Winter 2010 - ADTSEA

Page 1

Winter 2010 The Chronicle for DE Professionals

The Chronicle ADTSEA

TTTThhhheeee CCCChhhhrrrroooonnnniiiicccclllleeee for Driver Education Professionals

Allen Robinson, Ph.D.Chief Executive, ADTSEA(724) 801-8246 (Office)(724) 349-5042 (Fax)

[email protected](new)http://adtsea.org

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Editorial DeadlinesWinter ‘11 Issue Feb.. 15, 2011Spring ‘10 Issue April 15, 2010Fall ‘10 Issue Oct. 15, 2010

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Table of ContentsWinter 2010

Volume 57 Number 2

A Driver Education Check-Up......................................... 2Chuck Lehning, President

News from the CEO............................................................ 2Allen Robinson, Ph.D.

Teaching the “Right Stuff”Value Outside Mirrors –– Eliminate BGE...................3

Frederik R. Mottola, Executive Director, NIDB

Driving Crash Risks Associated with Alcoholand Other Drugs.........................................................8

Maurice Dennis, Ph.D.

A Short History of Timed Intervals...........................10

TEEN Driver Safety Efforts.......................................10

Development of California’s prospective three-tierdriving-centered assessment system

Two reports from The Traffic Injury ResearchFoundation ................................................................11

Facts about Fatigued DrivingAn evaluation of graduated driver licensing programs

in North America.

Trends in Fatal Crashes Among Drivers WithInvalid Licenses..................................................................15

Publishing InformationSend article submissions to: John Palmer, Ph.D, Editor

832 Halliday RoadSt. Cloud, MN 56301

[email protected]

The Chronicle for Driver EducationProfessionals is published threetimes a year in cooperation withiHighway Safety Services.

Executive CommitteeChuck Lehning President

Kevin Kirby NC RegionLinda Donaldson Sec.Treasurer

Rhonda Reid NSSP LiaisonRoger Voigt Past-President

William Van Tassel Corp. MemberTom Prefling, Corp. Member Fred

Nagao President-Elect

Board of DirectorsStanley Henderson NC Region

Catherine Broderick NEBarry Thayer NE Region

Judy Ode NW RegionWendy Bills NW Region

James Hathaway SC RegionGerald Dickinson, Jr. SC Region

Jo Ellen Suter SE Region Connie Sessoms Jr. SE Region

Shannon Woods SW RegionRolando Dace SW Region

for contact information go to:http://adtsea.org

This publication is prepared usingPageMaker 7.0

Page 2



A Driver Education Check-UpChuck Lehning, ADTSEA President

education. We must always believethat driver education is of thegreatest importance and relay thisbelief to our students, the parents ofour students, and to those inpositions of influence who can havea major impact on driver educationin our school systems; in our localand state governments; and on thenational level. Driver educationdeals with the lifetime skills that canhave a life or death impact.

To answer question #2 you needto reflect on this fact: you are themost important factor in the trainingof your students. I would like to seedriver education have a vocabularychange. For years we have heardthe term driver education instructor.

We are in fact driver educationteachers. We do not just tell studentswhere to go, where to turn, etc. Weare continually teaching our studentssteps for each maneuver, thereference points involved, the

As we grow older we begin todo more health check-ups to seewhat kind of shape we are in. Yearlyphysicals in particular to see howmuch weight we have gained; stresstest to see what shape our heart isin (this is where you sign a papersaying that this test may give you aheart attack...); prostrate checks;colon checks; etc.

I feel that every so often each ofus should give ourselves a drivereducation check-up. Here are twothings I believe we need to consider:

1. How do you view theimportance of driver education asa profession.

2. How do you view yourimportance as a driver educationteacher or a driver educationprofessional?

In looking at question #, I canhonestly say that I know of no othercourse of study that has moreimpact on students lives than driver

application of seeing habits, theprocess for determining risk, etc.

As driver education teachers wemust always make it personal, wemust let our students know we trulycare and we must be the best thatwe can be. We face a major battlebecause, from what I observe, toomany people are very indifferent totraffic safety. However, we mustnever let this bring us down butalways teach the importance of ourprofession. We must reach for thehighest standards, set the highestgoals, and we must do the best jobof teaching possible within theprograms we have.

Thankyou to each of you whodeserve to be called teachers andprofesionals. Thanks for the job youdo. Keep up the good work! Keepthe faith. See you at our nationalconference in St. Louis, Missouri,July 25 - 28, 2010.

News from the CEOAllen Robinson, CEO

Register early and help us plan anexciting conference.

We have relocated the ADTSEAoffice. Velian has moved with me toHighway Safety Services whereADTSEA is now located. The officeis still in Indiana, Pennsylvania andyou can reach us at 877-485-7172.

We are changing the On-linestore to make it easier for membersto access. You will not need a longmember number in the future. It willbe your user name and a passwordthat you create. Be alert for moreinformation. Not only can you renewyour membership and register for aconference, but you can purchasematerials from ADTSEA and ourcorporate members.

Most of us continue to face adifficult financial future. While theeconomy is improving, we still faceserious challenges in state and localsupport for driver education. Be

optimistic and continue to work hard,and we will make progress.

