Driving into old age How harnessing technology can prolong safe driving

1. Driving into old ageHow harnessing technology can prolong safe driving Charles MusselwhiteSenior Lecturer in Traffic and Transport Psychology, Centre for Transport & SocietyCharles.Musselwhite@uwe.ac.uk 0117 32 83010 FAST FORWARD CAN TECHNOLOGY HELP THE VULNERABLE ROAD USER Wednesday 10th March 2010 University of Birmingham Conference Centre

2. Summary • In-vehicle technology • acceptability • Background to an ageing society and • importance of travel • Older people and acceptability of in-vehicle technology • Conclusions

3. In-vehicle technology

4. In-vehicle systems for drivers • AVCSS – Advanced Vehicle Control and Safety Systems • ADAS – Advanced Driver Assistance Systems • IVIS – In-vehicle Information Systems • Purpose is to support the driver in his or her tasks DYNAMIC: PERSUASIVE and OBSTRUCTIVE Takes over driving task voluntarily or automatically PASSIVE: INFORMATIVE Real-time information provision ADVISORY: SUGGESTIVE: Categorical Real-time Information increases situational awareness

5. Passive Feedback Systems INFORMATIVE Real-time information provision • Current • Gauges - Speedometer, Rev counter • New • Distance to vehicle in front • Rear view / side view cameras • Night vision • Head-up Display

6. Advisory Feedback (1) SUGGESTIVE: Categorical Real-time Information increases situational awareness • Current In-vehicle • Warning lights: oil pressure, fuel low etc • Navigation systems • Parking sensors • Current Infrastructure • Variable Message Systems

7. Advisory Feedback (2) SUGGESTIVE: Categorical Real-time Information increases situational awareness • New In-vehicle • Fatigue Detection System • Current Speed Warning • Collision Advice System • Lateral and trajectory position warning • Child/animal (thermal) detection • New In-vehicle and infrastructure • Current speed warning matched to speed of road • In-vehicle sign display and prioritisation

8. Dynamic PERSUASIVE and OBSTRUCTIVE Takes over driving task voluntarily or automatically • Current • Automatic Gear Shift • Power Steering • New In-vehicle • Adaptive Cruise Control • Collision Warning System • New In-vehicle and infrastructure • Intelligent Speed Adaptation • Automated Highway System

9. Advantages • IMPROVED ENVIRONMENT: • Reduction in emissions and fuel savings (between 1-8%) (e.g. Carsten and Tait, 2000; Liu, Tait and Boddy, 1999) • IMPROVED SAFETY: • Reduction in average speed and more constant speed (e.g. Almqvist and Nygard, 1997; Persson, Towliat, Almqvist, Risser and Magdeburg, 1993; Varhelyi and Makinen, 2001; Wallén Warner 2006) • reduction in accident injury of between 10% and 40% depending upon the technology used (Carsten and Tait, 2000) • IMPROVED DRIVER COMFORT • Reduction in workload (Fancher et al., 1998; Hoedemeaker, 2000) • IMPROVED NETWORK: • Reduction in congestion (Liu, Tait and Boddy, 1999)

10. Acceptability of technology New technologies are voluntary Any mandatory technology will need political will and hence public acceptability Acceptability is related to (appropriate) uptake and (successful) use • TECHNOLOGY • relative advantage (the extent to which it offers improvements over available tools), • compatibility (its consistency with social practices and norms among its users), • complexity (its ease of use or learning), • trialability(the opportunity to try an innovation before committing to use it), • observability (the extent to which the technology's gains are clear to see). • PERSON • Background characteristics (age, gender, socio economic background), • Cognitive style (how information is processed), • Attitudes (towards technology, towards related items), • Personality (need for achievement, degree of defensiveness, locus of control, and risk-taking propensity), Changes over time – Innovation Diffusion (Rogers, 1995) Technology / Person interaction

