This report will affect the older citizens of Oregon. The reader is encouraged to pass this report on to anybody who might be interested. And if appropriate, let our legislators know what you think. This web page is in ascii -- for downloading and printing. If you want the "pdf" version of the report, go here.
MISSION STATEMENT: The Older Driver Advisory Committee seeks to identify strategies that provide for the safety of drivers and the public as a whole while at the same time honoring the dignity and meeting the mobility needs of individual citizens.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Summary. This report constitutes the recommendations of the Older Driver
Advisory Committee to the Oregon Department of Transportation, Driver and
Motor Vehicle Services. The 1999 Oregon Legislature asked the Department of
Transportation to study the effects of aging upon driving ability when it
passed House Bill 2446. This bill authorized the department to convene an
advisory committee to participate in the study and to make recommendations to
the department. The legislation specified that the committee's
recommendations would be advisory only.
The Older Driver Advisory Committee (ODAC)1 met eight times beginning in
January 2000 and concluding in August 2000. During the first four
meetings, the committee received written and verbal testimony from members of
the public, stakeholders, and recognized experts on the issues. During the
subsequent four meetings, the committee studied the testimony and reviewed
additional research compiled for this project by DMV. Concurrently, DMV
hosted eight Town Hall meetings between January and April 2000 in Tualatin,
Salem, Oak Grove, Eugene, Grants Pass, Pendleton, Newport and Bend to explain
the study to the public and to solicit public input for the study. The
committee formed the above mission statement and developed the following
recommendations based upon written and oral testimony and review of the
latest research relating to the topic.
B. Findings of The Older Driver Advisory Committee. Following extensive
study, members of ODAC have concluded that chronological age alone does
not represent a valid or reliable criterion for assessing risk of being
involved in a motor vehicle crash. 2 Similarly, the presence of various
medical conditions does not support the conclusion that a driver lacks the
ability to drive. Instead, the presence of certain visual, cognitive and
functionalabilities determines the capacity to perform tasks necessary to
driving safely. While research establishes that among the population as a
whole, visual, cognitive and functional abilities generally tend to decline
as age progresses, the rate and severity of decline varies widely between
individuals. Thus, restrictions based upon age or medical conditions alone
would not identify accurately drivers at risk of being involved in a motor
vehicle crash because of age. Such restrictions would carry the risk of
being over-broad by restricting older persons who possess necessary
capacities to drive safely, and being under-inclusive by failing to identify
younger drivers who lack necessary visual, cognitive and functional
capacities.
Therefore, with respect to older drivers, licensing restrictions should
not be based upon age alone. Rather, fitness to drive should be assessed
through appropriate screening for presence of visual, cognitive and
functional abilities to perform tasks necessary to driving safely. Current
research supports the conclusion that such screening needs to increase in
frequency as drivers age to increase the effectiveness of identifying at-risk
drivers. Determination of whether to issue a license should include
consideration of remedial and adaptive resources, improvements following
skill training, and should be made in light of restricted licensing options
tailored to an individual driver's capabilities and circumstances.
Based upon the above findings, ODAC respectfully submits the following
recommendations3 to the Oregon Department of Transportation, Driver and
Motor Vehicle Services. The members of ODAC have concluded that no single
solution would address effectively the complex issues. The following
recommendations constitute a multi-faceted approach designed to focus on
identifying and addressing the issues that pose the greatest risk to the
safety of the public. The committee believes these recommendations
constitute a cost-effective response to the concerns of the Legislature
and the general public. The recommendations correspond to the four topic
areas identified in HB 2446.
II. RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Identification of drivers who may be at risk for being involved in a
motor vehicle accident because of age4. Effective identification of
at-risk drivers requires multiple channels for relevant information to
reach DMV. ODAC recommends that DMV address at least four aspects of
identification: driver license renewal, reporting, the Driver
Re-Examination Program, and the Driver Improvement Program.
(1) Driver License Renewal Process.
(a) Renewal Cycle: Effective
identification of at-risk drivers requires a shorter renewal cycle5 as
drivers age in order to determine whether changes in the ability to drive
safely have occurred.
