, based on memorising singe rule–singlesituation connections (Hypothesis 4).

In the present experiment we conducted two knowledge tests, one modelled after the officialDutch exam (hereafter named standard knowledge test) and one specially developed knowledgetest. The second knowledge test measures subjects� ability to comprehend how four behaviour-components speed, priority, distance to others and position on the road way should be regulatedin two traffic situations where a change in the situation occurs (hereafter named situation com-prehension test).

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The participants for the field experiment were recruited by various media advertisements andchannels aimed at young people. The main condition for participation was that participants werein possession of an official moped certificate and were young, preferably 16 years old, i.e. the legalminimum age to ride a moped in the Netherlands.

50 subjects agreed to participate for payment of €90,––in the experiment which entailed two testsessions and possible inclusion in a rider training programme of 16 h. At the time the participantsagreed to participate, they did not yet know whether they would be selected the rider training.After random assignment of subjects into an experimental group and a control group, 4 subjectswere not able to meet the requirements of the experiment. Of the 46 participants, 34 respondentsagreed to take part in a follow-up when they were invited to do this about nine months after the

Table 1

Samples during different phases of the study

Pre-test

September 2000

Post-test

November 2000

Follow-up

October 2001

Experimental group

(training)

Male 14 14 10

Female 11 11 11

Total 25 25 21

Mean age 16.5 years Mean age 17.4 years

Control group

(no training)

Male 12 12 7

Female 9 9 6

Total 21 21 13

Mean age 16.1 years Mean age 17.1 years


first experiment; the reasons for drop-out of the 14 remaining subjects were diverse (work,vacation, school). The subjects who participated in the follow-up were paid €40. The actualfollow-up measurement of riding skill took place in early October 2001, about 11 months after thepost-test in November 2000 (Table 1).

2.2. Design and method

The experimental design was a pre-test post-test design with one experimental and one controlgroup and with a long term follow-up test in both groups.

The field experiment took place in a middle sized city in the North of the Netherlands. The50 subjects who showed interest in participation in the research were first globally matched in25 same age-same sex pairs (and mostly same education and experience). Subsequently, withinthese pairs members were assigned randomly to either training or non-training condition. Afteroriginal assignment, 4 subjects were not able to meet the dates of testing and had to withdrawfrom the experiment, bringing the number of subjects to 46, 25 in the treatment condition(training) and 21 in the control condition (no training).

Important methodological features of measurements were:

• The examiners who supervised the riding tests, were blind to experimental condition. They werenot informed whether subjects had followed a training or not.

• The subjects drove a different route at pre-, post- and follow up tests, in order to rule outfamiliarity effects.

• The subjects answered different versions of the standard knowledge theory test at the pre- andpost-test, again in order to rule out familiarity effects.

• The same situation comprehension test was used for the pre- and post-test.

2.3. Procedure

At each of the three test sessions, participants were met by an official male examiner at a drivingschool. Both at pre-test and post-test, participants individually took six tests in a 90 min session.After these tests subjects filled in a questionnaire.

Table 2

Measurements during different phases of the study

Pre-test September 2000 Post-test November 2000 Follow-up October 2001

Riding performance Repeated Repeated

3 Vehicle control tests Repeated –

Test standard knowledge traffic rules Repeated –

Test situation comprehension Repeated –

Experience questionnaire Repeated Repeated

Experience variables: annual mileage, time spent on preparation of theory exam (1¼ no time at all. . .5¼more than

12 h); age when started moped riding; experience with riding before certificate (1¼ never; 2¼ sometimes; 3¼ regularly);

experience with riding in the city (1¼ daily. . .5¼ never).


As first part of the total session, the subject had to perform three vehicle skill tests in a closedtraining ground near the driving school. Subsequently, the riding-in-traffic test took the form of a30-min ride along a pre-selected route through the city and environment. Before the test, theexaminer explicitly instructed the subject to ride according to the rules, to ride safely, and withoutany hindrance for other road users. The test rider was followed by the examiner who also rodea moped and gave direction instructions by a intercom-system built in the helmet.

After the riding test, the subject returned to the driving school where two more tests wereadministered by the examiner: a standard knowledge test and a situation comprehension test. Thesession was concluded with a questionnaire containing questions about riding experience. At theend of the session, the examiner politely informed the participant about some potential pointsfor improvement and paid him/her a financial reward for participation.

