Assisting the older driver - SWOV
Assisting the older driver - SWOV
Assisting the older driver - SWOV
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Assisting</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>older</strong> <strong>driver</strong><br />
Unsafe decisions can ei<strong>the</strong>r lead to crashes or to near‐misses. Table 6.7 shows<br />
<strong>the</strong> number of crashes that actually occurred while participants were driving<br />
<strong>the</strong> simulator car, classified according to <strong>the</strong> layout of <strong>the</strong> intersection at<br />
which <strong>the</strong> crashes occurred. Note that <strong>the</strong>re were twice as much functionally<br />
middle‐aged <strong>driver</strong>s as <strong>the</strong>re were functionally young or functionally old<br />
<strong>driver</strong>s. Most of <strong>the</strong> crashes occurred at regular 4‐way intersections. A closer<br />
inspection of <strong>the</strong> specific intersections at which <strong>the</strong>se crashes occurred,<br />
revealed that six out of seven of those crashes occurred at intersections that<br />
were controlled by traffic‐lights. Some occurred because a participant turned<br />
left on green and collided against an approaching vehicle that also had a<br />
green light, o<strong>the</strong>rs occurred because one of <strong>the</strong> <strong>driver</strong>s had passed a red light.<br />
L3‐way R3‐way Roundabout T‐junction 4‐way dual<br />
carriageway<br />
4‐way<br />
regular<br />
Crashes<br />
Young 0 1 1 0 0 2<br />
Middle‐aged 1 0 1 0 0 4<br />
Old 0 0 1 0 0 1<br />
Route<br />
errors<br />
Young 1 0 0 1 0 0<br />
Middle‐aged 3 0 0 0 1 0<br />
Old 4 0 2 0 2 1<br />
Table 6.7. Number of crashes and route errors per functional age group and type of intersection.<br />
Ano<strong>the</strong>r type of error that seemed to coincide with <strong>the</strong> complexity of <strong>the</strong><br />
intersections, was route error. A total of 15 route errors occurred, 2 made by<br />
functionally young <strong>driver</strong>s, 4 by functionally middle‐aged, and 9 by<br />
functionally <strong>older</strong> <strong>driver</strong>s (Table 6.7). Two intersections were responsible for<br />
half of <strong>the</strong>se route errors. One of those intersections was actually designed to<br />
provoke route errors. It was a three‐way intersection at which participants<br />
were not allowed to continue on <strong>the</strong> street <strong>the</strong>y were driving on. They had to<br />
turn left, but this was not announced by <strong>the</strong> route‐information. A sign<br />
indicating that it was not allowed to enter <strong>the</strong> street in front of <strong>the</strong>m was <strong>the</strong><br />
only clue that was available for participants to decide how to proceed (see<br />
Figure 6.7, upper picture). Four <strong>driver</strong>s missed this clue and drove straight on<br />
instead of turning left. The o<strong>the</strong>r traffic situation that misled four <strong>driver</strong>s,<br />
consisted of a major road having two intersections at only 50 m apart from<br />
each o<strong>the</strong>r (see Figure 6.7, lower picture). Participants had to turn left at <strong>the</strong><br />
first one. However, some participants thought that <strong>the</strong> street at <strong>the</strong> left had<br />
126