ODAC identified two key issues: (1) The eight-year renewal
cycle is too long for drivers over the age of 65, and (2) The current vision
screening
fails to identify cognitive issues.6 The current renewal cycle requires
licensees of all ages to appear at a DMV field office once every eight
years. Upon renewal, no additional screening occurs until the first
renewal on or after the 50th birthday of the licensee. At that time,
renewal applicants undergo vision screening involving visual acuity and
field of vision only.
RECOMMENDATION #1: Following acquisition of a driver's initial license,
DMV should: (i) Continue the current schedule of in-person license
renewals every eight years; (ii) Continue conducting a vision screening
upon renewal beginning with the first renewal on or after the driver's
50th birthday; and (iii) Increase the frequency of in-person renewal and
vision screening to once every four years beginning on or after the
driver's 65th birthday.7
(b) Screening for Capacity to Drive: Effective identification of
at-risk
drivers requires screening components designed to reveal lack of
capacities to perform visual, cognitive and functional tasks necessary to
drive safely. While current vision screening tools identify visual acuity
and field of vision, they fail to test cognitive skills shown to predict
involvement in a crash.
RECOMMENDATION #2: Train DMV counter workers to implement gross
impairment screening.
RECOMMENDATION #3: DMV should implement a "tiered" model to screen for
visual, cognitive and functional capacities necessary to drive.8
(i) Components: Components of the tiered model should include:
Tier 1: Vision and Visual Attention. This tier tests for visual acuity,
field of vision, and Useful Field of View.9 Tier 2: Driver Re-Examination
Program. Current OAR 735-076-0030 (knowledge test, road sign recognition,
drive test, vision test, or any other exam DMV deems necessary to
determine fitness to drive).
(ii) Utilization: All applicants for initial drivers' licenses
and applicants for renewal on or after their 50th birthday undergo Tier 1
screening as a routine component of testing.10 This recommendation would
require DMV to add UFOV to its standard vision screen. Adding UFOV to the
standard vision screening would ensure that regardless of the age of the
applicant, all DMV vision screening would involve the three components
listed in Tier 1 (visual acuity, field of vision, and Useful Field of
View).
All drivers referred to DMV, by internal or external
sources, because of concerns about their ability to drive safely would
receive both Tier 1 and Tier 2 screening.11
(iii) Implications of Screening Results: Drivers who apply for
routine renewal on or after their 50th birthday and who pass Tier 1
receive a renewal. Drivers in this category who do not pass the visual
acuity and/or field of vision portions of Tier 1 must consult a vision
care specialist for correction of any vision problems before applying
again. Should a driver in this category have questionable results on the
UFOV test, they would proceed to Tier 2 for additional screening to
determine the issue.
For drivers who receive both Tier 1 and Tier 2 screening,
the determination of whether to issue a license should be made after
considering a number of factors, including remedial and adaptive resources
available, changes that might be expected following skill improvement
training, and possible restricted licensing options tailored to an
individual driver's capabilities and circumstances.
(2) Reporting
(a) Method of Reporting. Effective identification of
at-risk drivers requires a simple, efficient process which physicians,
family members and others may use to report concerns about ability to
drive. In its current state, the DMV reporting process does not
accomplish this objective because of the content and formatting of
reporting forms.
RECOMMENDATION #4: Revise and simplify content, organization and format
of reporting forms to provide and elicit necessary information to evaluate
driver ability.12
(b) Subject Matter. Effective identification of at-risk
drivers involves reporting the types of conditions that specifically affect
driving behavior. The current statutory requirement only requires reporting
of "every person over 14 years of age diagnosed as having a disorder
characterized by momentary or prolonged lapses of consciousness or control
that is, or may become, chronic."13 The current requirement is
insufficient to communicate other types of conditions that may adversely
affect driving behavior.
RECOMMENDATION #5: Revise the list of medical conditions in ORS
807.710(1) affecting driving ability which must be reported to DMV to
reflect the broad range of conditions that affect driving behavior
(include cognitive impairments, limited mobility, and visual impairments).
Any revisions must distinguish between reporting a diagnosis and reporting
at-risk drivers.
