Assisting the older driver - SWOV
Assisting the older driver - SWOV
Assisting the older driver - SWOV
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Assisting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>older</strong> <strong>driver</strong><br />
The first category of priority regulation, right of way, is <strong>the</strong> only category<br />
that includes intersections at which participants had right of way. These<br />
intersections were excluded from <strong>the</strong> categories of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r intersection<br />
characteristics. As <strong>the</strong> need to decide on how to deal with o<strong>the</strong>r road users<br />
was expected to be an important prerequisite for complexity of <strong>the</strong> traffic<br />
situation to influence <strong>driver</strong> behaviour, having right of way was considered<br />
to be <strong>the</strong> easiest way of passing an intersection, regardless of <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />
characteristics of <strong>the</strong> intersection. Therefore, <strong>the</strong> category of right of way can<br />
be added to each classification as its first and easiest category.<br />
Between‐subjects analysis of variance showed that functional age<br />
significantly affected reaction time and fraction missed (See Table 6.6 All<br />
intersections; η 2 = 0.265 and η 2 = 0.268 respectively). Post hoc Bonferroni tests<br />
showed that functionally <strong>older</strong> participants had longer reaction times and<br />
higher fractions missed than both functionally younger (p = 0.004 and p =<br />
0.003 respectively) and functionally middle‐aged participants (p = 0.017 and p<br />
= 0.019 respectively). To test whe<strong>the</strong>r reaction times and fractions missed<br />
differed for different types of intersections, <strong>the</strong> categories of <strong>the</strong> intersection<br />
characteristics shown in Table 6.5 were regarded as repeated measurements.<br />
Separate mixed between‐within analyses of variance were carried out for<br />
each characteristic of <strong>the</strong> intersections. The results of all ANOVAs showed a<br />
significant main effect of functional age (see Table 6.6; Partial eta’s squared<br />
ranging from 0.232 to 0.253 for reaction time and from 0.209 to 0.227 for<br />
fraction missed). The intersection characteristics significantly affected<br />
reaction times and fractions missed as well, except for sight distance. This<br />
intersection characteristic did not affect reaction time, but it did affect<br />
fraction missed.<br />
The characteristic that had <strong>the</strong> largest influence on variation in reaction time,<br />
was intersection layout (η 2 = 0.355). Post hoc Bonferroni tests showed that<br />
left‐side 3‐way intersections – <strong>the</strong> intersections that were expected to be <strong>the</strong><br />
easiest according to this characteristic – indeed led to significantly shorter<br />
reaction times than roundabouts (p = 0.0002), T‐junctions (p = 0.00002) and 4‐<br />
way intersections (p < 0.000001 for intersections with dual carriageways and<br />
p = 0.000001 for regular 4‐way intersections). Only right‐side 3‐way<br />
intersections did not lead to significantly higher reaction times. On <strong>the</strong>ir turn,<br />
right‐side 3‐way intersections led to significantly shorter reaction times than<br />
T‐junctions (p = 0.04) and 4‐way intersections with dual carriageways (p =<br />
0.0002), and both roundabouts and T‐junctions led to significantly shorter<br />
118