At the follow-up, the sessions were limited to 45 min, entailing a riding in traffic test and a shortquestionnaire. The follow-up sessions were shortened in order to realise maximum co-operationof subjects with the follow-up.

Table 2 provides an overview of the tests in pre-, post- and follow-up sessions.

2.4. Measurements and tests

The vehicle control skills of the participants were tested in a closed training ground. Three testswere taken: riding in a small circle, braking at 25 km/h and slow riding. An examiner instructedsubjects on how to perform the tests and judged their performance on each of these tests on a 1(¼ very bad) to 5 (¼ very good) rating scale.

For the purpose of testing riding skill in traffic, three test routes were selected. The routes werespecifically selected by examiners in order to encompass a broad range of traffic situations, trafficmanoeuvres and repeated occasions to show traffic skills. During a 30 min ride along a pre-se-lected route, riding skills were (repeatedly) judged by an official examiner on five traffic situations:riding on straight and curved sections, turning left or right, intersections, overtaking others, andchanging lanes. At the end of the ride the examiner assessed each of these situation-bound ridingskills on a 5-point rating scale, ranging from 1 (¼ very bad) to 5 (¼ very good). This test was to alarge extent similar to the formal Dutch motorcycle examination. The reliability of the Dutchscoring system has been described in Siegrist (1998).


The standard knowledge test consisted of 25 questions about traffic situations that were pre-sented on a pc-screen using cd-rom software. Each question could be answered with yes or no.Subjects were given 7 s response time per question. This series of questions (available on com-mercial software) has been closely modelled after the official theoretical test for drivers/motor-cylists.

The situation comprehension test consisted of a structured interview which was specially de-veloped for the experiment. During the interview, the subject was shown two pictures of a trafficsituation and was asked to answer a series of 12 questions about each of these situations. Thequestions tapped into knowledge of rules and behavioural consequences of rules in respect to fouraspects: (1) right-of-way; (2) speed; (3) distance; (4) position on the road. For the four aspects,three scores were given for (a) knowing the official rule (b) knowing the consequences of the rulefor own behaviour and (c) knowing consequences of the rules when a change in the situationoccurs (e.g. a vehicle in front reducing speed). The answers were coded as �right�, �partly right��wrong�.

The situation comprehension test differs from the standard knowledge test in several ways.Firstly, there is no forced right–wrong choice format, but subjects are invited to give theircomments in an interview. Secondly, the situation comprehension test covers more deeply theunderstanding of complex behavioural responses in reaction to dynamics of two particular trafficsituations instead of eliciting responses to a variety of situations.

2.5. Training programme

The 16-h training course was given over a period of four subsequent weeks of 4 h each. Groupsize varied, but on average was four participants to one instructor. The training programmeconsisted of four units. The first unit, vehicle handling, took 4 h in a closed training ground.Specific teaching aims were focused on vehicle preparation and rider clothing and on vehiclehandling (sitting position, technique of watching), steering ability, (knowledge of and ability ofturning over the vehicle) and braking (knowledge of relationship speed-brake path, knowledge oflimitations of braking).

The second unit, riding in traffic, took 8 h and two weeks and took place in real traffic cir-cumstances. Specific topics for this unit were position on the road (with special attention to rules,safety, visibility, communication, keeping distance, and predictability); approaching and crossingintersections (with attention to official rules, regulation of speed, technique of watching, reactingto mistakes made by others, and roundabouts), turning left or right (with focus on other traffic,large vehicles, looking behind, getting in lane), overtaking and passing (with attention to trafficcoming from the rear, large vehicles, stationary traffic and slow traffic/vulnerable road users). Thethird unit, traffic comprehension, took 3 h of riding in traffic and had three specific topics: therelationship between speed regulation and traffic risk; dealing with other road users; riding outsideurban areas.

The fourth unit (1 h) consisted of an exam training where the instructors were allocated aspecial exercise route that could be used to train for the second test (the post-test).

Since practical driver education for young moped riders is practically non-existent in theNetherlands, the instructors were, of necessity, driving instructors of local driving schools forwhom it was new to train and teach groups of teenagers with this particular training programme.


