Assisting the older driver - SWOV

Current state of the art: crashes and injuries
Crash rate (fatal)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
18‐24 25‐29 30‐39 40‐49 50‐59 60+ 65‐74 75+
Figure 1.4. Crash rate; involvement of drivers in fatal crashes; number of
drivers involved in crashes per billion driver kilometres of the age group
concerned (1996‐1998). Source: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and
Water Management / Statistics Netherlands.
1.2.2. Physical vulnerability
Various studies have pointed out that physical vulnerability increases as
people age (Evans, 1988; Koornstra, 1998; Mackay, 1988; Wouters, 1989).
Mackay (1988), for example, concluded that, when compared with the
younger age groups, older car occupants are a) more seriously injured for a
given crash exposure, b) hospitalised longer for a given initial injury, and c)
exposed to more disabling injuries, especially to the head and lower limbs.
Describing physical vulnerability in a quantitative way introduces several
problems. Wouters (1989), for example, used the number of fatalities per 100
injured persons to compare the vulnerability of drivers of different age
groups. The disadvantage of using this so‐called lethality to measure
vulnerability, is that it measures more than that. It also covers the average
impact of crashes, which is largely determined by driving speed and crash
type. This would not be a problem if driving speeds and crash types were the
same for all age groups. It is known, however, that younger drivers are more
often involved in crashes involving high speeds and against rigid objects
than older drivers do (see Sections 1.3 and 1.5). As a result, lethality may
exaggerate the younger driver’s vulnerability. As there is no better measure
of vulnerability that is easy to calculate, lethality will nevertheless be used to
compare the vulnerability of people of different ages. Figure 1.5 shows that
19