The recently released NationalStandards Proposal has initiated alot of discussion on driver educationaccountability. On the ADTSEAwebpage and the NHTSA web page,the Senior Associate Administrator,Brian McLaughlin has encouragedstate offices of highway safety toconsider these standards as abenchmark in improving their drivereducation programs. The letter alsostates that 402 money can be usedfor this purpose. I encourage you toread the standard and the letterwritten by Brian McLaughlin.

Plan ahead for the 2011ADTSEA Conference in Honolulu,Hawaii, July 18-21. Note that this isone week earlier than 2010 dates.

The 2012 ADTSEA Conferencewill be held in the North Central

As I write my column for thisissue of the Chronicle, there aremany items to include. My goal isto keep it short, but with enoughdetail to be informative. I will startwith news items that you are awareof and provide a status report.

Our election ballots were mailedin February and we have a greatresponse. We will collect ballotsuntil March 31, 2010. The electioncommittee will count ballots on April5, 2010 and the results will beavailable on the web page that day.

Conference registration for theADTSEA and NSSP Conferenceshas been mailed. All registrationand program information is on theweb page. The NSSP programbegins Friday morning, July 23rd,and the ADTSEA conference beginsSunday, July 25th at 1:00 P.M. Alsolook for the host outings informationin your mail. (more on page 17)

Page 3



Teaching the “Right Stuff” Value Outside Mirrors –– Eliminate BGEBy Professor Frederik R. Mottola

Executive Director, National Institute for Driver Behavior

Ten years ago I wanted to writethis article. I avoided doing so for anumber of reasons which I will revealin a short while. I disagreed with thedriver educators who beganadvocating that teens should learnthe practice of tilting the outsidemirror adjustment outward from theside of the vehicle as a solution foreliminating blind zones of the mirrors–– and I still disagree.

If you are teaching the outwardtilt method, this article will presentsome points of consideration thatmay give you a different perspectiveon what is being gained, and on whatis lost to the student.

If you are using the Traditionalsetting (inward tilt to see some partof the vehicle) you gain additionalinformation on how valuable outsiderearview mirrors are to the driver.You will see that the inside andoutside mirrors are both vital forproviding the driver with critical andtimely information. They are notinterchangeable. In either case, it ismy intention to explore bestpractices for mirror settings andpresent how important efficient useof mirrors is to the development oflifelong risk-reducing driving habits.

There are two methods foroutside rearview mirror settingscurrently recommended in drivereducation programs: the TraditionalSetting and the Blind Zone GlareElimination (BGE) Setting.

The Traditional Setting is toadjust the outside rearview mirror tobe able to see a slight amount of thevehicle. The most significantadvantage of being able to see somepart of one’s own vehicle is itprovides a view of traffic directly tothe rear and of traffic approachingfrom adjacent lanes. When theinside rearview mirror is blocked, ornonexistent, the outside mirrors areable to detect rear traffic.

Yes, there is a blind zone to theoutside of the viewing range of theoutside mirrors. To compensate forthis blind zone, students of drivingare taught to make a head check ––a chin to the shoulder headmovement –– to detect the presenceof a vehicle in the blind zone.

The BGE Setting uses anoutward tilt that eliminates seeing theside of the vehicle. There is also theEnhanced method that advocates alesser outward setting than that ofthe BGE, but it also prevents thedriver from seeing the side of thevehicle. For clarification, only theterm BGE will be used to indicate anoutward adjustment where the sideof the vehicle is not in the driver ’sview.

The rationale from those thatadvocate turning the mirrors outwardis that there are overlapping viewsof the inside and outside mirrors.Therefore, because of theoverlapping view, they recommendthat the outside mirror be tiltedoutward to only show what wouldnormally be the blind zone.

It is true that the outside andinside rearview mirrors haveoverlapping views. You can see fromFigures 1and 2 that there is only aslight increase in the outside mirror ’sview from that of the inside rearviewmirror’s view. Although the viewsfrom the inside and outside mirrorsappear to be similar, they serve twodifferent functions for providing thedriver with critical and timelyinformation. The inside rearviewmirror cannot replace the outsidemirrors.

The BGE setting requires driversto rely upon the inside rearviewmirror as the primary mirror and onlycheck the outside mirror to detect thepresence of a vehicle in what wasthe blind zone. This soundsreasonable until you take a close

Figure 1

Figure 2

(more on page 4)

Page 4



Figure 3

A high profile vehicle, such as anSUV, will have more than a 60 footblind zone directly to its rear, asillustrated in Figure 3, which would

hide a low profile car from therearview mirror; nor would theoutside BGE set mirror be able toview it. This car would be in the blindzone caused by the BGE setting!

The outside mirror, adjusted inthe Traditional manner, as illustratedin Figure 4, is able to detect thevehicle to its rear as it is positionedto the outside edge of the lane readyto pass. This is the last opportunityto detect the vehicle before it entersthe blind zone.

Figure 4

BGE Trap #2 Inside mirrorblocked by a tailgater.

Figure 5 shows a BGE adjustedoutside mirror in a traffic situation

look at what is being gained andwhat is being lost. It is impossiblefor the inside mirror to show the viewthat is gained from use of atraditionally adjusted outside mirror.

There are many vehicles wherethere is no inside rearview mirror,and many situations where theinside mirror becomes blocked. Theoutside mirrors must be capable ofseeing the lane directly to the rearto detect a vehicle that is positionedto pass –– especially a small profilecar with an aggressive driver.

