Improving the Safety of Older Road Users (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

70 APPENDIX B State DOT Survey Results for Planning for Older Road Users 1. Does your state have a comprehensive strategic highway safety plan? 1a. If yes, does plan address older road user safety and mobility? 1b. Identified goals or objectives for older road users. State 1c. Other agencies or organizations collaborated with to develop plan. Arizona Yes Yes Yes—2 goals listed GOHS, DPS, FHWA, FMCSA California — — — Colorado Yes No Do consider, but not shown to be problem NHTSA, FHWA, Dept. of Revenue, DMV Connecticut Yes SA plan has age analysis, but older population not a big safety concern DMV, AARP, AAA, Health Dept., Police Dept. Workgroup (8 agencies) Florida Yes proficiency in elder drivers Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Dept. of Elder Affairs, Dept. of Health, others Georgia Initiated — — Other agencies to be included Iowa Yes Yes See SMS Toolbox Depts. of Public Safety, Insurance, Elder Affairs, Public Health, EMS, AAA, AARP, MPOs/RPAs, county engineers, other SMS membership Maryland Yes o specific objectives) No Massachusetts Initiated — — DOT, GHS Bureau, Public Safety, others Michigan Yes include safety, basic mobility, and transportation services coordination No Minnesota Yes (pending approval) No No Mississippi No — No Missouri Initiated Yes Yes—5 goals listed Dept. of Health, SHP, Highway Safety, NHTSA, FHWA, Motor Carriers, Revenue, AAA, others Montana — — — — New Jersey Initiated Yes Yes Yes—3 goals listed Other agencies may be included New York Yes All ages See Gov’s. Traffic Safety Committee website None identified North Dakota — — — — Oklahoma Yes Yes No Yes Traffic Safety Forum—FHWA, FMCSA, DOT, Safe Kids, Chiefs of Police, AAA, DPS Oregon — — — Pennsylvania New plan in process Yes Assessm Dept. of Health, Dept. of Aging, AARP, AAA, others Texas — — — Virginia — — — Washington Yes ent and reporting by physicians State Patrol, Licensing, Traffic Safety Commission, AAA, Assoc. or Washington Cities West Virginia No — — — Idaho and Guam also responded to the survey, but indicated they did not have programs in place yet. GOHS = Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (Arizona); RPA = regional planning affiliation (Iowa); DPS = department of public safety. No NHTYes Yes Yes—Sustain Yes (n Yes Goals — Yes No No No , State Agency

71 2. Engaged in any other long-range planning for older road users? 2a. Goals and objectives developed 2b. When did this take place? State 2c. Other agencies or organizations collaborated with? Arizona Gov. Committee— “Aging 2020 Plan Executive Order” 2004 Dept. of Economic Security, Dept. of Health, others California Developed statewide plan for older drivers and pedestrians 2002–2003 (currently implementing) Statewide task force—CHP, DMV, Dept. of Aging, AARP, AAA, Commission on Aging, Dept. Health Services, EMS Authority, SF Dept. of Public Health, Calif. AAA, Center for Injury Prevention Policy and Practice Colorado No (see above) (annual planning) Dept. of Revenue, DMV, various other state and local agencies Connecticut No — — — Florida Promote alternative transportation options; Promote Elder Road User program at local level 2003–2004 2005–2006 (planned) Florida Dept. of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles/At-Risk Driver Advisory Council; City and county agencies; At-Risk Driver Advisory Council members (AARP, physicians, agencies on aging, others) Georgia No — — — Iowa Local Safety Conscious Planning events 2003 MPOs and RPAs, DPS/Gov’s. Traffic Safety Bureau, Iowa SMS Maryland No—Long range planning covered by SHA and HSO plans. Massachusetts No — — — Michigan (SLRTP) (see above) 2001, 2002 Yes—Many agencies and organizations invited to provide comment and input to the plan Minnesota No — Mississippi No — Missouri No — Montana — — New Jersey Yes Promote mobility, safety, and health — Departments of Transportation, Health & Senior Services, Education, State New York Yes Attached. Also see www.nysgtsc.state. ny.us/senr-ndx.htm 2002 Yes—NYS Office of the Aging (lead agency, DMV) North Dakota — W — Oklahoma ill be in 2005–30 SLRTP — 004–2005 No Oregon No — — — — — — 2 — — — — — — — Pennsylvania No — Texas No — Virginia No — Washington No — West Virginia No — — — — — — — — — — — Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes SLRTP = statewide long-range transportation plan.

72 State DOT collaborations on older road user issues: MPO involvement State 3. Yes— Yes— No Yes— Yes— Yes—Califo With other state agencies 4. With public or private sector 5. Liaison with state office on aging 6. Formed state coalition or task force? 7. Extent address ORU issues 8. Extent involve AAAs in planning Arizona GOHS, DPS Yes—AAA, medical societies, others Yes, informal No Some do Few or no California rnia Pedestrian Safety Task Force 1997– present See #2 No Yes—DOT led Pedestrian Safety Task Force Some do Some do Colorado Normal interagency work and through research questionnaires Yes—Medical Society, AARP No No Unknown Unknown Connecticut DOT/Bureau of Public Transp. ex- officio member of Commission on Aging Yes—see 1c response Yes, informal No Most or all Most or all Florida Dept. of Health, Dept. of Elder Affairs, DHSMV At-Risk Driver Advisory Council members Yes, informal Yes—led by DHSMV Some Most or all Georgia No No — Some Some Iowa DOT/Driver Services, DPS, Transit, Elder Affairs Yes—County Engineers Assoc., AARP, local Agencies on Aging, others Yes, informal Yes—Iowa SMS Older Driver Task Force Unknown (at least one does) Unknown (at least one does) Maryland Yes (see #6) Yes—local traffic safety coordinators work with AAA, AARP, AOA Yes, No formal Yes—1996 partnership with MVA to create MD Res. & Dev. Consortium, led by Med. Review Board U Un nknown Unknown Massachusetts No No No known Unknown Michigan part of Elderly Mobility Work Group Yes—planning a joint conference Yes, informal Yes—OHS Planning is leading Most or all Unknown Minnesota No No No No — No Few or Few or — no Few or no Mississippi No No No no Few or no Missouri No No No No Few or no Few or no Montana — — — — New Jersey Yes—DHHS Division of Aging & Human Services, DMV Yes—AAA, AARP, senior housing, others Yes, informal Yes—NJDOT leading Few or Som — no Few or no New York — Yes—Gov’s. TSC grant programs Yes, — informal No e Some North Dakota — — — — Oklahoma No No No No Most or all Most or all

73 Oregon No Yes—state No No No known Unknown Pennsylvania No Yes—EMS, med. profession Yes, informal No Yes— Som Un e Few or no Texas task force to address engineering, driver performance/ retesting, education Yes No Yes—Dept. of Health lead agency Few or no Few or no Virginia No Yes, informal No Few or no Few or no Washington — Yes—AAA WA on HSP No Wash. Traffic Safety Commission Unknown Unknown West Virgi nia No Yes—National Federation of the Blind No No No Some do Unknown TSC = Technical Societies Council (New York); HSP = Highway System Plan (Washington State).