Skip to main content

Table 2 Summary and conclusions for each technology

From: Use, perceptions, and benefits of automotive technologies among aging drivers

Technology

Use

Perceptions

Outcomes

Overall Value for Older Drivers

Lane Departure Warning/ Mitigation

• Frequent use

• However, up to 22 % do not use system when available

• Considered helpful/useful, especially for long trips

• Concerns about getting alerts soon enough

• Small but non-trivial false alarm rates, usually in situations where lane markings poor/covered

• Large percentage report wanting system in next vehicle

• Potential crash reduction of up to 30 %

• Better lane keeping when distracted

• Increased use of turn signals

• Fewer lane excursions

• Reduced stress

Moderate

Curve Speed Warning

• No information identified in literature

• Satisfaction rated as neutral

• Some utility recognized

• No significant change in objective curve-taking behaviors

• Some evidence of more appropriate speeds at night on closed course

Low

Forward Collision Warning/ Mitigation

• Nearly all drivers always keep the system on

• Older drivers pick longer headways

• System rated positively

• Some concerns about false alarms

• Faster reaction times to forward threats

• Potential crash reduction of up to 20 %

• Helps prevent crashes

• Little negative behavior adaptation

High

Blind Spot Warning

• Frequent use

• Use of system led to less frequent signal use

• Concerns about false alarms in bad weather

• Some reported it to be distracting

• Overconfidence in system

• Prevents crashes

• Less frequent turning of head to check blind spot in 1/3 of participants

• Increased situational awareness

Moderate

(High when coupled with other collision warning systems)

Parking Assist: rearview display

• Most drivers always keep system on

• 10–14 % of glances go to rearview display while backing

• Warnings received at least once per week

• 95 % want system in next vehicle

• 30 % report frequent unnecessary alerts when there is nothing behind vehicle

• Helps drivers notice obstacles behind them

• Improves ability to fit squarely in parking spaces

• 55 % reported system relieves stress

• Combining backup video display with obstacle detection warnings enhances benefit

High

Parking Assist: cross traffic warning

• All drivers turn system on

• All experience alerts

• Considered useful

• Up to one-third report unnecessary alerts, mostly in bad weather or with stationary objects off to the side

• Up to 15 % report failed alerts at least once, when another vehicle is approaching from behind very quickly

• Reduces feelings of stress

• Increases feelings of safety while backing up

• Helps prevent collisions when backing up

• No changes in backing up behaviors

High

Parking Assist: semi-autonomous parking assistance

• No information identified in literature

• Positive ratings

• Reduced mental workload

• Reduced stress

• Improved parking behavior

• Improved parking without the system

High

Navigation Assistance

• Frequent use

• Take longer and have more difficulty than younger drivers learning to use system

• Have more difficulty than younger drivers reading displays

• More frequently use system with a “co-navigator” passenger

• Highly regarded

• Particularly helpful in wayfinding

• More frequent travel during times and on roadways that would normally be avoided

• Increased feelings of safety, confidence, attentiveness, and relaxation

• Only minimal distraction reported

High

Intelligent Speed Adaptation

• Limited awareness of or experience with system

• Not positively received, especially for active systems

• No impact on speeding behaviors unless system actively slows down speeding vehicle

Low

Adaptive Cruise Control

• Frequent use

• Full understanding lacking about situations under which system does and does not operate

• System valued for comfort and convenience

• Overconfidence in system

• Lower levels of stress and workload

• Reduced situational awareness

• Late braking for critical events

Moderate

(After proper training and/or if linked with FCW)

Automatic Crash Notification

• Does not require user input

• No information identified in literature

• High potential for fatal crash reduction

High

Night Vision Enhancement

• Used less frequently than by younger drivers

• Satisfaction with system

• System not considered to result in crash reduction

• Provides some vision assistance with only small increases in workload

• Increased target detection distance

• System benefits greater for younger drivers

Low

Adaptive Headlights

• 7 % of owners not aware of system

• System does not require driver input

• System considered to improve safety

• Large percentage prefer system to standard headlight systems

• More willing to drive at night with system

• 5–10 % decrease in liability claims

• Potential 2–5 % crash reduction

• Potential reduction of 2700 pedestrian-related crashes per year

• 18 % report better visibility

Moderate to high

Voice Activated Control

• More difficulty using system than younger drivers

• Greater distraction and decrements in driving performance compared to younger drivers

• System considered favorably

• Most want the system in next vehicle

• Produces less cognitive distraction than manual controls

• Produces greater distraction than interacting with passengers and engaging in other non-driving activities

Moderate