The BGE setting may work finefor an experienced driver who hasawareness of the limitations of theBGE method and can adapt to themany changing conditions that affectthe view from the inside mirror. If onerelies exclusively upon the insiderearview mirror to find an openingin the traffic flow before making alane change, as the BGE methoddictates, traps can occur that presenttoo much risk for a novice teen driverto manage.

BGE Trap #1 car hiddenfrom inside mirror.

(from page 3)

Page 5



drivers using the BGE setting cannever have control over a blockageof the inside rearview mirror.

Figure 6

The outside mirror is needed toplan for an opening in a travel lanebefore making a lane change.Without the use of the outside mirrorthere is always the potential for ahuge blind zone in the insiderearview mirror caused bymovement of the traffic flow, andpotential blind zones caused by theinterior conditions of the vehicle.

BGE Trap #3 Inside mirrorblocked by a passenger.A partial blockage of the inside

rearview mirror –– perhaps createdby a passenger seated on the leftside in the backseat –– is illustratedin Figure 7. An aggressive driverapproaching at a fast rate of speedis concealed in the rearview mirror ’sblind zone.

Figure 7

BGEThe teen at this moment would

not detect it in either the inside oroutside mirror. The faster theapproaching car is traveling, the lesstime there will be to detect it. If theaggressive driver is traveling fasterthan the teen driver by 20 m.p.h. (30feet per second), he will be into andout of the outside mirror in less thanone second. What is the chance thatthe teen will check the mirror

Figure 5

with an SUV creating a blind zonein the inside rearview mirror. Anaggressive driver approaching ishidden until he comes into view ofthe outwardly adjusted side viewmirror. The teen would need to lookat the outside mirror at the exactsecond that the aggressive driverhappens to be there. If the teenlooks at the outside mirror while theaggressive driver is in the blindzone created by the SUV and seesnothing, then what will happen ispurely a blind chance. There is noopportunity to plan for theaggressive driver’s actions.

Figure 6 is the same situationexcept this time the teen has themirror adjusted in the Traditionalsetting. There could be severalseconds of opportunity to detect theaggressive driver before he entersthe known area creating the outsidemirror’s blind zone.

Drivers using the traditionalsetting have one blind zone thatis always in the same location. But,

(from page 4)

(more on page 6)

Page 6



precisely at that moment? Supposethe teen checks the outside mirror,finds it is clear, and begins makingthe lane change while the concealedaggressive driver reaches the blindzone area at the same time. Theaggressive driver blasts the horn,and the teen driver reacts byswerving the car back into his lane–– a recipe for a disastrous rollovercrash. The more passengers in theteen’s car, the more restrictions toseeing out the rear window, and thefaster the pitch and roll forces willget out of balance anduncontrollable as the teen takes thatfirst swerving action.

What is very scary is the thought

of a motorcyclist being driven by ayoung or clueless operator travelingat extreme speeds, weaving in andout of traffic, approaching the side ofthe teen’s vehicle just as he beginsto move into his “passing lane.”There is no way the BGE trainedteenager would be able to see thatmotorcyclist. With the Traditionalmirror setting, the driver would neverhave lost sight of the motorcyclistwhen the outside mirror waschecked.

Figure 8 shows the sameaggressive driver approaching thecar with the teen having the mirroradjusted in the Traditional manner.The teen would have had severalseconds to detect the vehicle whileit was in view of the outside mirror.The blind zone would be for only afraction of a second.

On one hand, the teen with theBGE setting would have less thanone second to find and solve theproblem. On the other hand, the teenwith the traditional mirror settingwould have several seconds to seethe aggressive driver approaching ata fast rate of speed and not besurprised as the driver enters andleaves the blind zone in less than onesecond. If the teen was yourdaughter, which mirror setting wouldyou want her to have to manage thatcritical second?

The way drivers are required touse the BGE method is to first lookat the inside mirror to evaluateconditions, then glance at the outsidemirror. If a driver with the traditionalsetting spent the same amount oftime checking the outside mirror,there would be fewer surprises andbetter prepared drivers.

BGE Trap #4 Merging into atraffic flow.With the mirror set in the traditionalmanner, Figure 10,a driver is able toget a deep view of approaching trafficin the adjacent lane to search for apotential opening. By making severalchecks it is easy to see where anopening will be. The blind zone can

be checked with a quick roll of theeyes rearward while looking at theoutside mirror. The BGE outwardadjusted mirror, Figure 9, cannotprovide a deep search into theadjacent lane, which makes ituseless for being able to find andplan for a potential opening in amerging traffic flow.

Limitation of Inside Mirror Howwide, or how complete of a view thedriver receives from the insiderearview mirror is determined by toomany factors that often are not underthe control of the driver. All driversare exposed to many different typevehicles during their lifetime ofdriving. When they drive a vehiclesuch as a pickup truck with a cap onit blocking the rearview, they haveno mirrors to use. If they have cargo,or passengers blocking the insidemirror, they are missing accurateinformation of what is occurring tothe rear. There are too manyvehicles, and too many conditions,that will prevent the inside rearviewmirror from giving the driverconsistent and necessaryinformation time after time.

Many of the situations one willbe exposed to will be in heavy trafficflows where it may be necessary tochange into a lane that is two or threelanes away. The traditional methodgives the driver the ability to makeone lane change at a time whilereceiving information about when theopening will occur in the nextadjacent lane.

