Identifying at-risk drivers : a survey of state programs : final report.

Alcee, Janice V; Jernigan, Jack D; Stoke, Charles B · 1990 · ROSA P / Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC)

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (full text — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This 1990 report by the Virginia Transportation Research Council addresses the challenge of identifying drivers who pose a safety hazard before they commit violations or crashes. Motivated by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles’ concern that standard licensing tests (visual acuity, knowledge, and road performance) are insufficient to detect all at-risk individuals, the study aimed to evaluate methods for identifying and managing specific high-risk driver groups. The research focused on six hypothesized at-risk categories: motorcyclists, young drivers, older drivers, medically impaired drivers, substance abusers, and non-English-speaking or illiterate drivers. The methodology comprised a literature review to scientifically document decrements in driving ability for these groups and a survey of all 50 U.S. states. Questionnaires were sent to motor vehicle agencies to gather data on laws, policies, and programs designed to handle these specific populations, with follow-up telephone surveys used to ensure complete data collection. The study sought to determine if these groups were treated differently than the general population and to identify effective remediation strategies. Key findings revealed that there are no universally accepted categories, parameters, or methods for identifying at-risk drivers. For motorcyclists, literature confirmed higher injury and fatality rates in crashes, with helmets significantly reducing head injuries; Virginia’s existing requirements were deemed adequate. Young drivers exhibited significantly higher crash and conviction rates due to inexperience and immaturity, with provisional licensing programs showing potential to reduce violations. Older drivers showed increased per-mile crash risks, particularly regarding vision, though age alone was not a reliable predictor of poor performance. Medically impaired and substance-abusing drivers required personalized evaluations, with the report recommending mandatory physician reporting to identify unsafe drivers. Conversely, no evidence indicated that non-English-speaking or illiterate drivers were at higher risk, though accommodation in testing was suggested. The significance of the report lies in its recommendation for Virginia to take a leading role in defining at-risk driver protocols. It advocates for specific interventions, including provisional licensing for young drivers, dynamic visual acuity tests and restricted licenses for older drivers, and legislative changes to mandate medical and substance abuse reporting. The study concludes that current identification methods are in a fledgling stage and that proactive, tailored restrictions are necessary to enhance public safety without unnecessarily revoking driving privileges.

Key finding

There are no universally accepted categories, parameters, or means for identifying at-risk drivers, and existing state programs vary widely with provisional licensing showing promise for young drivers and restricted licenses recommended for older drivers.

Methodology

survey

Sample size: 50

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed. Discovered via bulk_ingest_rosap on 2026-05-23 (6 acquisition events logged).

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-10; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• licensing policy
• novice drivers
• driver education effectiveness
• older driver retraining
• learner drivers
• sex gender

Information type

What kind of knowledge this paper contributes, grouped by family — independent of topic (what it is about) and method (how it was studied).

• Applied Guidance: policy recommendations
• Empirical Findings: observational prevalence
• Theoretical Contribution: computational model