Advertisement

Driver Licensing

  • Bruce Dennis Sales
  • D. Matthew Powell
  • Richard Van Duizend

Abstract

All American jurisdictions place substantial restrictions on the ability of some disabled individuals to procure a driver’s license.1 Two strong competing interests are at stake when the states impose such limitations.

Keywords

Motor Vehicle Supra Note Public Safety Mental Disability Persons Subject 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    See State Statute Charts, infra.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 114 (1977).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Traffic deaths commonly exceed 50,000 annually in the United States. See U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, 1977 HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT REPORT.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. ALLEN, E. FERSTER & H. WEIHOFEN, Mental Impairment and Legal Incompetency 345 (1968).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    R. BARRON & H. FABING, Epilepsy and The Law 35 (1956).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See e.g., OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §4507.08(B) (Page Supp. 1978); ALA. CODE tit. 32, §6–7(1977).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    See, e.g., ARIZ. REV. STAT. §28–413(5) (1976); FLA. STAT. ANN. §322.05 (West 1975).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See, e.g., MISS. CODE ANN. §63–1–9 (1973); R.I. GEN. LAWS §31–10–3 (1969).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    See, e.g., MINN. STAT. ANN. §171.004 (West Supp. 1979); TEXAS HIGH. CODE ANN. art. 6687b, §4 (Vernon 1977).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See, e.g., ALA. CODE tit. 32, §6–7 (1977); IND. CODE §9–1–4–30 (1976).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See, e.g., D.C. CODE ANN. §40–301(a)(1) (1973); N.Y. VEH. & TRAF LAW §502 (1) (McKinney Supp. 1978–1979).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    See, e.g., NEV. REV. STAT. §483.250(7) (1977); N.M. STAT. ANN §66–5–5(1978).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See State Statute Chart, infra. See also, THE LEGAL RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH EPILEPSY (Epilepsy Foundation of America, 1976). (Herein cited as Epilepsy Study.) This publication surveys state legislation restricting the rights of persons with epilepsy and includes a discussion of non-statutory administrative procedures beyond the scope of the present study.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    See, e.g., OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §4507.08 (Page Supp. 1978).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    See State Statute Chart I, column 2, infra. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    See State Statute Chart I, column 3, infra. Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See State Statute Chart II, column 2 and discussion infra.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    R. Allen, E. Ferster & H. Weihofen, supra note 4, at 345 n. 10.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    See State Statute Chart II, column 2, infra.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See, e.g., N.C. GEN. STAT. §20–9(g) (Supp. 1979); PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. 75, §§1518, t519 (Purdon 1977).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See, e.g., OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §4507.08 (Page Supp. 1978); WIS. STAT. ANN. §343.09 (West Supp. 1978–1979).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    OKLA. STAT. ANN. tit. 47, §§6–207, 6–211 (West Supp. 1978).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, u.s. Department of Transportation, the Role of Medical Advisory Boards in Driver’s Licensing (March 1977).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Evidence indicates that arbitrary decision-making in this area is pervasive. Researchers have found, for instance, that in states which do not categorically deny licenses to persons with epilepsy, but instead leave the decision to administrators on the basis of a general “competency to drive” standard, some administrators nonetheless insist on denying licenses to all persons with epilepsy, fearing perhaps, that they will be criticized if one of “their” drivers is subsequently responsible for an accident. R. Allen, E. Ferster & H. Weihofen, supra note 4, at 351.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    See , e.g., DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 21, §2723 (1974).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    See, e.g., N.C. GEN. STAT. §20–9(g) (4) (Supp. 1979); OHIO REV. CODE ANN. §4507.08(c) (3) (Page Supp. 1978).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    For a more complete discussion of medical advisory boards and their existing functions refer to U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Role of Medical Advisory Boards in Driver’s Licensing. This publication is available for sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 for $1.20.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See State Statute Chart II, column 1, infra.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    See State Statute Chart II, column 4, infra.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    See, e.g., MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 90, §22, 28 (1975). Others are cited in State Statute Chart II, column 4, infra.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    See State Statute Chart II, column 5, infra.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    See, e.g., IOWA CODE ANN. §17A. 19 (1978).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cf. Bell v. Bursen, 402 U.S. 535 (1971).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    See, e.g., IOWA CODE ANN. §§321.210, 321.215, 17A.18 (1978).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    R. ALLEN, E. FERSTER & H. WEIHOFEN, supra note 4, at 345 n. 10.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
  38. 38.
