Older Drivers and Advanced in-Vehicle Technologies

D, Eby; Molnar, Lisa J.; Zhang, L; Louis, Renée M. St.; Zanier, Nicole; Kostyniuk, Lidia P.

doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.290

Cited by 7 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Data for this study came from a telephone survey administered to a representative sample of informal caregivers (age 45–80) who provide transportation assistance to older adults (age 70 and older) in Michigan. As discussed in recent research on older drivers [ 15 ], we have chosen age 70 and older as the "older adult" age group. Survey topics were derived from results of a literature review and demographic analysis [ 16 ], and discussions with experts on older adult transportation.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of informal caregivers who provide transportation assistance to older adults

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aim was to gain a better understanding of the characteristics of informal caregivers who provide transportation assistance and to explore the types and frequency of this assistance. A telephone survey was administered to a representative sample of 268 informal caregivers (age 45–80) who provide transportation assistance to older adults (age 70 and older) in Michigan. Responses were analyzed overall and by the caregiver sex and care recipient age. Informal transportation caregivers were: most often women; on average 61 years old; generally college educated; employed full- or part-time jobs; relatively healthy; providing care to a parent/family member 1–4 times per week, living close to the care recipient; and providing assistance by giving rides. Less than one-half of caregivers sought information to help them provide assistance. No significant burden was reported and there were few differences by sex of the caregiver of the age group of the care recipient.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of informal caregivers who provide transportation assistance to older adults

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that four other technologies (intersection assistance, merging assistance, congestion warning, and drowsiness/fatigue warnings) were also included in the review, but are not reported here because these systems are still early in development or are prototypes. A synthesis of these technologies is available in another report (Eby et al 2015). …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This article is a condensed version of a report (Eby et al 2015) developed for the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (AAAFTS) as part of the LongROAD (Longitudinal Research on Aging Drivers) study, a collaborative cohort study of aging and driving. Liang Zhang’s effort on this report was supported by the China Scholarship Council, a non-profit institution with legal person status affiliated with the Chinese Ministry of Education which funded Liang Zhang as a visiting scholar at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI), and the ATLAS Center, a University Transportation Center sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation under grant number DTRT13-G-UTC54 to UMTRI and the Texas A&M Transportation Institute.…”

Section: Acknowledgementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advanced in-vehicle technologies have been proposed as a potential way to keep older adults driving for as long as they can safely do so, by taking into account the common declines in functional abilities experienced by older adults. The purpose of this report was to synthesize the knowledge about older drivers and advanced in-vehicle technologies, focusing on three areas: use (how older drivers use these technologies), perception (what they think about the technologies), and outcomes (the safety and/or comfort benefits of the technologies). Twelve technologies were selected for review and grouped into three categories: crash avoidance systems (lane departure warning, curve speed warning, forward collision warning, blind spot warning, parking assistance); in-vehicle information systems (navigation assistance, intelligent speed adaptation); and other systems (adaptive cruise control, automatic crash notification, night vision enhancement, adaptive headlight, voice activated control). A comprehensive and systematic search was conducted for each technology to collect related publications. 271 articles were included into the final review. Research findings for each of the 12 technologies are synthesized in relation to how older adults use and think about the technologies as well as potential benefits. These results are presented separately for each technology. Can advanced in-vehicle technologies help extend the period over which an older adult can drive safely? This report answers this question with an optimistic “yes.” Some of the technologies reviewed in this report have been shown to help older drivers avoid crashes, improve the ease and comfort of driving, and travel to places and at times that they might normally avoid.

show abstract

“…Both of these systems aid in detecting and reacting to obstacles (moving at relative speed to the vehicle, in the case of adaptive cruise control) in the vehicle's path, and could provide assistance in lower light and high glare conditions, enhancing obstacle detection and/or providing timely intervention when a crash is imminent. Interestingly, Eby et al (2015) suggest that adaptive cruise control can help achieve better safety outcomes for older drivers if paired with some type of forward collision warning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If noticed by the individual, such spatial visual declines can lead that individual to limit their driving behavior in situations they deem difficult (West et al, 2003). Using advanced in-vehicle technologies to support older drivers’ abilities behind the wheel has been proposed as one way of address such challenges (e.g., Eby et al, 2015). However, in order for these technologies to provide their potential benefit, they must first be accepted and adopted by older drivers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Valuation of active blind spot detection systems by younger and older adults

Souders

Best

Charness

2017

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to their disproportional representation in fatal crashes, younger and older drivers both stand to benefit from in-vehicle safety technologies, yet little is known about how they value such technologies, or their willingness to adopt them. The current study investigated older (aged 65 and greater; N = 49) and younger (ages 18-23; N = 40) adults’ valuation of a blind spot monitor and asked if self-reported visual difficulties while driving predicted the amount participants were willing to pay for a particular system (BMW's Active Blind Spot Detection System) that was demonstrated using a short video. Large and small anchor values ($250 and $500, respectively) were used as between subjects manipulations to examine the effects of initial valuation, and participants proceeded through a short staircase procedure that offered them either the free installation of the system on their current vehicle or a monetary prize ($25-$950) that changed in value according to which option they had selected in the previous step of the staircase procedure. Willingness to use other advanced driver assistance systems (lane-departure warning, automatic lane centering, emergency braking, adaptive cruise control, and self-parking systems) was also analyzed, additionally controlling for prior familiarity of those systems. Results showed that increased age was associated with a higher valuation for the Active Blind Spot Detection System in both the large and small anchor value conditions controlling for income, gender, and technology self-efficacy. Older adults valued blind spot detection about twice as much ($762) as younger adults ($383) in the large anchor condition, though both groups’ values were in the range for the current cost of an aftermarket system. Similarly, age was the most robust positive predictor of willingness to adopt other driving technologies, along with system familiarity. Difficulties with driving-related visual factors also positively predicting acceptance levels for adaptive cruise control and emergency braking systems. Results are discussed in comparison to older adults’ willingness to pay for other home-based assistive technologies aimed at improving well-being and independence.

show abstract

Older Drivers and Advanced in-Vehicle Technologies

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Characteristics of informal caregivers who provide transportation assistance to older adults

Characteristics of informal caregivers who provide transportation assistance to older adults

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

Valuation of active blind spot detection systems by younger and older adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About