Often, for a driver to be rescuedfrom a behind-theeight-ball situation,one source must provide total andaccurate information within the blinkof an eye. The BGE method will notprovide a “one glance” view of a“safe or not safe” condition!

The acid-test is, will the BGEwork for all vehicles and for all trafficsituations? It doesn’t! The drivereducation program that teacheseffective use of the outside mirrorswith the traditional setting is

Figure 8

(more on page 7}

(from page 5)

Page 7



preparing students with a set ofbehaviors that can apply to allvehicles and all traffic conditionsthat they will encounter during theirlifetime of driving. For habit todevelop, hundreds of repetitionsneed to take place. Driver educationprograms can provide the teen withthe repetitions by implementing onerule, “before turning the steeringwheel, turn your head to check theside mirror in the direction of theturn, and look to your intendeddriving path.”

With an increase inmotorcyclists on the highways andbicyclists in urban areas, it is a goodrisk-reducing behavior to make aquick glance at the traditionally setoutside mirror before turning thesteering wheel. Teens can gethundreds of repetitions checkingthe mirrors before making left andright turns, before pulling away froma curb, before turning into adriveway, as well as before makinga lane change.

We in traffic safety arecommitted to helping drivers reducerisk, not increase their risk.Instructors who have adopted theBGE setting had good intentions ofdoing such.

Using a risk-reduction argumentof what is to be gained and what isto be lost, it clearly shows wecannot justify the cost of thepotential error of the BGE methodagainst the gain to be achieved.

Before making a lane changethere are three bits of informationthat are essential for drivers tohave.

• A driver needs to know what thetraffic to the immediate rear is goingto do, or is doing.• A driver needs to know if there arevehicles, or will be vehicles,occupying the space he wants tomove into.• A driver needs to make certain thatthere are no vehicles hidden in themirror’s blind zone.

Now, the reasons this articlewasn’t written years ago: First,I didnot believe that anyone would bewilling to surrender the value ofoutside mirrors by relegating themto merely making a blind zone check.Second, thought that writing aboutthe BGE would call more attention

to it than what was deserved. Third,there were better alternatives thanthe BGE to eliminate the blind zone,such as: Drivers can lean their headeight inches forward while glancingat the outside mirror and get thesame view that the BGE would givewithout sacrificing the value of theoutside mirror. Also, an effectivelydesigned and placed convex mirrorwould eliminate the blind zone. Now,unlike ten years ago, carmanufacturers are addressing blindzones with built-in convex mirrors, orwith radar sensors, both using theTraditional Setting.

For more info: [email protected]

Corporate Members of ADTSEAAAA Foundation for Traffic Safety

AAA Traffic Safety ServicesAdvanced Auto Parts

Driving School Associations of the Americas

Costech TechnologiesCountry Insurance & Financial Services

Delmare Cenage Learning

Doron Precision Systems,Inc.National Road Safety Foundation

NTSA InternationalMotorcycle Safety Foundation

PearsonRaydon Corporation

Simulator Systems InternationalState Farm Insurance Companies

Figure 9(from page 6) Figure 10

Page 8



Driving Crash Risks Associated with Alcohol and Other DrugsBy Dr. Maurice Dennis

feeling, lowered alertness, andrelease of inhibitions..08% - Muscle coordinationbecomes poor (e.g., balance,speech, vision, reaction time, andhearing), harder to detect danger,and judgment, self-control,reasoning, and memory areimpaired..10% - Clear deterioration ofreaction time and control, slurredspeech, poor coordination, andslowed thinking..15% - Far less muscle control thannormal, vomiting may occur(unless this level is reached slowlyor a person has developed atolerance for alcohol), and majorloss of balance.

Actual driving impairment:.02% - Decline in visual functions(rapid tracking of a moving target),and decline in ability to perform twotasks at the same time (dividedattention)..05% - Reduced coordination,reduced ability to track moving

objects, difficulty steering, andreduced response to emergencydriving situations..08% - Concentration, short-termmemory loss, speed control,reduced information processingcapability (e.g., signal detection,visual search), and impairedperception..10% - Reduced ability to maintainlane position and brakeappropriately..15% - Substantial impairment invehicle control, attention to drivingtask, and in visual and auditoryinformation processing.

Risk of fatal collision – GreaterBAC produces greater risk (Zador,2000). Model-based risk of driverfatalities in single-vehicle (SV)crashes and driver involvement in allfatal crashes (All) as a function ofdriver BAC by gender and age,relative to sober drivers of the sameage and gender.

Crash responsibility – Whilea collision between a sober driver

While any substance whichproduces impairment in physical ormental abilities can create increasedrisks to motor vehicle operators, itis important to seek to indentify thetypes of impairments from use ofboth alcohol and other drugsindividually and in combination. Keyissues are:

- Driving related impairment- Actual driving impairment- Risk of fatal crashes- Crash responsibility

Outlined herein is a brief overviewof these factors.Alcohol:

Driving related impairments –Much research has shown losses,even at BAC’s under per se limits(ABCs of BAC, 2005) Theseinclude:

.02% - Some loss of judgment,relaxation, slight body warmthand, altered mood..05% - Exaggerated behavior,may have loss of small-musclecontrol (e.g., focusing your eyes),impaired judgment, usually good

