Skip to main content

Advertisement

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