It is noted that existing evidence which indicates that driver education programs in the country tend to result in reduced accident rates are the result of faulty research design and produce erroneous results. More valid studies indicate that no such difference exists.

However, because these studies tend to lump together drivers from different kinds of programs, two programs were compared that were quite different in extent and quality. One program at School B consisted only of 30 hours of classroom instruction, School A offered 30 hours classroom, six hours behind the wheel, and four hours training on a simulator. In addition, a number of students from School A had taken six hours behind-thewheel training during summer school in addition to their 30 classroom hours.

These groups were matched on the variables of sex, age, mileage, father's education, and father's occupational category. Driving records were obtained by interview for the period subsequent to receiving driver education;​ all subjects were high school seniors. Students at School A and at School B produced nearly identical records in terms of accident frequency, number of students involved, number of personal injuries, and estimate of damage to each subject's car. The same results were obtained when the two sub groups of students from School A were compared.

It is thereby concluded that the addition of behind-thewheel and simulator training does not result in a different accident rate. Coupled with other available data, it is concluded that none of the driver education programs under consideration are related to highway accidents. The implications of these findings for the national safety effort are discussed.