(c) Who Must Report. Current statutory language requires only
"those persons authorized by the State of Oregon to diagnose and treat
disorders of the nervous system"14 to "report those persons 14 years or older
diagnosed as having a disorder characterized by momentary or prolonged
loss of consciousness or control that is, or may become, chronic." The
current requirement fails to include other types of health care providers
who may have knowledge of a person who may be unsafe to drive.
RECOMMENDATION #6: Expand the list of mandatory reporters of at-risk
drivers to include other health care providers, e.g. vision care
specialists.
(d) Who Should be Encouraged to Report. To assist with
effective identification of at-risk drivers, those persons who are concerned
about a driver's lack of ability to safely operate a motor vehicle should be
encouraged to report the driver to DMV for evaluation.
RECOMMENDATION #7: DMV should address issues surrounding
confidentiality.15
RECOMMENDATION #8: Encourage and emphasize the importance of reporting
at-risk drivers by social service providers, relatives, pharmacists, and
others.
RECOMMENDATION #9: Facilitate self-regulation by developing a
self-screening tool to assist an older driver or their significant others
in recognizing impairments they have which might affect driving ability.
(e) Facilitate Physician Education Regarding Reporting.
Issues affecting older drivers are complex. Physicians would
benefit from increased awareness of their role in reporting.
RECOMMENDATION #10: Form a working group consisting of DMV, the
Oregon Health Division, the Oregon Medical Association, Alzheimer's
Association-Oregon Trail Chapter, and include other interested groups to
develop and implement strategies that will assist physicians in
understanding their role in reporting impairments that may compromise
driving.16
(3) Driver Re-Examination Program.17
(a) Response time of Driver. Effective identification of at-risk
drivers requires timely response to DMV notification. The current rules
provide that a driver must complete required tests within two months of the
date of the request letter or face suspension of driving privileges unless
the person surrenders his or her driver license and states that he or she has
quit driving.18 This two-month time period increases the risk that unsafe
drivers will continue to drive even after the department has knowledge that
they may lack necessary capacities to drive safely, and is not sufficient to
meet the safety objectives of the program.
RECOMMENDATION #11: Require the individual receiving notification
of re-examination to contact DMV by telephone or in person within 14
calendar days of the mailing date of the letter.
(b) Response Time of DMV. Effective identification of at-risk
drivers requires DMV to perform the re-examination in a timely fashion.
While this program includes many appropriate components, DMV lacks sufficient
staff and funding to administer the program effectively. DMV must be able
to initiate testing in a timely fashion.
RECOMMENDATION #12: Require DMV to initiate necessary testing within 30
calendar days of driver contact.19
(c) Accessibility of the Driver Re-Examination Program. This
program offers several strategies to assist in the identification of at-risk
drivers. However, members of the public and DMV staff may not be
sufficiently informed as to its existence or how to access the program.
RECOMMENDATION #13: Ensure the Driver Re-Examination Program process is
publicized and easily accessible.
(4) Driver Improvement Program. This program (ORS 809.480) seeks to
reduce traffic convictions and accidents.20 The program offers four steps,
beginning with an advisory letter to the driver.21
RECOMMENDATION #14: Enhance the Driver Improvement Program by requiring
drivers who meet certain criteria to come to a DMV field office for
screening at Step 1 (OAR 735-072-0030(1))22. If screening indicates the
need, the driver would immediately go to Step 3 (OAR 735-072-0030(3))23.
Consider the following possible criteria: (i) Two convictions for
hazardous violations within the previous twelve months; (ii) Two
preventable traffic crashes within the previous twelve months; (iii) One
traffic crash and one unrelated traffic conviction within the previous
twelve months.
B. Availability and effectiveness of remedial measures such as skills
training, adaptive equipment, physical therapy and adjustment of driving
practices.24
Skills training, adaptive equipment, and adjustment of driving practices
have been shown to be effective in assisting drivers in developing or
maintaining the ability to perform tasks necessary to driving safely.
Further work should be done to identify conditions for which remedial
measures effectively reduce risk factors for unsafe driving.
