Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

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