3. Results

3.1. Short term effects of moped riding training

In an item-analysis it was found that five aspects of riding in traffic: riding on straight sections,turning left/right, riding near intersections, overtaking and changing lanes, constituted a reliablescale of overall riding performance. The reliability for this scale as measured by Cronbach�s alphawas 0.77 at pre-test, 0.88 at post-test and 0.76 at follow-up. To test the hypothesis that trainingwould improve riding skill, a repeated measures analysis was carried out, with condition and sexas independent variables and riding skill at pre-test and at post-test as within-subjects factor(named time with two levels: pre-test and post-test). This analysis showed a significant effect oftraining on riding skill a few weeks after training (condition· time F ð1; 41Þ ¼ 17:3; P < :001).Subjects who had followed a training improved in riding skill between pre-test and post-test (Mpre-test¼ 2.3; M post-test¼ 3.1); subjects who had not followed a training showed no improve-ment in skill (M pre-test¼ 2.3; M post-test¼ 2.2). The effect size measure corresponding to thiseffect, the partial eta squared (g2), is 0.30. Cohen (1988) characterizes g2 ¼ 0:01 as small, g2 ¼ 0:06as medium, and g2 ¼ 0:14 as a large effect size. This means that the training had a large effect onthe driving skill. In line with Hypothesis 1 we conclude that training improves riding skills.

To test the hypothesis concerning effects of condition on vehicle control skills, the data wereanalysed using a 2 (sex)· 2 (condition) repeated measures analysis design with pre-test and post-test measure of vehicle control as within-subjects factor (factor named time with two levels: pre-test and post-test). The results of the analysis (cell means presented in Table 3) indicate that foreach of three tests, circle riding (condition· time F ð1; 42Þ ¼ 13:2; p < :005), condition · timebrake trial (F ð1; 42Þ ¼ 16:6; P < :001), and riding 5 km/hr (condition· time F ð1; 42Þ ¼ 9:1;P < :004), the training group improved in skills between pre-test and post-test, whereas thecontrol group showed no improvement. We conclude in support of Hypothesis 2 that in the shortterm training leads to better vehicle control skills. For the skill of slow riding also an effect of sexwas found (sex · time F ð1; 42Þ ¼ 4:6; P < :05). Male riders did not improve in skill at slow ridingbetween pre-test and post-test (M pre-test¼ 3.3; M post-test¼ 3.1), whereas female riders didshow improvement (M pre-test¼ 2.6; M post-test¼ 3.1) (Table 3).

Finally, as an exploratory exercise we tested whether training had different effects on standardknowledge and situation comprehension. The test scores on the knowledge tests were analysed

Table 3

Skills of vehicle control and riding in traffic at pre-test and post-test for control (no training) and experimental group

(training)

Skill Control group (n ¼ 21) Experimental group (n ¼ 25)

Pre-test Post-test Pre-test Post-test

M S.D. M S.D. M S.D. M S.D.

Circle riding 2.4 1.0 2.1 .7 2.0 .7 3.0 1.0

Brake trial 2.8 .8 2.5 .9 2.3 .8 3.5 1.0

Riding 5 km/h 3.1 .8 2.8 .6 3.0 .8 3.5 .9

Riding in traffic skill 2.3 .5 2.2 .4 2.3 .6 3.1 1.0


using a 2 (sex)· 2 (condition) repeated measures analysis design with pre-test and post-test scoreon knowledge as within-subjects factor (factor named time with two levels: pre-test and post-test).We found no significant effects for standard knowledge. The observed power in the analysis wasvery low (approximately 20%). The effect sizes (g2) ranged from .01 to .03, which are small effects.

With respect to situation comprehension a significant interaction was found between conditionand time (F ð1; 38Þ ¼ 6:6; P < :05). Subjects in the control condition did not improve their situ-ation comprehension between pre-test and post-test (M pre-test¼ 2.9; M post-test¼ 3.0), whereassubjects in the treatment condition did (M pre-test¼ 2.8; M post-test¼ 3.3). Thus, training led tobetter situation comprehension.