RECOMMENDATION #15: DMV should increase efforts to make information
available to the public regarding driver retraining programs, the use of
adaptive devices and driving rehabilitation resources for drivers with
impairments. DMV should utilize the expertise of the rehabilitation
community to identify and promote appropriate remedial measures. DMV
should incorporate information about remedial opportunities into the
Driver Re-Examination program.
C. Prevalence and effect of degenerative processes affecting vision,
mobility, cognitive functions and reaction time.25
A wide range of degenerative processes might cause a driver to
experience decreased ability to perform one or more functions necessary to
drive safely. These processes might include factors other than "loss of
consciousness or control."26 To enhance the department's ability to
respond to issues facing older drivers in an effective manner, it is
necessary to consider other degenerative processes that affect driving
ability.
RECOMMENDATION #16: DMV should identify cognitive and functional
limitations with respect to capacity to perform actions necessary to drive
safely. Once cognitive and functional limitations affecting capacity to
drive safely have been identified, include these limitations in mandatory
and voluntary reporting requirements and in public education initiatives.
RECOMMENDATION #17: Using the ODAC recommendations as a guideline, DMV
should revise the current DMV Medical Review process for identifying
at-risk drivers.
D. Effectiveness of public education initiatives.27
ODAC has concluded that public education forms a powerful tool in
addressing the challenge of developing a comprehensive approach to
licensing older drivers. Efforts should be made to facilitate a
broad-based public education program for the benefit of seniors, family
members, health care providers, and the public in general.
RECOMMENDATION #18: Form a DMV-led consortium of groups interested in
contributing to the public education effort to develop and implement an
education and outreach strategy for this state. The consortium should
include, but not be limited to, AARP/55-Alive, AAA, Driving Decisions for
Seniors, the Oregon Association of Area Agencies on Aging and Disability,
the Oregon State University Extension Service, the Alzheimer's
Association, Oregon Disability Commission, and the Governor's Commission
on Senior Services.
RECOMMENDATION #19: DMV should develop education initiatives for seniors
to promote self-regulation, utilization of remedial technology and
techniques to maintain safe driving practices, utilization of
transportation alternatives, and the importance of reporting at-risk
drivers who are unable or unwilling to self-regulate. Such initiatives
should raise awareness of community resources through public education.
RECOMMENDATION #20: DMV should increase publicity for the Driver
Re-Examination program as part of the effort to make it better known and
more accessible.28
RECOMMENDATION #21: DMV should develop training and information strategies
targeted to the health care professions (MD, OD, DO, PT, OTR/L, NP, PA,
pharmacists29) which can be used and promoted by health care associations.
Topics should include identification of medical conditions that may affect
the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle, and information on
mandatory and voluntary reporting.
RECOMMENDATION #22: DMV, in collaboration with DPSST30, should develop a
training curriculum for law enforcement officers and include topics such
as identification of medical issues creating an impairment that may affect
the ability to safely operate a motor vehicle (e.g. loss of mobility or
flexibility, decrease in visual acuity31 or hearing loss, loss of
cognitive ability), and review of the Driver Reporting Form.
RECOMMENDATION #23: DMV should send to drivers needing to renew their
licenses a summary of recent changes in traffic law with the driver's
license renewal notices.
E. Other Recommendations.32
When people can no longer drive, they must find alternate forms of
transportation. There will be increased need for frontier33, rural34 and
urban35 accessible transportation alternatives for seniors and disabled
persons. These additional recommendations reflect the committee's
appreciation for these collateral implications of new approaches to
licensing drivers.
RECOMMENDATION #24: ODOT should sponsor seed grants to communities to
develop volunteer-based Driving Decisions services to assist seniors and
persons with disabilities in finding alternative forms of transportation.
RECOMMENDATION #25: ODOT should increase funding for accessible
transportation alternatives.
As the numbers and percentages of older drivers using highways increase
over the next two decades,36 the importance of understanding implications
of the driving environment also increases.37 The Older Driver Highway
Design Handbook "links the characteristics of older drivers to design,
operational, and traffic engineering recommendations keyed to specific
roadway features."38 The recommendations in this handbook include
practical strategies relating to street-name signage to accommodate
reduction in visual acuity associated with increasing age.39 ODAC has
concluded that implementing key recommendations from the Older Driver
Highway Design Handbook will assist in increasing roadway safety as the
population ages.