BAC Crash

type000 010-019 020-049 050-079 080-099 100-149 150+

Male Age 16-20 SV 1.00 1.55 4.64 17.32 51.87 240.89 15,559.85

All 1.00 1.42 3.44 9.94 24.03 82.73 2,371.74Age 21-34 SV 1.00 0.08 2.75 6.53 13.43 36.89 572.55

All 1.00 0.18 2.04 3.76 6.25 12.74 88.13Age 35+ SV 1.00 0.07 2.57 5.79 11.38 29.30 381.68

All 1.00 0.18 2.02 3.70 6.13 12.41 84.13Female Age 16-20 SV 1.00 1.35 2.86 7.04 14.91 42.63 738.36

All 1.00 1.22 1.98 3.56 5.80 11.50 73.62Age 21-34 SV 1.00 0.08 2.75 6.53 13.43 36.89 572.55

All 1.00 0.18 2.04 3.76 6.25 12.74 88.13Age 35+ SV 1.00 0.07 2.57 5.79 11.38 29.30 381.68

All 1.00 0.18 2.02 3.70 6.13 12.41 84.13

(more on page 9)

Page 9



and an intoxicated driver could bethe fault of the sober driver, it ismuch more likely to be the drinkingdriver’s fault (Longo, et.al, 2000).Other drugs

Driving related impairment:Marijuana – relaxation,

reduced inhibitions, anddrowsiness.

Cocaine – Restlessness,euphoria, and excitement.

Valium – Sleepiness andconfusion.

LSD – Unpredictable,hallucinations, and alteredmental state.

Amphetamines – Euphoria,restlessness, and alertness.

Ecstasy – Relaxation, calm,agitation.

Benzodiazepines - Sedationand coordination.

PCP – Euphoria, calmness,and disorientation.

Actual driving impairment:Marijuana – Handling, slower

reaction time, time/distanceestimation, and vigilance.

Cocaine – High risk behavior,inattention, loss of vehicle control,and judgment.

Valium – Ignore signs,confusion, and erratic driving.

LSD – Reaction time, visualacuity, and distorted perception.

Amphetamine – Dividedattention, and risk taking.

Ecstasy – Informationprocessing, and speeding.

Benadryl – Alertness, reactiontime, and drowsiness.

PCP – Disorientation, doublevision, and hand/eye coordination(Jones, 2003).

Risk of a crash – Someresearch has shown no increasedcrash risks with marijuana, cocaine,benzodiazepines, or sedatingantihistamines. Other studies haveshown increased crash risks fordrugs, but the amount of increasewere much lower than for alcohol oralcohol combined with other drugs(Leville, 1994).Crash responsibility – Very littlework has been done to seek todetermine crash responsibility ofnon-alcohol drugs. One study ofMarijuana, however, found thatincreased crash responsibility isprimarily only found when Marijuanais combined with alcohol (Terhune,1992).

Combining alcohol and otherdrugs – This may result in anaddition, synergistic or anantagonizing effect depending onthe substances, purity, and amountinvolved.

Amphetamines, for example,have been shown to antagonizealcohols depressant effects to somedegree, but do not counteractalcohols’ motor function impairment.

Barbiturates work in asynergistic manner to enhance theeffect of alcohol. Reaction time islonger and judgment is impaired.

Benzodiazepines – (Xanax andValium are examples) can haveadditive or synergistic whencombined with alcohol. This couldcause unsteadiness and impairedmotor performance.

Cocaine – Mixing cocaine andalcohol may counteract someimpairment produced by alcohol.

Marijuana – Combing alcoholand Marijuana primarily produce an

BAC % Responsible for Crash

.01 - .05 64%

.05 - .079 88%

.08 - .149 92%

.15 and greater 96%

additive effect which may result ingreater losses than either substancealone (Longo, 2000).Summary

As has been shown, alcohol andother drugs produce numerouslosses which can and do result inincreased risk of motor vehiclecrashes. However, there is muchmore evidence of the role of alcoholin crashes. Crashes which involveother drugs often involve alcohol.Thus alcohol has been shown to bethe greater villain.References

Jones, R.K., Shinar, D., & Walsh,J.M. (2003). State of knowledge ofDrug-Impaired Driving. DOT HS 809642. Washington, DC: National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration.

Leville, S.G., Buchnre, D.M.,Koepsell, T.D., McCloskey, L. W., Woof,M.W., & Wagner, E.H. (1994).Psychoactive medications and injuriousmotor vehicle collisions involving olderdrivers. Epidemiology 5 (6): 591-598.

Longo, M.C., Hunter, C.E., Lokan,R.J., White, J.M., & White, M.A. (2000).The Prevalence of alcohol,cannabinoids, benzodiazepines andstimulants amongst injured drivers andtheir role in driver culpability. Accident,Analysis and Prevention, 32(5): 623-32.

National Highway Traffic SafetyAdministration. (2005). The ABCs ofBAC. DOT HS 809 844. Washington,DC.

Terhune, K., Ippolito, C., Hendricks,D., Michalovic, J., Bogema, S.,Santinga, P., et. al. (1992). Theincidence and role of drugs in fatallyinjured drivers. DOT HS 808 065.Washington, DC: National HighwayTraffic Safety Administration.

