Newspapers / Methodist University Student Newspaper / April 5, 1999, edition 1 / Page 9
Part of Methodist University Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
Pride Monday, April 5, 1999 Dr. Lassiter takes notes at the lyceum. Photo by C. Kearns. Lyceum Continued from page 1 lated with car crashes. He argued that UFOV can be an effective predictor of fu ture accident involvement. While people are usually aware of physiological problems with their eyes and vision, they cannot overtly detect deficien cies in cognition. A beneficial by-product of UFOV testing for drivers would be to alert them to non-physiological eyesight problems. Dr. Lassiter said that a UFOV deficiency could be treated over 12 to 18 months, and the UFOV would be vastly improved. Once people were aware of the problem, help could easily be sought and acquired. While I will not go into details of the test itself, it measured recognition, spatial localization, and localization in the periphery when attention is divided to de termine a percent reduction in UFOV. So, the lower the score, the better. Who should be tested and when? Dr. Lassiter recommended tests be adminis tered based on age, 65-i- or 70+, and per formance. It should be done every two years at first, and every year after a given age. Because of huge taxpayer cost at DMVs, he proposed the testing be done off-site, and the testing certificate turned over to the DMV to process the license (as it is in many states with driver’s ed.). Dr. Elizabeth Belford, Professor of Education, poignantly noted in the question and an swer part of the presentation that, while some initial cost would be involved, the entrepreneurial bandwagon would begin, and testing would become as routine and as inexpensive as state emissions inspec tions, and there would be one “in every Wal Mart and K-Mart.” When Dr. Lassiter concluded. Dr. John Sill ascended the podium and complimented Dr. Lassiter on his compel ling case. Dr. Sill, who has studied death and dying (and hence the aged) in his dis cipline of sociology, stressed the impor tance of continued activity for the health and well-being of people—considering HELP WANTED Reporter. Government and General Assignment. Daily P.M. Experience Pre ferred. Send Resume: The Daily Record, P.O. Box 1448, Dunn, NC 28335, Attn.: Lisa Farmer more aged drivers would be ruled ineligible to drive under improved testing. Dr. Sill had concerns about the practicality of state wide DMVs (up to all 50) implementing the procedures and the time and monetary investments the task would require. If in dividuals bore the cost, it would be a bur den on the poor, and if government picked up the tab, it would be a tax burden for all. Dr. Sill proposed a low-tech alternative: real-world driving tests, on the course, just like the first time. Mr. Bob White provided the lyceum with a voice from the community service field, an area which relies heavily on volunteerism to assist elderly in mobility in their post-driving years. Part of his re sponse time was devoted to imploring the students attending the lyceum to volun teer—or get involved in gerontology as a career. His organization. Seniors Call to Action of Fayetteville, runs vans with built- in lifts to help the elderly get around, but they need young volunteers to go out to the homes and assess who the elderly are who are in greatest need. By the way, he was overtly the most impressed by Dr. Lassiter’s presentation, although he foreshadowed future responses when he said that once an aged person is no longer able to drive it is a tremendous blow—it is one of the few freedoms that they have left. Dr. Susan Franzblau presented the harshest criticisms of Dr. Lassiter’s re search and recommendations of anyone on the panel. She immediately rejected Dr. Lassiter’s findings and theories, saying that his research was nothing more than “large leaps in unfounded logic.” She cited that Dr. Lassiter assumed that correlational data equaled causal data—in other words she said that just because age and accidents increase simultaneously is not proof that age causes accidents (what a layperson might call “circumstantial evidence”). She argued that Dr. Lassiter is assuming that an equivalent population exists—that older people’s behavior equals younger people’s behavior. She implied this is clearly false— that young people drive faster and take more chances than older people, who of ten are slower and more cautious. She ar gued that Dr. Lassiter’s comparison of the two opposite extremes of society guaran teed a sharp contrast when juxtaposed. She said that Dr. Lassiter assumed accidents were the fault of the older drivers. Dr. Franzblau questioned Dr. Lassiter’s seman tics by asking if a slowdown with age should be considered a deficit at all. Speed is a dominant characteristic in American driving, she argued, and we “punish” slow and cautious drivers. She claimed that the only older drivers who pose a threat are those with dementia, a group making up about “one percent” of the elderly. Man datory testing would then be as illogical as testing the population for any malady which plagues one percent (or less) of the popu lation—schizophrenia being her example. Dr. Franzblau offered ethical objections to Dr. Lassiter’s work. She said that with age discrimination rampant in America, Dr. Lassiter would do well to devote himself to working to end age discrimination rather than providing governing powers with something that can be “used as a weapon” to further oppress the elderly. This “weapon” would render them “stripped of freedom,” and would be misused, given the tendencies Americans have to treat them as “dependent and childish.” Their driving would be replaced by “unreliable methods” such as family members giving rides (some thing family members could deem incon venient and hence, foster resentment-to ward the older person), spotty transportation, and avenues of transport available only to the very rich. Their driv ing could be replaced by volunteer organi zations like Mr. White’s, but these organi zations’ volunteers are overwhelmingly women, who, according to Dr. Franzblau, are “already overburdened with work.” The applause was loudest for Dr. Franzblau, no doubt due to her contingent of FSU students who were galvanized be hind her. One graduate student commented on the positions of Dr. Lassiter and Dr Franzblau, saying, “That’s what happens when a social constructionist [Franzblau] meets a statistician [Lassiter].” Mr. James DePree said he had much experience modifying “Type A” behav ior—getting people to slow down! Mr. DePree countered Dr. Lassiter’s i:laim that UFOV would be a more effective predic tor of accidents than what we use now, by proposing that 5-year driving histories themselves be used as a predictor of acci dent-prone drivers. After all, if Dr. Lassiter used the histories to validate the UFOV correlation to accidents and past driving record, why not just correlate the records and accidents? Overall health, Mr. DePree argued, is the single most important vari able in UFOV reduction. There are many minor, undiagnosed strokes and head inju ries which will reduce UFOV in younger people who would not be tested under Dr. Lassiter’s proposal. Subtle defects in UFOV may be cancer predictive—and these would be missed also by those younger than the mandatory testing age. Mr. DePree proposed that we test the at- fault drivers in collisions, and publicize the need for awareness of UFOV disorders at any age. “Why bother the healthy?” As the questions from the audience tended to be more and more heated in re sponse to this controversial issue. Dr. Potts pulled the plug around the 9:30 p.m. end ing time for the lyceum in favor of the re ception of cookies and punch in the main hall. It served as a good “cooling-off’ pe riod for everyone concerned, and guests and speakers intermingled freely. Dr. Lassiter remained talking with students and answering their questions until around II p.m. The debate was an important step in Dr. Lassiter’s continuing research in vari ous human factors topics, albeit peer cri tique can be a painful one at times when scrutiny comes as harsh and heated as it did on this evening. If you are interested in learning more about this and other issues involving hu man factors, you can learn from the pro: Dr. Lassiter will be teaching “Human Fac tors” in the Fall Semester. SPRINGBREAK BEACHES Daytona, Panama City, Padre, Miami, Cancun, Jamaica, Bahamas, etc. Best hotels, prices, parties. Browse www.icpt.com. Reps earn cash, free trips Call Inter-Campus 800-327-6013
Methodist University Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
April 5, 1999, edition 1
9
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75