3.2. Long term effect of training

In order to test long term effects of training, the overall riding in traffic tests at post-test andfollow-up were analysed using a factorial (2· 2) repeated measures design. The within-subjectsfactor is time with three levels: pre-test, post-test and follow-up. The between-subjects factors arecondition and sex, with two levels each. The sample for this analysis were the 34 subjects forwhom valid data were obtained at pre-test, post-test, and follow-up measurements. We found nosignificant interactions between sex and time nor between condition and sex and time. The in-teraction between condition· time was significant (F ð1; 29Þ ¼ 4:8; P < :05). The lack of significantinteractions between sex and time, and condition, sex and time, can be explained by the lack ofpower of the test, which was 20% and 23% respectively. The significant effect of condition· timewas again a large effect (g2 ¼ 0:14). Table 4 presents cell means for condition and time. Whereasriding in traffic significantly improved from post-test to follow-up in the control group (M post-test 2.2; M follow-up 2.6; difference significant), performance did not improve anymore in theexperimental group (M post-test 3.0; M follow-up 2.8; difference n.s.). Treatment and controlgroup differ significantly in riding skill at post-test, but not at follow-up. These results confirmHypothesis 3 which states that differences between experimental group and control group wouldslacken over time (Fig. 1).

To check whether another variable, a difference in experience between treatment group andcontrol group, could be responsible for the effect found in the above-mentioned analysis, threequestions were asked in the follow-up questionnaire (How often did you ride in the city in 2001?How many miles did you ride on the moped in 2001? How familiar were you with the test route?)We found no statistical association between condition and answers to one of these questions.

Table 4

Means of riding skill at pre-test, post-test and follow-up for control group and experimental group

Time 1 pre-test Time 2 post-test Time 3 follow-up

M S.D. M S.D. M S.D.

Control group (n ¼ 13) 2.2a .6 2.2a .3 2.6b .4

Experimental group (n ¼ 21) 2.3a .7 3.1b 1.0 2.8b .7

Means with same superscripts are not different as tested by paired sample t-test with in condition and independent

samples t-test between conditions (all differences significant at P < 0:020).

2.2 2.2

2.6

2.3

3.1

2.8

22.22.42.62.8

33.2

Pre-test: 2 weeksbefore training

Post-test: 2 weeksafter training

Follow-up: 11months after

training

Control group (notraining)

Treatment group(training)

Fig. 1. Means of riding skill at pre-test, post-test and follow-up for control group and experimental group.


Thus we found no indication that differences in long term development of riding skill were in anyway caused by differences in experience between control and experimental group.

In a stepwise linear regression analysis we studied whether change in riding skill between post-test and follow-up could be predicted by vehicle control tests and knowledge test at post-test andexperience variables. In this analysis, the change score in riding in traffic was used as criterionvariable. The better the subjects scored at situation comprehension and vehicle control of circleriding, the more they tended to deteriorate in riding in traffic skill in the long run. The more milessubjects had ridden, the more they tended to gain skill in the long run (Table 5).

Since change scores can be difficult to interpret and the treatment variable was not included inthe analysis, we further examined the scores of individual subjects on predictor and criterionvariables and the treatment variable. Inspection of individual cases led to the conclusion thatsubjects who scored high at situation comprehension and vehicle control of circle riding werenearly all trained subjects who had considerably improved their skill of riding in traffic at post-test. By the follow up test, those trained subjects who had benefitted most from training,also tended to lose most of their improved skill at riding in traffic at the follow-up test. This is

Table 5

Step wise linear regression analysis with dependent variable change in riding in traffic skill between follow-up and post-

test

Beta t P Pearson correlations

Included variables:

Situation comprehensiona +

Test vehicle control circle ridingb +

Annual mileage in 2001c

).58 )4.1 .001 ).61��

).30 )2.1 .05 ).38� (partial correlation)

.27 2.0 .07 .36 (partial correlation)

Excluded variables: test braking, test 5 km riding, experience with moped riding, before certificate age when started

moped riding

�P < :05 (2-tailed).��P < :01 (2-tailed).aModel 1 with (constant + situation comprehension) had R2 ¼ :37 and adjusted R2 ¼ :35. F change model was

F ð1; 27Þ ¼ 16:0; P < :001.bModel 2 constant + situation comprehension+ test vehicle control circle riding had R2 ¼ :46 and adjusted R2 ¼ :42.

F change model was F ð1; 26Þ ¼ 4:4; P < :05.cModel 3 constant + situation comprehension+ test vehicle control circle riding+ yearly mileage 2001 had R2 ¼ :73

and adjusted R2 ¼ :53. F change model was F ð1; 25Þ ¼ 9:8; P < :07.