Zador, P.L. (2000). Alcohol RelatedRelative Risk of Fatal Driver Fatalities,and Driver Involvement in Fatal Crashes

(from page 8)

Page 10



A Short HistoryProfessor Frederik R. Mottola

Executive Director, NIDBHere is a short history of the

timed-interval for following distance.In 1967 Alfred C. Finch wrote anarticle in Traffic Safety, a publicationof the National Safety Councilentitled “A Following Distance YouCan Count On,” where he advocateduse seconds to measure distancerather than using car lengths. I don’tremember whether he actuallyrecommended any number ofseconds as much as the concept. Ipresented a program at the ADTSEAConference in 1969 where Iadvocated keeping five secondsofspace. “Strive for Five” with aminimum of three. In 1970 Icontracted with AT&T to develop atraining program for their Long Linesdivision across the country. I thenrecommended four seconds. AT&Tproduced several videos andtraining materials and helpedpromote the concept. The reasonwhy we need at least 3 or 4 secondsas compared to 2 is for “conversiontime.” to go from being unaware toconsciously aware of a closingsituation. Two seconds is onlyadequate if a driver is fully attentiveto what the traffic ahead is doing. Aswe know drivers get distracted andit is for that reason we need to have“perception” time build in so when adriver inadvertently closes in on thetraffic ahead there is recognition ofthe problem with the opportunity tostill make a normal brakingresponse. I have written manyarticles about the reasons we needto keep four seconds (three secondsis an acceptable compromise). Hereis a link from one article that may beuseful.http://web.mac.com/d_college/iWeb/NIDB/Digest/Digest_files/Following%20Space.pdf ]http://web.mac.com/d_col lege/iWeb/N I D B / D i g e s t / D i g e s t _ f i l e s /Following%20Space.pdf

Here is an excerpt from thearticle:Change the Monster Inside You to aLifeguard!

So, the challenge is, howconvinced are you of the value ofkeeping four seconds of space inyour own driving? At this time, youeither have the 4-second habit, oryou don’t. If you do have it as a habit,you cannot agree with me more onhow beneficial it is. You feel perfectlycomfortable with that amount ofspace.

However, if you don’t have it asa habit, and the less your followingspace is, the more internalresistance you will experience.There truly will appear to be amonster inside you saying, there isno way you can keep four seconds;cars will always be cutting in front ofyou; it will feel like you’re goingbackwards; the car in back will beannoyed with you... All of thesefeelings come from your discomfortin doing something that is not habit.Bad habits are like a monster insidemaking you feel uncomfortable. If infact you fight that monster within,and you acquire a new internal valueof feeling good with a 4-secondfollowing space, then you havetamed the monster and you will havea lifeguard inside you. The lifeguardwill give you the same feelings ofdiscomfort that your monster wasgiving you, but this time when youstart to close in with less than 4seconds of space your lifeguard willsound an alert warning you that youare getting into a danger zone. Turnyour internal feelings into atremendous advantage. Don’t settlefor mediocre behavior.

TEEN Driver Safety EffortsThe Children’s Hospital of

Philadelphia (CHOP) has respondedto questions from the 2009 October19 Webinar on the topic of DrivingThrough the Eyes of Teens: A CloserLook. The answers provide a greatand very useful review of the

material presented. Also, if youhaven’t recently visited their website,I encourage you to do so. Both thewebinar video recording and theanswers to questions are postedthere as well as a wealth of otherinformation. www.chop.edu/youngdrivers<http://www.chop.edu/youngdrivers>

Development of California’sprospective three-tier driving-centered assessment system

Dave Hennessy, Ph.D.Private Consultant

I am pleased to finally share withyou the just released DMVpublication: Clearing a road to beingdriving fit by better assessing drivingwellness: Development ofCalifornia’s prospective three-tierdriving-centered assessmentsystem (Technical Report). A pdfmay be found here:http://www.dmv.ca.gov/about/profile/rd / r_ d _ re po r t /Se c t i o n %2 02 /sec_II_216.pdf.

Below are two excerpts from thebeginning and ending pages of the“Highlights.”

Would you be surprised to learnthat among older driver-license-renewal applicants the ones who weneed to worry the most about wouldlikely pass a road test? That’s whatwe predicted when we looked atdriving from an ecologicalperspective. In an ecologicalperspective, drivers are viewed asactively adjusting the demands oftheir driving environments and thedemands of their driving tasks inaccordance with their perception oftheir driving-relevant abilities andlimitations. We confirmed this andother ecology-driven predictions withour study of California’s prospectivethree-tier driving-centeredassessment system. Driving-centered is an ecological concept—it means taking into considerationwhen, where, why, and howindividual drivers customarily drive.

(more on page 11)

Page 11



(from page 10)The traditional approach toassessment, taken by most DMVs,is driver-centered. Traditionalassessment is focused on theaccurate identification of high-riskdrivers. It is an endpoint in thecontrolling and delicensing of theseproblem drivers. Traditionalassessment does not take intoconsideration when, where, why,and how individual driverscustomarily drive.