RECOMMENDATION #26: As ODOT replaces signage, ODOT should adopt
guidelines from the U.S. Department of Transportation Older Driver Highway
Design Handbook for all new signs.40
III. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The members of ODAC have concluded that chronological age alone does not
represent a valid or reliable criterion for assessing risk of being
involved in a motor vehicle accident. While studies show that certain
functional capacities typically decline with advancing age, the committee
believes a fair licensing system must reflect several components designed
effectively to identify unsafe drivers of any age, to evaluate their
abilities to perform specific tasks necessary to drive safely, and to
provide a range of options when older drivers are unable to perform
certain tasks necessary to driving safely. The recommendations in this
report focus attention and resources on the serious cases and should
represent a cost-effective response to the problem identified by the 1999
Oregon Legislature.
ODAC respectfully submits these recommendations to the Oregon Department
of Transportation. The members of ODAC express their heartfelt
appreciation ODOT for the opportunity to participate in this important
study.
*
DATED THIS 11TH day of September, 2000
Salem, Oregon
/s/
The Older Driver Advisory Committee
Notes:
1 Members of ODAC: Mr. Brad Bayliss, Ms. Lynn Cameron (Oregon
Disabilities Commission), Dr. Irving Dayton, Ms. Lee Girard (Oregon
Senior and Disabled Services Division), Sgt. David Hadley (Multnomah
County Sheriff's Office), Sgt. Bruce Hoffman (Oregon State Police), Dr.
Elizabeth Kutza (Portland State University), Ms. Andi Miller
(Alzheimer's Association), Ms. Phyllis Rand (Governor's Commission on
Senior Services), Dr. Lee Ann Remington (Pacific University College of
Optometry), Ms. Mary Lou Ritter (Oregon Association of Area Agencies on
Aging and Disability), Ms. Beverley Thomas (AARP), and Dr. Katherine
Wild (Oregon Health Sciences University). The ODAC process included a
Memorandum of Collaboration which described the charge to the committee
and its operating procedures. This Memorandum is available upon request
from DMV.
2 The members of ODAC recognized early in their work the challenges
presented by terminology. The term "older" raised key definitional
questions. "In the literature on gerontology, the term "senior citizen"
is associated with several age group0s encompassing all people who are
50 and over. In fact, the ages of 60 and 65 are two thresholds that are
used much more often to refer to senior citizens. Although several
social and economic indicators refer to 65 as the threshold of old age,
it seems that the 60-year mark is increasingly used to this end."
(Vermette and Letourneau, cited in DMV Preliminary Literature Review).
3 Unless otherwise indicated, ODAC approved all recommendations in this
report by consensus. Minority viewpoints are included in corresponding
footnotes. "Consensus" for the purposes of the ODAC process is defined
in the committee's Memorandum of Collaboration beginning on page six.
4 HB 2446(2)(a)(1999).
5 Shorter than the current eight-year cycle.
6 See visual awareness brochure; Remington; Decisions About Driving;
Dobbs.
7 Consensus recommendation. Additionally, two ODAC members, Mr. Brad
Bayliss and Dr. Irving Dayton, recommend the renewal cycle should occur
more frequently once drivers have reached their 50th birthday. This
minority recommendation rests on two principles: first, studies
demonstrate cognitive changes occur in many people as young as age 50,
and an eight-year renewal cycle between the ages of 50 and 65 is too
lengthy for DMV to identify changes in driver ability that might occur
during those years. Second, if the 8-year cycle results in some drivers
renewing their licenses just prior to their 50th birthday, those drivers
would not be required to appear for renewal until age 57, creating a
wide disparity between those drivers and drivers who, by virtue of their
past renewal cycle, might appear at age 51, 52, or 53. The disparity
creates inconsistency.
8 Components of the first tier approved by ODAC members voting unanimous
full support. Additionally, ODAC members voted unanimous full support
to utilize one type of vision screening whenever DMV screens for vision
issues regardless of the applicant's or driver's age. The current DMV
vision screening tests for visual acuity and field of vision only. This
recommendation supports adding a third component to the standard DMV
vision screen, the "Useful Field of View" test.