Table 6

Means of riding skill at pre-test, post-test and follow-up of subjects who followed training perlevel of improvement

between pre-test and post-test

Pre-test post-test

improvement1Pre-test Post-test Follow-up

M S.D. M S.D. M S.D.

Experimental

group

Low (n ¼ 10) 2.4a .7 2.6a .9 2.7a .5

High (n ¼ 11) 2.1a .6 3.5b .9 3.0ab .81 For 21 subjects in experiment condition the changes core between pre-test and post-test was calculated and they

were divided by median score. Means with same superscripts are not different as tested by paired sample t-test withincondition and independent samples t-test between conditions (all differences significant at P < 0:010).

2.4 2.6 2.7

2.1

3.53

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

Pre-test: 2 weeksbefore training

Post-test: 2weeks after

training

Follow-up: 11months after

training

Mean riding competence ofnon-improved trainees

Mean riding competence ofimproved trainees

Fig. 2. Means of riding skill at pre-test,post-test and follow-up, split out for trainees who clearly improved from pre-

test to post-test and those who did not.


illustrated by results in Table 6/Fig. 2 where pre-test, post-test and follow-up performance atriding in traffic is split between trained subjects who had improved a lot and who had notimproved much between pre-test and post-test.

3.3. The relationship between riding-in-traffic skills and knowledge, vehicle control, and experiencevariables

The data of 46 subjects tested before any training had occurred were used to calculate Pearsoncorrelations between riding in traffic skill and the two knowledge tests (standard knowledge andsituation comprehension test). The standard knowledge test did not correlate significantly withriding in traffic skill, with vehicle control skills or with the comprehension test. There was asignificant correlation between situation comprehension and riding-in-traffic; moped riders whoperformed better on the situation comprehension test also tended to perform better in riding intraffic (R ¼ :51; P < :000). There was also a correlation between situation comprehension andannual mileage. Moped riders who reported a higher annual mileage performed better on thesituation comprehension test (R ¼ :49, P < :05). With increasing experience, more complex un-derstanding of traffic situations evolves.

If elementary vehicle control skills constitute part of riding competence, we should also expectcorrelation between vehicle control and riding competence. Of the three vehicle control tests thetest of slow riding correlated positively with riding skill: moped riders with better skill at brakingtended to perform better on riding in traffic (R ¼ :34; P < :05).


4. Discussion

The present experiment studied effects of practical training on short term and long term ridingcompetence. Before we discuss the findings of the present study we would like to point out thefollowing:

1. For financial and organisational reasons, the rider course under study in the present experimentwas limited to 16 h in which trainees often trained in groups of four. The instructors did nothave much experience with this particular course and were not specifically chosen for their skillin communication with youngsters. Therefore the training under study is probably not the bestpossible training.

2. The present results specifically apply to a sample of novice moped riders who at the moment oftheir first testing (and training) had passed their theoretical exam a few months earlier andmostly had three or four months of experience.

4.1. Effects of training and experience

The present research shows that measured in the short term, two weeks after the end of thepractical training, practical training has a fairly large effect: the group of trainees consistentlyperformed better than the group of non-trainees on three vehicle control tests and a riding intraffic test. Thus support was found for hypotheses that training would lead to better, safer ridingin traffic, (Hypothesis 1) and better vehicle control skills (Hypothesis 2).

It was found that the quickly improved skill of riding in traffic could not be sustained with time.One year after training, trained and non-trained subjects were similar in skill level. In line with ourexpectation (Hypothesis 3), the difference in riding skills between trainees and non-trainees re-duces with time and experience, with trainees deteriorating in performance and non-traineesimproving so that both groups are not statistically significant in the long term. Those who ben-efited most from the training showed the largest decrease in the long term follow-up test of ridingin traffic.

This research essentially replicates findings of Steffens et al. (1988) and Duncan et al. (1991) byshowing that safe, rule following behaviour which is taught in an educational programme, de-teriorates in a period of several months after the end of the formal training. Since we have ex-plicitly instructed subjects to ride safely in traffic and according to the rules, and exam anxietyprobably plays no role, we can state with more certainty than earlier research, that the deterio-ration of behaviour actually reflects a deterioration of optimum skills, or competence.