11. Attitudes to Technology and Safety High public support for current technology in cars (RAC, 2007) Some growing support for speed limiters and black box technology (Cauzard, 2003, Stradling, 2008) But, public worried about over reliance on technology (RAC, 2007) And, on the whole prefer information systems rather than “take-over” systems (Musselwhite, 2004; Musselwhite and Haddad, 2007, 2008; Stradling, 2008) Those who could benefit most from support and take over systems like them least and those that like them most tend to be the safest drivers (Musselwhite, 2004). Support for systems taking over driving increase as driver gets older (Meadows and Stradling, 2006) More support for “take over” systems from females (Meadows and Stradling, 2006)

12. Background: An ageing society and the importance of travel for older people

13. Background The population in the UK, as in the Western World, is ageing. • Population of older people in UK is increasing in number and in % of overall age groups. • Population aged 65 or over in the UK has increased from 1.8million in 1901, to 9.7million(4.2m men; 5.5m female) in 2005. • in 1901 those aged over 65 years made up 4% of the population and the equivalent age group made up 16% in 2008 • 600,000 aged 85+ in 1983, 1.3m in 2008. Predictions suggest that this growth in number and percentage will continue to 15.27 million people aged over 65 in 2033, representing 23% of the total population (Tomassini, 2004). More active age group than ever before & therefore more mobile

14. Background • 1.5m drivers over 75 in the UK • 50% of population over 70 hold driving licence (compared to 15% in 1975) • 23,000 registered drivers over 91 years of age • 200% increase in male drivers over 65; 600% increase in female drivers over 65 in past 30 years • Over 70s % holding licence • Males 1975: 32% to 2001: 69%; • Females 1975: 4% to 2001: 32% • Predicted growth • 10m drivers over 70 in the UK by 2050

15. Travel Needs TERTIARY TRAVEL NEEDS Aesthetic Needs The need for relaxation, visit nature, test cognitive skills Least awareness SECONDARY TRAVEL NEEDS Psychosocial/Affective Needs The need for independence, control, status, roles PRIMARY TRAVEL NEEDS Instrumental/Practical Needs Make appointments, access shops and services, work As quickly, efficiently, safely and conveniently as possible Most awareness

16. Accidents and older drivers • Older drivers are involved in collisions that generally occur in daylight, at intersection and at low speeds (DfT, 2001; McGwin and Brown, 1999). • Less likely to be involved in single-vehicle collisions (DfT, 2001). • Have difficulty in making critical decisions under time pressure and dealing with immense traffic conditions. • overloaded with information when performing manoeuvres (Brendemuhl, Schmidt and Schenk, 1988), • merging onto roads (Schlag, 1993) • junctions and intersections, especially those with no traffic control (e.g. traffic signals and lights) and those that involve right hand turns (in the UK – i.e. across the oncoming traffic) (Hakaimes-Blomqvist, 1988; Maycock, Lockwood and Lester, 1991; Presusser, Williams, Ferguson, Ulmer and Weinstein, 1998). • Research suggests inappropriate gap selection, high task complexity and distraction from other road use as underlying factors that contribute to intersection and turning crashes (Oxley, Fildes, Corben and Langford, 2006).

17. Reasons for Increase in Accidents • Physiological- eye-sight and hearing problems, restricted physical mobility • Cognitive - working memory problems, decrease in information processing capacity decision making under pressure • Psychological - Lack of confidence, anxiety, social norms, stereotypes, labelling

18. Giving-up driving • Average age of giving-up driving is 74 • But large variation • Gradual reduction • Deliberate vs non-deliberate • Compensatory behaviour – not going out at night; no right-hand turns; avoid rush-hour. • Voluntarily vsTold-to • Male/female differences • Impact afterwards

19. Giving-up Driving • 4 motivations Most common Self-diagnosis Influence of friends / family Specific incident / event Least common Medical professional

20. Driver Needs TIREDNESS Compensatory Behaviour REACTIONS EXTERNAL DISTRACTIONS MAINTAINNG A CONSTANT SPEED Help Wanted GLARE AND LUMINANCE

21. Older people’s acceptance of technology

22. EXTERNAL DISTRACTIONS Dashboard sign display • Most preferred amongst older people Head-up sign display • Most preferred option amongst car designers, technologists and academics. • Mixed dashboard & head-up has some support • User-prioritisation increases popularity. • Older people also advocate clearer signs and a change in legislation about amount of signs.