9 "Useful Field of View" (UFOV) (Owsley and Ball, 1998) tests visual
processing abilities through use of a computer screen showing figures of
cars, trucks, and other objects (see National Institute of Health (NIH)
News Release 4/7/98). Drivers are asked to identify particular objects
amid different kinds of visual distractions on the screen. The "useful
field of view" is defined as the area in which all of the rapidly
presented visual information can be used. UFOV tests speed of
processing (attending to appropriate stimuli), selective attention
(attending to the appropriate stimulus) and divided attention (attending
to multiple stimuli at once; distractibility). The Owsley and Ball
study, reported in the April 8, 1998 issue of the Journal of the
American Medical Association (JAMA), found direct correlation between
performance on the UFOV test and likelihood of involvement in a crash.
"People with a 40 percent or greater impairment in the useful field of
view were more than twice as likely to be involved in a crash. For
every 10 points of reduction in a driver's useful field of view measure,
his or her crash risk rose by 16 percent, regardless of age. Other
vision tests did not predict the risk of future crashes." (NIH News
Release, 4/7/98, at2). Adding the UFOV test to the standard DMV vision
screen would increase the likelihood of identifying applicants who
demonstrate difficulty with processing speed, selective attention, or
divided attention. Applicants who demonstrate difficulty with these
tasks would then receive the Tier 2 portion of the screening to identify
the specific issue and to determine options available to the applicant.
Such options might include the use of skills training, adaptive
equipment, or appropriate restrictions tailored to the driver's specific
needs. Failure of the UFOV would not automatically result in inability
to obtain a first-time or renewed license.
10 Vision screening for drivers who apply for license renewal on or after
their 50th birthday represents the current procedure and has been in
place since 1985. The only change this portion of the recommendation
adds involves the addition of UFOV to the standard vision screen.
11 Stated another way, there are at least three "points of entry" to the
tiered screening: (1) Application for a new license (either first
license or new resident of Oregon applying for the first time); (2)
Routine application for license renewal on or after the applicant's 50th
birthday; and (3) Referral from either an internal DMV staff person or
an external source such as a physician, family member or friend because
the referral source is concerned about the driver's ability to drive
safely. The components of proposed Tier 1 screen vision and visual
attention by testing visual acuity, field of vision, and Useful Field of
View. They would replace the current vision screen, and thus comprise
just one part of the application procedure (in addition to the knowledge
test and drive test, for example.)
12 ODAC reviewed forms utilized by other states such as Missouri for
examples.
13 ORS 807.710 (1999).
14 ORS 807.710.
15 ODAC considered issues of patient confidentiality with respect to
reporting and recommends DMV consult the appropriate resources to
implement policies protecting confidentiality. Similarly, ODAC
recommends DMV explore issues relating to civil liability.
16 This recommendation does not seek to provide a finite list of
participants, but instead to suggest potential interested members. The
list could include others such as the Oregon Optometric Physician
Association.
17 OAR 735-076-0020 (1999).
18 OAR 735-076-0020(2).
19 The implication of this recommendation is that sufficient staff and
funding are necessary to achieve the result and to administer the
program effectively.
20 See ORS 809.480(1).
21 OAR 735-072-0030(1).
22 As of this writing, OAR 735-072-0030(1)(Step One) allows DMV to send an
advisory letter under the following circumstances: (a) A person is
convicted of two traffic offenses occurring within a 12-month period;
(b) A person is involved in two preventable accidents occurring within a
12-month period; or (c) A person is convicted of one traffic offense and
is involved in one preventable accident both occurring within a 12-month
period. Recommendation #14 may operate in conjunction with the existing
rule or may provide concepts for revising the current rule.
Recommendation #14 introduces the language "hazardous violation" to be
included in criteria for determining whether a situation would suggest
the need for a more aggressive response. In addition to an advisory
letter, those drivers meeting the criteria would be required to
participate in at least Tier 1 of the proposed tiered screening process
and possibly Tier 2 depending upon the Tier 1 results. The intent of
this recommendation is to improve the effectiveness of an existing
mechanism (the Driver Improvement Program) in identifying at-risk
drivers earlier.
