Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T21:52:39.608Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The crash involvement of older drivers is associated with their hazard perception latencies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2010

MARK S. HORSWILL ,
KAARIN J. ANSTEY ,
CHRISTOPHER G. HATHERLY  and
JOANNE M. WOOD
MARK S. HORSWILL*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
KAARIN J. ANSTEY
Affiliation:
Ageing Research Unit, Centre for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
CHRISTOPHER G. HATHERLY
Affiliation:
Ageing Research Unit, Centre for Mental Health Research, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia
JOANNE M. WOOD
Affiliation:
School of Optometry, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
*
*Correspondence and reprint requests to: Mark S. Horswill, School of Psychology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Brisbane, QLD 4072, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hazard perception in driving is the one of the few driving-specific skills associated with crash involvement. However, this relationship has only been examined in studies where the majority of individuals were younger than 65. We present the first data revealing an association between hazard perception and self-reported crash involvement in drivers aged 65 and over. In a sample of 271 drivers, we found that individuals whose mean response time to traffic hazards was slower than 6.68 s [the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve derived pass mark for the test] were 2.32 times [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.46, 3.22) more likely to have been involved in a self-reported crash within the previous 5 years than those with faster response times. This likelihood ratio became 2.37 (95% CI, 1.49, 3.28) when driving exposure was controlled for. As a comparison, individuals who failed a test of useful field of view were 2.70 (95% CI, 1.44, 4.44) times more likely to crash than those who passed. The hazard perception test and the useful field of view measure accounted for separate variance in crash involvement. These findings indicate that hazard perception testing and training could be potentially useful for road safety interventions for this age group. (JINS, 2010, 16, 939–944.)

Keywords

Automobile driver examinationsAgedAgingAutomobile driving standardsTraffic accidentsMotor vehicles
Type
Brief Communications
Information
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society , Volume 16 , Issue 5 , September 2010 , pp. 939 - 944
Copyright
Copyright © The International Neuropsychological Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anstey, K.J., Wood, J., Caldwell, H., Kerr, G., & Lord, S.R. (2009). Comparison of self-reported crashes, state crash records and an on-road driving assessment in a population-based sample of drivers aged 69–95 years. Traffic Injury Prevention, 10, 84–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ball, K.K., & Owsley, C. (1993). The useful field of view test: A new technique for evaluating age-related declines in visual function. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 64, 71–79.Google Scholar
Darby, P., Murray, W., & Raeside, R. (2009). Applying online fleet driver assessment to help identify, target and reduce occupational road safety risks. Safety Science, 47, 436–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Monte, V.E., Geffen, G.M., May, C.R., & McFarland, K. (2004). Double cross validation and improved sensitivity of the rapid screen of mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 26, 628–644.Google Scholar
De Raedt, R., & Ponjaert-Kristoffersen, I. (2000). The relationship between cognitive/neuropsychological factors and car driving performance in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 48, 1664–1668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edwards, J.D., Ross, L.A., Wadley, V.G., Clay, O.J., Crowe, M., Roenker, D.L., et al. (2006). The useful field of view test: Normative data for older adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 275–286.Google Scholar
Edwards, J.D., Vance, D.E., Wadley, V.G., Cissell, G.M., Roenker, D.L., & Ball, K.K. (2005). Reliability and validity of useful field of view test scores as administered by personal computer. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 27, 529–543.Google Scholar
Elander, J., West, R., & French, D. (1993). Behavioural correlates of individual differences in road traffic crash risk: An examination of methods and findings. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 279–294.Google Scholar
Evans, L. (1991). Traffic safety and the driver. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Goode, K.T., Ball, K.K., Sloane, M., Roenker, D.L., Roth, D.L., Myers, R.S., et al. (1998). Useful field of view and other neurocognitive indicators of crash risk in older adults. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 5, 425.Google Scholar
Horswill, M.S., Kemala, C.N., Wetton, M., Scialfa, C.T. & Pachana, N.A. (in press). Improving older drivers’ hazard perception ability. Psychology and Aging.Google Scholar
Horswill, M.S., Marrington, S.A., McCullough, C.M., Wood, J., Pachana, N.A., McWilliam, J., et al. (2008). The hazard perception ability of older drivers. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 63, 212–218.Google Scholar
Horswill, M.S., & McKenna, F.P. (2004). Drivers’ hazard perception ability: Situation awareness on the road. In Banbury, S. & Tremblay, S. (Eds.), A cognitive approach to situation awareness: Theory and application (pp. 155–175). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Horswill, M.S., Pachana, N.A., Wood, J., Marrington, S.A., McWilliam, J., & McCullough, C.M. (2009). 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. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 15, 799–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeffe, J.E., Jin, C.F., Weih, L.M., McCarty, C.A., & Taylor, H.R. (2002). Vision impairment and older drivers: Who’s driving? British Journal of Ophthalmology, 86, 1118–1121.Google Scholar
Maycock, G., Lockwood, C.R., & Lester, J.F. (1991). The accident liability of car drivers (Research Report 315). Crowthorne, UK: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
McKenna, F.P., & Horswill, M.S. (1999). Hazard perception and its relevance for driver licensing. Journal of the International Association of Traffic and Safety Sciences, 23, 26–41.Google Scholar
Owsley, C., Ball, K., McGwin, G., Sloane, M.E., Roenker, D.L., White, M.F., et al. (1998). Visual processing impairment and risk of motor vehicle crash among older adults. Journal of the American Medical Association, 279, 1083.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owsley, C., Ball, K., Sloane, M.E., Roenker, D.L., & Bruni, J.R. (1991). Visual/cognitive correlates of vehicle accidents in older drivers. Psychology and Aging, 6, 403–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Quimby, A.R., Maycock, G., Carter, I.D., Dixon, R., & Wall, J.G. (1986). Perceptual abilities of accident involved drivers (Research Report 27). Crowthorne, UK: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Quimby, A.R., & Watts, G.R. (1981). Human factors and driving performance (Laboratory Report 1004). Crowthorne, UK: Transport and Road Research Laboratory.Google Scholar
Sims, R.V., McGwin, G., Allman, R.M., Ball, K., & Owsley, C. (2000). Exploratory study of incident vehicle crashes among older drivers. Journals of Gerontology Series A-Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 55, M22.Google Scholar
Smith, S.S., Horswill, M.S., Chambers, B., & Wetton, M. (2009). Hazard perception in novice and experienced drivers: The effects of sleepiness. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41, 729–733.Google Scholar
Wells, P., Tong, S., Sexton, B., Grayson, G., & Jones, E. (2008). Cohort II: A study of learner and new drivers. London: Department for Transport. Retrieved from http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roadsafety/research/researchreports (accessed May 12, 2010).Google Scholar
Wetton, M.A., Horswill, M.S., Hatherly, C., Wood, J., Pachana, N.A. & Anstey, K.J. (in press). The development and validation of two complementary measures of drivers’ hazard perception ability. Accident Analysis and Prevention.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., & Yu, K.F. (1998). What’s the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 1690–1691.Google Scholar