The driving-centered Three-TierAssessment System (3-Tier)described in this study reportrepresents fundamental changes inthe approach and objectives ofdriver assessment. 3-Tier is offeredas the answer to the followingfundamental question posed at thebeginning of the study:

How can the DMV better identifyand assess licensed drivers ofany age who have acquired adriving-relevant functionallimitation(s) so that the DMV,together with physicians, driving-rehabilitation specialists, andothers can aid such drivers, iffeasible, in driving safely byreferring for physician-basedevaluation and treatment,educating about driving-relevantlimitation(s), recommendingbehind-the-wheel training,restricting (conditional licensure),and so on?Rather than an endpoint, 3-Tierfundamentally alters the purposeof assessment to be a startingpoint in extending the safe drivingyears of functionally-limitedlicensed drivers.California’s prospective three-tierdriving-centered assessmentsystem serves as the startingpoint for initiating various meansof extending the safe-drivingyears of functionally-limitedlicensed drivers. By extendingtheir safe-driving years, 3-Tieraids functionally-limited drivers inmaintaining their safe mobility

which is viewed as a resource foreveryday healthy living in ouraging driving population.

The study report concludes with22 recommendations for statewideimplementation of a 3-Tier driving-centered assessment system.

TIRF releases two newpublications on fatigued driving.

The first is a primer entitled TheFacts about Fatigued Driving inOntario – a Guidebook for Police andthe second is a brochure gearedtowards the public, entitled, FatiguedDriving, Fast Facts.

The Guidebook is a summary ofpeer-reviewed research and thefindings from two Ontario pollsconducted by TIRF of more than 800police officers in Ontario, and some750 Ontario drivers. The purpose ofthe Guidebook is to provide policeadministrators and officers withresearch-based knowledge aboutthe magnitude and characteristics ofthe fatigued driving problem and howfatigued drivers and fatigue-relatedcrashes are being handled.

The brochure is a pamphletdesigned to provide drivers with thefacts on fatigued and drowsy driving,the warning signs and the risksinvolved. It also debunks the mythssurrounding caffeine and other short-term fixes and identifies strategiesto prevent fatigued driving.

TIRF would like to thank theRoyal Canadian Mounted Police(RCMP), the Ontario ProvincialPolice (OPP) and Toronto PoliceServices (TPS) for facilitating thefielding of the survey to policeagencies across Canada and fortheir feedback on the Guidebook.

For more information on theGuidebook and to download a copy,visit the Projects & Publicationssection of our website or copy andpaste the following URL, http://w w w . t i r f . c a / p u b l i c a t i o n s /publications_show.php?pub_id=235.

For more information on thebrochure and to download a copy,

visit the Projects & Publicationssection of our website or copy andpaste the following URL, http://w w w . t i r f . c a / p u b l i c a t i o n s /publications_show.php?pub_id=237.

If you would like to order printedcopies of either document, pleasecontact [email protected]. There is aminimum charge per order for non-members/donors of $25.00(Canadian dollars) to cover shippingand handling. For more information,please contact: Sara OglestoneTraffic Injury Research Foundation(TIRF) 877-238-5235 (toll free)[email protected] www.tirf.ca

An evaluation of graduateddriver licensing programs in

North America.The Traffic Injury Research

FoundationThis study analyses the relative

fatality risks of 16-, 17-, 18- and 19-year old drivers using a meta-analytic approach and was the resultof a collaborative effort betweenTIRF and the TransportationResearch Institute at HasseltUniversity in Belgium (IMOB).

Reviews of the evaluationliterature to date have confirmed theoverall beneficial safety effects ofgraduated driver licensing (GDL),but have provided few reliableinsights into which GDL programsare most effective and which specificprogram features are mostsuccessful. The objectives of thisstudy were to calculate a summarystatistic of GDL effectiveness, toidentify the most effectivecomponents of GDL programs, andto help understand how GDLcomponents achieve their effect.

An article on this study entitled,An evaluation of graduated driverlicensing programs in North Americausing a meta-analytic approachappears in Accident Analysis and

To download a copy of the report,go to: <http://tirf .ca/publications/publications_show.php?pub_id=234>h t t p : / / t i r f . c a / p u b l i c a t i o n s /publications_show.php?pub_id=234

Page 12



Page 13



AAA

Page 14



SSI

Page 15



Trends in Fatal Crashes Among DriversWith Invalid Licenses

DOT HS 811 229 December 2009

SummaryA valid license is one of the key

requirements to drive a motor vehicleas per the laws of every State. Thisresearch note analyzes data ondrivers 16 and older in fatal crasheswith invalid licenses. Major findingsand statistical definitions arepresented below. The number ofdrivers 16 and older involved in fatalcrashes with invalid licenses is onaverage 6,934 each year and had a2-percentage-point growth rate overthe past decade (1998 to 2007).

The proportion of invalid licensesfor drivers 16 and older in fatalcrashes increased from 11 percentto 14 percent in the past 10 years,averaging 12 percent.Definitions

Driver with invalid license: Amotor vehicle driver with invalidlicense in a crash includes a driverwho does not have a license or whodoes not have a valid license for theclass of vehicle being driven at thetime of the crash, and includes alicense that has been suspended,revoked, expired, denied, orcancelled.

Young drivers: Motor vehicledrivers 16 to 20 years old.

Young adult drivers : Motorvehicle drivers 21 to 40 years old.

Adult drivers: Motor vehicledrivers 41 to 64 years old.

Older drivers: Motor vehicledrivers 65 and older.

Annual proportion: Thenumber of drivers 16 or older in fatalcrashes with invalid licenses dividedby the total number of drivers 16 orolder in fatal crashes for a singleyear.

10-year proportion: The 10-year total drivers 16 and older in fatalcrashes with invalid licenses dividedby the 10-year total drivers 16 andolder involved in fatal crashes.