4.2. Theoretical knowledge as pre-condition for riding skill

In this study we found that knowledge of traffic rules, certainly a minimum precondition forsafe driving, only had a positive relationship with the riding-in-traffic skills when knowledge wasexamined by a specially developed situation comprehension test. The standard knowledge testknowledge was not related to riding competence. These results confirmed our expectation (Hy-pothesis 4) that knowledge which consists of more complex understanding of how behaviour


should change in a dynamic situation is more strongly related to actual riding skill than knowl-edge which is based on memorising fairly straightforward situation-rule connections.

Presumably, knowledge concerning complex comprehension of a traffic situation is morestrongly related to actual traffic behaviour because this knowledge is partly derived from subjects�thinking of how they would actually react in a certain situation instead of only thinking what therelevant rule would be. Theory training which is often very much oriented towards getting can-didates ready for the official theory test, should preferably be expanded to include an examinationof more comprehensive knowledge of traffic situations. Our results show that practical trainingcan increase cognitive understanding of traffic situations.

4.3. Implications for moped riding training

One of the findings of the present study is that those trainees who improved most in the shortterm actually showed the largest loss of skill, whereas trainees who improved less by training wereable to improve their skill in the long term. The slow improvers may have been less motivated touse instructor feedback to guide their behaviour and may have relied more on their own resources.Strong reliance on instructor feedback could have enhanced skills very quickly, but may haveactually dampened reliance on own learning capabilities which though slower and more errati-cally, may be important in the long term. Therefore, an important challenge for rider and drivereducation is how to decrease reliance on instructor feedback during the training process andincrease reliance on other cues. In the words of Brown, Groeger, and Biehl (1987): �It is inde-pendence of the supervision of others, not of feedback itself, which is important�. As a conse-quence, throughout training the instructor should attempt to develop in the individual areceptiveness to the non-verbal type of feedback they must use, later in their driving careers, toguide their behaviour (Brown et al., 1987, p. 151). Following this line of reasoning, the success ofaccompanied driving may in part not only be attributed to more experience, but also to moreexperience with driving without instructor feedback.

We found that trained and non-trained subjects did not differ significantly anymore at follow-up test. One would hope that skill development after the end of a training period would furtherimprove. Presumably, a two-phased education programme following the Swiss model wouldproduce better results then reported here (B€achli-Bi�etry, 1998). However, one of the specificproblems concerning rider education for moped riders is that, in general, riders only have a ridingcareer of 2–4 years before they switch over to a car. Given their young age, short moped ridingcareer, and lack of financial resources, it is doubtful whether young moped riders (or their par-ents) will be motivated to invest time and money in a long term two-phased rider education,especially when they know that will have to make a larger investment again when they switch frommoped to car.

The way out of this particular dilemma would possibly be an integration of moped and cardriving education. Young persons who make a thorough investment in safe and responsiblemoped riding should be allowed to skip parts of car driver training and examination. In favour ofthis argument there is some empirical evidence that experience with moped riding transfers to latercar driving competence. Car drivers who report a lot of moped experience and early driver ex-perience shortly after the exam drive with a more routinised and anticipatory driving style (B€achli-Bi�etry, 1990, p. 275). In order to furnish further knowledge about a possible integration of moped


and car driving education, future research should study the question of to what extent a consciousinvestment in safe and responsible moped riding transfers itself to learning to drive a car safely.

Acknowledgements

Financial support for the study was provided by the Regional Council of Traffic SafetyFriesland, the Division North-Netherlands of the Ministry of Transport and Waterworks and theFoundation for Promotion of Traffic Education (SBV). The Central Driving Test Organisation(CBR) contributed its expertise to the study. We thank our colleagues Ingrid van Schagen andJacques Commandeur for their critical comments on earlier drafts of this article.

References

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The Architecture of Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

B€achli-Bi�etry, J. (1990). Erfolgskontrolle von theoretischem Verkehrssinunterricht im Verlauf der Fahrausbildung.

(Evaluation of theory instruction in driver education). Bfu Report 15. Bern: Schweizerische Beratungstelle f€urUnfallverh€utung bfu.

B€achli-Bi�etry, J. (1998). Konkretiseruing des Schweizer 2-Phasen-Modells der Fahrausbildung. (Realization of the

Swiss 2-fase model of driver education). Bfu Report 37. Bern: Schweizerische Beratungstelle f€ur Unfallverh€utungbfu.

