A comparison of the hazard perception ability of matched groups of healthy drivers aged 35 to 55, 65 to 74, and 75 to 84 years

Abstract

We examined differences in response latencies obtained during a validated video-based hazard perception driving test between three healthy, community-dwelling groups: 22 mid-aged (35-55 years), 34 young-old (65-74 years), and 23 old-old (75-84 years) current drivers, matched for gender, education level, and vocabulary. We found no signifi cant difference in performance between mid-aged and young-old groups, but the old-old group was signifi cantly slower than the other two groups. The differences between the old-old group and the other groups combined were independently mediated by useful fi eld of view (UFOV), contrast sensitivity, and simple reaction time measures. Given that hazard perception latency has been linked with increased crash risk, these results are consistent with the idea that increased crash risk in older adults could be a function of poorer hazard perception, though this decline does not appear to manifest until age 75+ in healthy drivers. ( JINS , 2009, 15 , 799-802 .)

Influence of age and gender in motor performance in healthy subjects

“…In contrast with other motor tasks, the mean values of VRT did not differ significantly between both genders. Previous reports with different tests on simple or complex reaction time tasks, showed response times longer in elderly people [21][22][23][24][25][26][27].…”

“…Male subjects were faster than females in the PS task [14], while the range of forearm rotation was higher in women than in men in single studies [20]. Aging seems to influence the performance of simple or complex reaction time tasks, including visual reaction time (VRT), being the response times longer in elderly people [21][22][23][24][25][26][27].…”

The relations between specific measures of simulated driving ability and functional ability: New insights for assessment and training programs of older drivers

“…These situations were derived from crash data that were gathered by the police through a crash form. These situations correspond with situations mentioned most often in the literature to be difficult for the older driver and include responses to signs, signals and road hazards (Bao & Boyle, 2008;Horswill et al, 2009) and gap acceptance while turning left at an intersection (Yan, Radwan, & Guo, 2007). A detailed description of the driving situations in the main ride is presented in Table 1.…”

“…Mean following distance (m) was assessed as the average distance between the driver and a lead vehicle with a speed at least 10 km/h beneath the speed limit. The other four driving measures were selected since they represent situations that are mentioned most often in the literature to be difficult for the older driver (Bao & Boyle, 2008;Horswill et al, 2009;Yan et al, 2007). Complete stop at a stop sign (yes or no) was used to assess whether drivers would comply with Belgian traffic regulations that drivers must make a full stop (i.e., mean driving speed = 0 km/h) at a stop sign (Bao & Boyle, 2008;Jongen et al, 2012).…”

Cognitive and Psychomotor Correlates of Hazard Perception Ability and Risky Driving

“…Drivers develop an effective and predictive mental model of the driving environment via driving experience and practice, and thus, develop the ability for hazard perception (McKenna & Horswill, 1999). Furthermore, those who have better cognitive and psychomotor capacity, such as young drivers, are expected to form a more effective mental model of potential hazards and can cope better with hazardous situations than those with limited and/or deteriorating psychomotor capacity, such as elderly drivers (e.g., Horswill et al, 2009).…”