Two-phase driver education models applied in Finland and in Austria – Do we have evidence to support the two phase models?

Finnish and Austrian driver education models were analysed in order to find out existing and new evidence to support obligatory 2nd phase driver education. Earlier findings showed that the safety benefits of the 2nd phase education courses are contradictory. Furthermore, the goal and the content of the 2nd phase education have changed from simple slippery track practices to preventive risk awareness education. In addition, it has been suggested that the timing of the second phase education should not be too far from the 1st phase of the education.The empirical part of this study consisted of two separate questionnaires to the Finnish and the Austrian novice drivers. The candidates that had completed the Austrian 2nd phase education reported less traffic offences and accidents than the not completed participants. The ANCOVA-models indicated that the Finnish participants, who completed early the 2nd phase education, reported having benefited only of the economical driving training but not of the safety related driving competency areas. For the Austrian participants the ANOVA-models did not show any self-assessed safe driving benefits. Implications of the findings to the driving education were discussed.