Yearly change rate: For drivers 16or older in fatal crashes with invalidlicenses, calculate change rate bythe present year number minusprevious year number, then dividedby previous year number.

10-year average change rate:The geometric mean has been usedto estimate the average rates ofchange. It is the ninth root of theproduct of a set of yearly changerates from 1998 to 2007.Data

Five factors including year, state,sex, age, and license typecompliance have been used toanalyze and integrate the data fromthe Fatality Analysis ReportingSystem (FARS). FARS is a censusof fatal crashes that occurred withinthe 50 States, District of Columbia,and Puerto Rico.

Only complete cases with thesefive factors from 1998 to 2007 havebeen used. In other words, fatalcrash cases with any missing orunknown values among those fivefactors have not been used in thestatistical procedure of this researchnote. The number of complete casesaccounted for 97 percent of totalcases in FARS.Analysis

The number of drivers 16 andolder in fatal crashes with invalidlicenses by year and driver type hasbeen summarized in Table 1. Thistable also contains the yearly changerate and 10-year average changerate by driver type.

In addition, the data in the sametable have been used to calculate theannual proportion and 10-yearproportion of invalid licenses.

In total, there were 563,135drivers 16 and older involved in fatalcrashes from 1998 to 2007, 12percent (69,337) of whom had invalidlicenses at the time of the fatalcrashes; that is 12 invalid licenses

per 100 drivers. Over the 10-yearperiod, the number of drivers 16 andolder with invalid licenses hasincreased by an average of 2 percenteach year.

The 10-year proportion of invalidlicenses was 14 percent for maledrivers and 7 percent for femaledrivers. The 10-year average changerate is 2 percent for male drivers and1 percent for female drivers. Both theproportion and rate for male driversis two times higher than femaledrivers.

Among the four age groups, theyoung adult drivers had the highest10-year proportion of invalid licensesat 17 percent, followed by the youngdrivers at 16 percent, the adultdrivers at 8 percent, and the olderdrivers at an average of 3 percent.

The adult drivers had thegreatest increase rate in invalidlicenses, up by 5 percent per yearon average. Young adult drivers hadan average of 2 percent change ratein the past 10 years. The 10-yearaverage change rate of number ofinvalid licenses is decreasing forboth young and older drivers at a rateof 1 percent.

Trend data indicates the annualproportion of invalid licenses fordrivers 16 and older in fatal crashesincreased from 11 percent to 14percent in past 10 years, in otherwords,the proportion of validlicenses decreased from 89 percentto 86 percent as shown in Figure 1.

From 1998 to 2007, the numberof drivers 16 and older in fatalcrashes with invalid licenses had a2-percentage-point increase.However, the proportion of invalidlicenses had a 3-percentage-pointincrease. This indicates that theincrease in drivers with invalidlicenses has outpaced the increasein the number of drivers involved.

(more on page 16)

Page 16



As the data in Figure 2 shows,the annual proportion of invalidlicenses for male drivers 16 andolder in fatal crashes has increased

from 13 percent in 1998 to 16 percentin 2007. This difference is asignificant increase for male drivers.However, no significant change is

seen in the annual proportion forfemale drivers, which increasedfrom 7 percent to 8 percent in thesame time interval.Figure 3 illustrates 10-year trenddata in the annual proportion ofdrivers with invalid licenses forfour age groups: young driver,young adult driver, adult driver,and older driver.As the figure shows, the annualproportion of invalid licenses foryoung drivers ranges from 15percent to 18 percent with nodefinitive direction in trend. Theannual proportion of invalidlicenses for young adult drivershas risen over the past 10 years– from 16 percent to 20 percent.The annual proportion of invalidlicenses for adult drivers alsoincreased to 9 percent from 7percent. The annual proportionof invalid licenses for olderdrivers is relatively constant, withonly slight fluctuations around 3

percent.Trend in Each State

Table 2 (on page 18) shows abreakdown for drivers 16 and olderin fatal crashes with invalid licensesby State and by year. It alsopresents the trend in each State by10-year average change rate. AsTable 2 shows, West Virginia hasthe highest increasing rate,increasing by 9 percent per yearon average, and Rhode Island hasthe greatest decreasing rate,declining by 18 percent per year onaverage.

The average number rangesfrom 10 per year in the District ofColumbia to 888 per year inCalifornia. The 10-year proportionof invalid licenses ranges from 6percent in Maine, Mississippi, andNew Hampshire to 22 percent inArizona, as depicted in Table 3 fordrivers 16 and older in fatal crasheswith invalid licenses.For More Information

This research note was written(more on page 17)

(more on page 15)

Page 17



by Dow Chang, Ph.D., P.E., astatistician in the Data Reportingand Information Division. Forquestions regarding the informationpresented in this document, pleasecontact [email protected].

Internet users at: www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/CATS/index.aspx

region. North Central region boardmembers should begin consideringtheir ability to host our annualconference.

I end with sad news concerningDavid Huff, Montana DriverEducation Supervisor. David hasbeen diagnosed with a rapidlygrowing brain tumor. He is in SanFrancisco for treatment. A web pagewill keep you apprised of hisprogress. You will find a link on theADTSEA web page. Our prayers arewith David and his family.

(from 2)

(from page 16)

Page 18



Date post:	02-May-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	khangminh22
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Winter 2010 - ADTSEA

Documents