23 Step Three of the program consists of a driver improvement interview
which is described in OAR 735-072-0040 (1999). During the driver
improvement interview, the DMV driver improvement counselor selects
appropriate remedies based upon the type of violations the driver's
record reflects.
24 HB 2446(2)(b)(1999).
25 HB 2446(2)(c)(1999).
26 ORS 807.710.
27 HB 2446(2)(d).
28 Recommendation #20 reflects two objectives. The first objective
involves increasing public awareness about the existence, purpose, and
benefits of the Driver Re-examination program. The second objectives
involves making the making it easier for the public to use or gain
access to the program.
29 Medical doctors, Doctors of Optometry, Doctors of Osteopathy, Physical
Therapists, Occupational Therapists, Nurse Practitioners, Physicians'
Assistants, and Pharmacists.
30 Department of Public Safety Standards and Training.
31 Or visual ability generally.
32 HB 2446(2) specified that the study need not be limited to the four
areas considered above. During the course of its work, ODAC identified
other issues that play a key role in understanding the needs of older
drivers. The recommendations in this section address these other
issues.
33 "Frontier" means the areas of the state that are inhabited by six or
less persons per square mile and are not rural, suburban or urban. OAR
333-200-0012(10)(1999).
34 "Rural" means a geographic area 10 or more miles from a population
center of 10,000 or more, with a population density of greater than six
persons per square mile. OAR 333-200-0012(25).
35 "Urban" means an incorporated community of 10,000 or more population.
OAR 333-200-0012(28).
36 See "The Older Driver Highway Design Handbook," U.S Dept. of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Publication No.
FHWA-RD-97-135 (1998) at page (v). Specifically, "The 65 and older age
group, which numbered 33.5 million in the United States in 1995, will
grow to more than 36 million by 2005 and will exceed 50 million by 2020,
accounting for roughly one-fifth of the population of driving age in
this country. In effect, if design is controlled by even 85th
percentile performance requirements, the "design driver" of the early
21st century will be an individual over the age of 65."
37 "There are important consequences of the changing demographics in our
driving population. Traffic volumes will increase, problems with
congestion will become more widespread, and the demands on drivers will
grow significantly beyond present-day operating conditions. At the same
time, a steadily increasing proportion of drivers will experience
declining vision; slowed decision making and reaction times; exaggerated
difficulty in dividing attention between rapidly shifting sources of
potential conflicts and other traffic information; and reductions in
strength, flexibility, and overall fitness." Id.
38 Id.
39 Id. at p. 13. See., e.g., (J.) Design Element: Street-Name Signage
(1) "To accommodate the reduction in visual acuity associated with
increasing age, a minimum letter height of 150 mm (6 in.) is recommended
for use on post-mounted street-name signs; and (4): "The use of
redundant street-name signing for major intersections is recommended,
with an advance street-name sign placed upstream of the intersection at
a mid-block location, and an overhead-mounted street-name sign posted at
the intersection."
40 See id. at p. 87. "Burnham (1992) noted that the selection of letter
size for any sign must evaluate the needs of the user, which are
continuously changing as a function of changes in automotive technology,
the roadway system, and the population itself. It is estimated that by
the year 2020, 17 percent or more of the population - nearly one in five
- will be older than 65 years of age (Transportation Research Board,
1988). The ability to read street signs is dependent on visual acuity
as well as divided attention capabilities, both of which decline
significantly with advancing age. . . . Older drivers participating in
focus groups and completing questionnaires for traffic safety
researchers over the past decade have consistently stated that large
street signs with bigger lettering and standardization of sign placement
overhead would make driving an easier task (Yee, 1985; Gurman and
Milstein, 1988; Cooper, 1990; Staplin, Lococo, and Sim, 1990; Benekohal,
Resende, Shim, Michaels, and Weeks, 1992; Knoblauch, Nitzburg, Reinfurt,
Council, Zegeer, and Popkin, 1995)." (emphasis added). Report of the
Older Driver Advisory Committee.