Sensitivity of surface drag predictions using Monin–Obukhov similarity theory in non-ideal flow conditions

Environmental Fluid Mechanics - Turbulent flux measurements in the atmospheric surface layer (ASL), acquired from a vertical tower of sonic anemometers, are used to investigate the transient...     

Overestimation of self-reported driving exposure: Results from the SHRP2 Naturalistic Driving Study

Objectives: The accuracy of self-reported driving exposure has questioned the validity of using self-reported mileage to inform research questions. Studies examining the accuracy of self-reported driving exposure compared to objective measures find low validity, with drivers overestimating and underestimating driving distance. The aims of the current study were to (1) examine the discrepancy between self-reported annual mileage and driving exposure the following year and (2) investigate whether these differences depended on age and annual mileage.

Methods: Two estimates of drivers’ self-reported annual mileage collected during vehicle installation (obtained via prestudy questionnaires) and approximated annual mileage driven (based upon Global Positioning System data) were acquired from 3,323 participants who participated in the Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP2) Naturalistic Driving Study.

Results: A Wilcoxon signed rank test showed that there was a significant difference between self-reported and annual driving exposure during participation in SHRP 2, with the majority of self-reported responses overestimating annual mileage the following year, irrespective of whether an ordinal or ratio variable was examined. Over 15% of participants provided self-reported responses with over 100% deviation, which were exclusive to participants underestimating annual mileage. Further, deviations in reporting differed between participants who had low, medium, and high exposure, as well as between participants in different age groups.

Conclusions: These findings indicate that although self-reported annual mileage is heavily relied on for research, such estimates of driving distance may be an overestimate of current or future mileage and can influence the validity of prior research that has utilized estimates of driving exposure.     

Special issue on contamination,remediation and health for pollutants in natural aquatic,soil, sediments and atmospheric environments

Environmental Geochemistry and Health -     

Estimating resource utilization demands in implementing statewide screening,brief intervention,and referral to treatment for alcohol-impaired drivers

Objectives: The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is used to assess the level of alcohol use/misuse and to inform the intensity of intervention delivered within screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) programs. Policy initiatives are recommending delivery of SBIRT within health care settings to reduce alcohol misuse and prevent alcohol-impaired driving. Recent reports are considering extending delivery of SBIRT to criminal justice settings. One consideration in implementing SBIRT delivery is the question of resource utilization; the amount of effort required in delivering the 4 different intensities of intervention in SBIRT: Alcohol education, simple advice, brief counseling and continued monitoring, and brief counseling and referral to specialist (from least to most intense in terms of delivery time, the skill level of the provider, and personnel resources).

Methods: In order to inform expectations about intervention intensity, this article describes the AUDIT scores from 982 adults recently arrested for alcohol-impaired driving. The distribution of scores is extrapolated to state rates for individuals arrested for alcohol-impaired driving by intervention level.

Results: Though alcohol education was the most common intervention category, about one quarter of the sample scored in a range corresponding with the more intensive interventions using the brief counseling, continued monitoring for ongoing alcohol use, and/or referral to specialist for diagnostic evaluation and treatment.

Conclusions: This article provides local distribution of AUDIT scores and state estimates for the number of individuals scoring in each level of risk (AUDIT risk zone) and corresponding intervention type. Routine criminal justice practice is well positioned to deliver alcohol screening, education, simple advice, and continued alcohol monitoring, making delivery of SBIRT feasible for the majority of alcohol-impaired drivers. Challenges to implementing the full range of SBIRT services include resource demands of brief counseling, identifying the appropriate providers within a criminal justice context, and availability of community providers for referral to diagnostic and specialty care. Solutions may vary by state due to differences in population density and incidence rates of alcohol-impaired driving.