Skip to main content

Improving the Safety of Older Road Users (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

Appendix C - State DOT Survey Results for Engineering for Older Road Users
Pages 74-79

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 74...
... Somewhat Not very 4 1 3 2 Michigan Yes Yes Somewhat Unknown 2 3 2 1 Minnesota Yes Somewhat Not very 3 1 2 3 Yes Mississippi Yes ? Somewhat Not very 3 1 2 3 Missouri Yes Somewhat Not very 5 X X X Montana Yes Yes Somewhat Not very 4 2 3 1 New Jersey Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat 4 1 2 3 New York Yes Yes Very Somewhat 8 1 2 North Dakota Yes Yes Somewhat Not very 5 1 3 2 Oklahoma Yes Yes Not very Not very 2 2 1 3 Oregon Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat 4 1 Pennsylvania Yes Yes Somewhat Not very 3 1 3 2 Texas Yes Somewhat Not very 6 1 Virginia Yes No Somewhat Unknown 5 2 1 3 Washington Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat 7 1 West Virginia Yes Yes Somewhat Somewhat 4 3 2 1 Other responses from states: Minnesota and Mississippi -- Change is not easily accepted.
Read the entire page →
From page 75...
... Brighter sheeting used for STOP and WRONG WAY/DO NOT ENTER signing Yes -- Already using, so no modification made specifically for older drivers FL Yes No Yes GA Yes Yes -- Wet weather reflective tapes on Interstates Yes IA Yes Yes -- MD Yes Yes Yes MA Yes No -- Follow MUTCD guidance No -- Follow MUTCD guidance MI (Just purchased Clearview font and are going to do test section) Yes MN No -- Were already at larger size for overhead signs Yes -- Went to ASTM-Type IX (VIP)
Read the entire page →
From page 76...
... Use of protected-only operations at signalized intersections f. Use of all-red clearance intervals at signalized intersections AZ No Yes Yes CA Yes -- -- CO Yes Yes -- Based on accident history, not older drivers Yes -- Benefit to safety of the intersection, not based on older drivers CT No Yes -- Already using for safety and capacity reasons at some intersections.
Read the entire page →
From page 77...
... Letter size requirements for freeway entrance/exit signing AZ Yes Yes Yes CA Yes -- Adopting 2003 MUTCD Yes -- Adopting 2003 MUTCD, which allows walking speeds <3 ft/sec Yes -- Adopting 2003 MUTCD CO Yes -- Follow MUTCD standards Yes -- Identified locations for elder populations Yes -- Follow MUTCD standards CT Yes -- Already using for safety reasons. No modification made specifically for older drivers Yes -- Used on case-by-case basis for crossings used by elderly or physically impaired and at school crossings No FL Yes Yes Yes GA Yes Yes No -- IA No -- Use statewide, but have not modified specifically for older drivers No MD Yes Yes Yes MA No -- Follow MUTCD guidance No -- Follow MUTCD guidance No -- Follow MUTCD guidance MI Yes -- Have always done some of this Yes -- When aware they are in the area, adjust the timing No MN No -- Use statewide, but have not modified specifically for older drivers Yes -- At site-specific locations No No MS No -- Use statewide, but not modified specifically for older drivers No MO Yes -- Signals/flashers utilized in special instances that require additional notification to a situation Yes -- Allow a walking speed of 3.5 ft/sec to be used for calculating pedestrian signal timing if population of the particular area warrants its use Yes -- Letter size recently increased for guide signs on expressway and freeway applications expressly for the aging driver MT No (Yes)
Read the entire page →
From page 78...
... Use of post-mounted delineation on curves as supplement to chevron signs AZ Yes No Yes Yes Yes CA (No) -- Still discussing costs and are undecided at this time No -- Questions about measurement criteria delayed introduction of this in the 2003 MUTCD and we are waiting for resolution by FHWA Yes CO Yes -- Follow MUTCD standards Yes -- Use for better visibility, not based on elderly drivers No -- Due to snowy weather conditions Yes CT No -- But expressway skip line width increased to 6 in.
Read the entire page →
From page 79...
... 79 TX Yes -- Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes -- Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes -- Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers Yes -- Modified for safety issues, not only for older drivers VA Yes -- Selected locations, with number growing particularly in last 3–5 years Yes -- Use contrast around markings or between skip lines at selected locations Yes -- Use on most all Interstate and arterial routes, some primary and a few secondary routes No WA No No Yes Yes WV No No Yes -- On freeways and other facilities with fog problems No
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • yes somewhat
  • safety issues
  • somewhat somewhat
  • street name
  • name signs

  • mutcd guidance
  • modified specifically
  • mutcd standards
  • walking speeds
  • overhead signs

  • nys mutcd
  • signal timing
  • virginia yes
  • pavement markings
  • highway design

  • warning signs
  • somewhat unknown
  • massachusetts yes
  • florida yes
  • iowa yes

  • dakota yes
  • mississippi yes
  • maryland yes
  • connecticut yes
  • texas yes

  • minnesota yes
  • georgia yes
  • michigan yes
  • pennsylvania yes
  • oregon yes


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.