Logical fallacies in previous research studies of the effectiveness of driver education courses are analyzed. The distinction between formal and informal driver training is drawn. Informally trained drivers (commonly called the "untrained" subjects) do learn to drive and they do receive "accident avoidance training" in the process. They may receive as much as, or more than, students in a formal driver course, be it academic or commercial. If researchers use accident reductions as a criterion of effectiveness then the amount and quality of the accident avoidance training in both the formal and informal must be measured and compared. Improvement of the effectiveness of driver education requires improvement of accident avoidance training materials.

Venn diagrams are used to illustrate several of the logical relationships involved. Of 3 million eligible new, young drivers, over half are trained in high school courses. Another 500,000 are trained in commercial courses. One million (one-third of those eligible) are trained informally. When a current sample of all ages of drivers is examined, the percent of informally trained drivers is much higher (91% in South Carolina study). Almost half were taught by parents. Some 18% were selftaught!

A comparison is made between the percent of eligible young drivers that were trained in formal driver education programs in 1957 and 1967. The percentage doubles from 25% to over 50% today. The motor vehicle death rate per 100,000 population, however, has increased, contrary to what one may expect. The increase is found in the young driver group as well as a group representing all ages combined. Implications of these findings are discussed. A film from the National Safety Council's Defensive Driving Course (DDC) was shown to illustrate how more accident avoidance training could be added to driver training courses.