    R. BARRON and H. FABING, supra note 6.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    To this end a number of authors have proposed the issuance of restricted licenses for a one to two year probationary period followed by an unrestricted license if no seizures have occurred during the probationary period. See Epilepsy Study, supra note 14, at 5–6. Fabing and Barron, Restricted Driver’s License To Controlled Epileptics: A Realistic Approach to a Problem of Highway Safety, 2 UCLA L. REV. 500 (1955); Keys, Marten, Barron & Fabing, The Epileptic Automobile Driver in Ohio, 35 OHIO BAR 63 (1962).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    See, e.g., IOWA CODE ANN. $§321.210, 321.215, 17A.18 (1978).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    See, e.g., NEV. REV. STAT. §483.360 (1977).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    R. ALLEN, E. FERSTER and H. WEIHOFEN, supra note 4, at 257.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    See NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, supra note 24 at 41–42.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    See, Dixon v. Love 431 U.S. 105, 113 (1977).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cf. Bell v. Bursen, 402 U.S. 535, 542 (1971).Google Scholar
  46. 45a.
    D. Matthew Powell, Associate Director of the project, had primary responsibility for drafting this model statute.Google Scholar
  47. 1.
    See ALLEN, FERSTER AND WEIHOFEN, MENTAL IMPAIRMENT AND LEGAL INCOMPETENCY 351 (1968).Google Scholar
  48. 2.
    Id. at 247.Google Scholar
  49. 3.
    NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, THE ROLE OF MEDICAL ADVISORY BOARDS IN DRIVER LICENSING 41 (1977).Google Scholar
  50. 4.
  51. 5.
  52. 6.
    NHTSA is seeking to develop emperioal data for various disabilities. The results of a study done for NHTSA entitled The Feasibility of Developing a Medical Condition Data Collection System for Driver Licensing are expected to be released in 1980. This study may lead to further studies which will attempt to develop emperical data on specific disabling conditions.Google Scholar
  53. 7.
    For example, the following factors have been suggested for evaluation of potential drivers with epilepsy:Google Scholar
  54. 1.
    Frequency of the Attack. The less frequent the attacks, the less likely is a recurrence. A consistent record of one or fewer seizures per year over a period of time would appear to represent a low level of risk. Thus, in the instance of a previously seizure free individual who experiences a single seizure, especially during change of medication or other unusual circumstance, the overall pattern and previous history should be important determinants.Google Scholar
  55. 2.
    The Nature of the Onset of the Attacks. In some persons each attack is preceded by a warning or “aura”, which may last for periods up to several minutes. Persons consistently experiencing a warning of such a nature as to permit them to take protective action are at reduced risk.Google Scholar
  56. 3.
    The Nature of the Attacks. The most serious attacks are those characterized by sudden loss of consciousness with or without generalized muscle spasm. Attacks characterized by local muscle spasms or sensory phenomena and without loss of consciousness may involve little or no risk of loss of control.Google Scholar
  57. 4.
    Customary Time of Occurrence of Attacks. Some persons are subject to attacks only while sleeping — for others only during the initial waking hours. Such persons are at reduced risk of seizures during the waking hours.Google Scholar
  58. 5.
    Individual Responsibility. The data indicate that the personal characteristics of the individual are a very significant factor in risk. Thus, epileptic women have fewer accidents than do all men. Epileptic men over age 35 have fewer accidents than non-epileptic men age 18–26. A history of erratic behavior and especially of noncompliance in the utilization of anticonvulsant drugs, excessive use of alcohol, or other evidences of unreliability are serious risks for persons with epilepsy. On the other hand the conservative epileptic driver who consciensciously monitors his or her own condition will avoid undue risks and maintain a safe driving record. Thus, careful evaluation of each individual will make it possible to select those for whom the privilege of driving carries little additional risk. Affidavit of Richard Mastand, M.D., on file with the Epilepsy Foundation of America, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  59. 8.
    See Negri and Ibison, Accidents Involving Handicapped Drivers, 40 REHABILITATION LITERATURE 149 (May-June 1979) and Allen, supra note 1, at 345 n. 10.Google Scholar
  60. 9.
    Medical Aspects of Driver Limitation-Special Report, 187 J. AM. MED. ASSN. 376(1964).Google Scholar
  61. 10.
    Allen, supra note 1, at 345.Google Scholar
  62. 11.
    Section 6 is based upon similar provisions in existing state statutes. See, e.g. N.C. GEN. STAT. §20–9 (1978) and OHIO REV. CODE §4507.08 (1976).Google Scholar
  63. 12.
    See, e.g., N.C. GEN. STAT. §20–9(9) (2) (1978).Google Scholar
  64. 13.
    See Ormond v. Garrett, 8 N.C. App. 662, 175 SE 2d 371 (1970).Google Scholar
  65. 14.
    Cf. Dixon v. Love, 431 U.S. 105, 113 (1977).Google Scholar
  66. 15.
    N.C. GEN. STAT. §20–9 (1978); OHIO REV. CODE §4507.08 (1976).Google Scholar
  67. 16.
    402 U.S. 535(1971).Google Scholar
  68. 17.
    Id. at 540.Google Scholar
  69. 18.
    431 U.S. 105(1977).Google Scholar
  70. 19.
    Id. at 113–15.Google Scholar
  71. 20.
  72. 21.
    443 U.S. 1 (1979).Google Scholar
  73. 22.
    Id. at 20.Google Scholar
  74. 23.
    Id. at 22–23.Google Scholar
  75. 24.
    The Constitutional test most frequently employed by the court to determine the amount of process due and explicitly stated in Matthews v Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334–35 (1976) included three elements: 1) the private interest involved, 2) the government’s interest and 3) the risk of an erroneous deprivation through the procedures used and the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards. (Emphasis added.)Google Scholar
  76. 25.
    Cf. Mackey v. Mantrym, 443 U.S. 1, (1979).Google Scholar
  77. 26.
    See U.S. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION, 1977 HIGHWAY SAFETY ACT REPORT APP. A-9; U.S. DEPT. OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, THIRD SPECIAL REPORT ON ALCOHOL AND HEALTH 61 (1978). See also ALLEN supra note 1.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce Dennis Sales
    • 1
  • D. Matthew Powell
    • 1
  • Richard Van Duizend
    • 1
  1. 1.Developmental Disabilities State Legislative Project of the American Bar Association’sCommission on the Mentally DisabledUSA

Personalised recommendations