Brown, I. D., Groeger, J. A., & Biehl, B. (1987). Is driver training contributing enough toward road safety. In J. A.

Rothengatter & R. A. de Bruin (Eds.), Road Users and Traffic Safety (pp. 135–156). Assen: Van Gorcum.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Duncan, J., Williams, P., & Brown, I. D. (1991). Components of driving skill: experience does not mean expertise.

Ergonomics, 24, 919–937.

Fuller, R. (1988). Psychological aspects of learning to drive. In J. A. Rothengatter & R. A. de Bruin (Eds.), Road User

Behaviour Theory and Research (pp. 527–537). Assen: Van Gorcum.

Fuller, R. (2000). The task-capability interface model of the driving process. Recherche du Transport Securit�e, 66, 47–56.Groeger, J. A. (2000). Understanding driving. Applying cognitive psychology to a complex everyday task. East Sussex:

Psychology Press.

Haworth, N., Smith, R., & Kowadlo, N. (2000). Evaluation of rider training curriculum in Victoria. Report No. 165.

Clayton (Victoria): Monash University Accident Research Centre.

Heikill€a, V. M. (2000). Relationship of laboratory and on-road tests for driving-school students and experienced

drivers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 90, 227–235.

Hubacher, M., & Ewert, U. (1995). Einstellungen und Merkmale der Fahrzeugben€utzung jugendlicher Velo- und

Mofafahrer. (Attitudes and characteristics of young moped riders.) Bfu-Report 26. Bern: Schweizerische

Beratungstelle f€ur Unfallverh€utung bfu.

Klein, H. A., Vincent, E. J., & Isaacson, J. J. (1998). From managing the car to managing the road: the development of

driving skills. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, pp. 1271–1275.

Lajunen, T., & Summala, H. (1995). Driving experience, personality, and skill and safety-motive dimensions in drivers�self-assessments. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 307–318.

N€a€at€anen, R., & Summala, H. (1976). Road-user behaviour and traffic accidents. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing

Company.

Noordzij, P. C., Forke, E., Brendicke, R., & Chinn, B. P. (2001). Integration of needs of moped and motorcycle riders into

safety measures. Deliverable D3. PROMISING (Promotion of Measures for Vulnerable Road Users). Report

D-2001-5. Leidschendam: SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research.


Rothengatter, J. A. (1981). Traffic safety education for young children An empirical approach. Lisse: Swets and

Zeitlinger.

Siegrist, S. (Ed.) (1998). Learning to become a driver––what can be done? Final report of the GADGET Workpackage 3.

Bern, Switzerland.

Steffens, U., Gawatz, R., & Wilmes, G. (1988). Wirksamheit von Mofakursen., Heft 67. Bergisch Gladbach:

Bundesanstalt f€ur Strassenwesen (BAST).

Summala, H. (1985). Modeling driver behaviour: A pessimistic prediction? In L. Evans & R. C. Schwing (Eds.), Human

behavior and traffic safety (pp. 43–65). New York: Plenum Press.

Twisk, D. A. M., Bijleveld, F. D., & Gundy, C. M. (1998). Evaluatie bromfiets-theoriecertificaat; Een onderzoek naar

de korte termijneffecten van de invoering van het theoriecertificaat. (Evaluation of the moped theory certificate;

Research into the short term effect of the introduction of the theory certificate.) Report 98-05 (In Dutch Language).

Leidschendam: SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research.

van Schagen, I. (2000). De verkeersonveiligheid in Nederland tot en met 1999. (The road safety in the Netherlands until

1999). Report D-2000-15 (In Dutch language). Leidschendam: SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research.

van Schagen, I., Wierda, M., & Brookhuis, K. A. (1987). Kennis en attituden van fietsers en bromfietsers. (Knowledge

and attitudes of cyclists and moped riders.) Report VK 87-16 (In Dutch language). Groningen: Traffic Research

Centre.

Wierda, M. (1990). Riding a moped: acquisition of basic skills and mental effort. In Proceedings of Road safety and

traffic environment in Europe, VTI, Gothenburg, 26–28 September, pp. 1–9.

Zeedyk, M. S., Wallace, L., Carcary, B., Jones, K., & Larter, K. (2001). Children and road safety: Increasing knowledge

does not improve behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 573–594.

short and long term effects of moped rider training: a field experiment

Documents