Final Report on the Portable Computerized Assessments of Sleepy Drivers in Operational Environments, June 29, 2011

Excessive daytime sleepiness underpins a large number of the reported motor vehicle crashes. Fair and accurate field measures are needed to identify at-risk drivers who have been identified as potentially driving in a sleep deprived state on the basis of erratic driving behavior. The purpose of this research study was to evaluate a set of cognitive tests that can assist Motor Vehicle Enforcement Officers on duty in identifying drivers who may be engaged in sleep impaired driving. Currently no gold standard test exists to judge sleepiness in the field. Previous research has shown that Psychomotor Vigilance Task (PVT) is sensitive to sleep deprivation. The first goal of the current study was to evaluate whether computerized tests of attention and memory, more brief than PVT, would be as sensitive to sleepiness effects. The second goal of the study was to evaluate whether objective and subjective indices of acute and cumulative sleepiness predicted cognitive performance. Findings showed that sleepiness effects were detected in three out of six tasks. Furthermore, PVT was the only task that showed a consistent slowing of both ‘best’, i.e. minimum, and ‘typical’ responses, median RT due to sleepiness. However, PVT failed to show significant associations with objective measures of sleep deprivation (number of hours awake). The findings indicate that sleepiness tests in the field have significant limitations. The findings clearly show that it will not be possible to set absolute performance thresholds to identify sleep-impaired drivers based on cognitive performance on any test. Cooperation with industry to adjust work and rest cycles, and incentives to comply with those regulations will be critical components of a broad policy to prevent sleepy truck drivers from getting on the road.

Synthesis Study: Effectiveness of Safety Corridor Programs, Report on Tasks 1-3, 2008

This report synthesizes the safety corridor programs of 13 states that currently have some type of program: Alaska, California, Florida, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington. This synthesis can help Midwestern states implement their own safety corridor programs and select pilot corridors or enhance existing corridors. Survey and interview information about the states’ programs was gathered from members of each state department of transportation (DOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) division office. Topics discussed included definitions of a safety corridor; length and number of corridors in the program; criteria for selection of a corridor; measures of effectiveness of an implemented safety corridor; organizational structure of the program; funding and legislation issues; and engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service strategies. Safety corridor programs with successful results were then examined in more detail, and field visits were made to Kansas, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington for first-hand observations. With the survey and field visit information, several characteristics of successful safety corridor programs were identified, including multidisciplinary (3E and 4E) efforts; selection, evaluation, and decommissioning strategies; organization structure, champions, and funding; task forces and Corridor Safety Action Plans; road safety audits; and legislation and other safety issues. Based on the synthesis, the report makes recommendations for establishing and maintaining a successful safety corridor program.