24. MAINTAINING A CONSTANT SPEED • Head-up display of current vehicle speed • preferred by older people • Audible vehicle speed cue • preferred by older people • Intelligent Speed Adaptation • Audible warning when reach actual speed limit (Advisory ISA) • Preferred by academics and technology experts • Take over speed (Supportive ISA) • Preferred by academics and car manufacturers and by older people if everyone has it fitted.

25. GLARE AND LUMINANCE • Night vision enhancement • Head-up display • Dashboard display • Either system is preferred by academics, technologists and car designers • Older people remain more sceptical about use of such system

26. Generic findings (1) • Keep technology simple to use and aesthetically pleasing • In line with expectations and norms of driving. • Easy to learn to use and easy not to forget how to use. • Older people don’t want adaptations that make their car look like an old person’s car – many current adaptations doe.g. Spinners, pedal extenders, automatic gears. • Different cognitive processing ability. • Increasing support for technologies following trials (in line with much previous research e.g. Fancheret al., 1998; Wallen-Warner, 2006). • Especially head-up display • Worried about relinquishing control • More support for additional information rather than take over systems

27. Generic findings (2) • Want to think for themselves and make own judgements was key for older people (much less so for younger people) • “Generally the older generation have a different culture to the present generation, as we were not brought up on the computer. We tend to think for ourselves and not rely on the process that computers take you through. Also, Health and Safety regulation was not around when we were younger. Again we had to think for ourselves and make our own judgments.” • (Dennis, Older driver, Delphi round 3, Musselwhite and Haddad, 2007) Older people compared to younger people are more likely to be laggers (intention to) adopt (and use) / accept technology is linked more closely to attitudes, beliefs, norms and perceived behavioural control with the technology and not in any way linked to deficit of driver need/ability Males prefer information systems – like to overrule them and remain in control Females less likely to overrule systems Don’t like menu driven technology – not used to it and requires constant cognitive stages to be understood.

28. CONCLUSION

29. Conclusions (1) • Increase acceptability to increase positive impact • Voluntary • Political will for mandatory systems • Older drivers view car as important to their lives • Good for physical and mental health • Functional: Day-to-day activities, services, A to B • Psychological: personality, prestige, self-esteem, mastery, identity • Aesthetic: need to see nature, relax, and test cognitive skills • Key driving issues for older drivers are • Distraction • Keeping to the speed limit • Fatigue/tiredness • Reactions • Glare and luminance

30. Conclusions (2) • Technologies to take forwards and be developed along with older people • Sign display and prioritisation • Additional speed warning and cues • Intelligent Speed Adaptation • Night vision? • Keep technology simple to use and aesthetically pleasing • In line with expectations and norms • Older people don’t want adaptations that make their car look like an old person’s car • Cohort differences? Younger older people: • More likely to have driven all their lives • More likely to use technology in day to day life. • Maintain needs-led and bottom-up approach.

31. Thanks for listening Many thanks to Hebba Haddad, my Researcher, and all the participants on my older driver’s project for their valuable time and help and to the SPARC team for their help, guidance and funding – Verity Smith, Peter Lansley, Nicky Hewson and Richard Faragher. Further information Dr Charles Musselwhite Senior Lecturer Centre for Transport & Society University of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Coldharbour Lane, Bristol. BS16 1QY Charles.Musselwhite@uwe.ac.uk 0117 32 83010 www.transport.uwe.ac.uk

32. Further reading Dillon, A. (2001) User Acceptance of Information Technology. In W. Karwowski (ed). Encyclopedia of Human Factors and Ergonomics. London: Taylor and Francis Musselwhite, C. B. A. and Haddad, H. (2007). Prolonging the Safe Driving of Older People through Technology. Final report, October 2007. Centre for Transport & Society, University of the West of England, Bristol.