OLDER DRIVERS’ NEEDS FOR SAFETY AND COMFORT SYSTEMS IN THEIR CARS – A FOCUS GROUP STUDY AMONG S WEDISH DRIVERS Christina Stave and Björn Peters, VTI

Date 2 Safe Move A GENDA 1. Participants 2. Methods and procedures 3. General results 4. Gender issues and estimator categories 5. Conclusions

Date 3 Safe Move S ELECTION OF PARTICIPANTS older drivers (70 +) participated in on-road assessments Drivers self assessment of own driving ability (good/poor) was compared to expert on-road assessment (good/poor) based on # of observed failures Outcome used to classify into over, under and consistent (expert and self assessment coherent) estimators 2011 – 5 Mixed groups with 36 participants 2013 – 5 Homogenous groups with 27 participants

Date 4 Safe Move T EN GROUPS - 63 DRIVERS 2011: 36 participants: (20 consistent, 13 over and 3 under estimators) 1. 4 consistent estimators 1 over estimators, (all males) 2. 4 consistent estimators 2 over estimators, (2 females+ 4 males) 3. 3 consistent estimators 3 under estimators, (3 females + 3 males) 4. 1 consistent estimators 5 over estimators, (3 females+ 3 males) 5. 2 consistent estimators 4 over estimators, (5 females + 1 males) 2013: 27 participants: 13 consistent, 9 over and 5 under estimators 1. 5 consistent estimators, (1 female + 4 males) 2. 8 consistent estimators, (1 female + 7 males) 3. 4 over estimators, (2 females+ 2 males) 4. 5 over estimators, (3 females+ 2 males) 5. 5 under estimators, (1 female + 4 males)

Date 5 Safe Move P RE - DEFINED T HEMES The following themes were used during the FG: Theme 1. Planning for the drive Theme 2. Driving through an intersection and concerns relating to attention. Theme 3. Speed adjustment Themes were based on previous findings during on- road assessment

Date 6 Safe Move P ROCEDURE 2 h including a break One moderator and one note taker and voice recorder Minor moderator steering, only introducing the themes, discussion among participants No expectation of consensus in the groups or quantitative analysis If somebody very silent, direct question, assisting the group discussion

Date 7 Safe Move I MPLEMENTATION Two occasions 2011 and 2013 As an introduction, What assistive technology do you have in your car? A very broad definition of assistive technology was used Themes were introduced by describing general difficulties found by the driver instructor during the on-road assessment: Do you recognize these situations? What support /solutions would you like to have to make this easier? How about automation? Free discussion – base for identifying underlying themes

Date 8 Safe Move R ESULTS Much resemblance between FG made in 2011 and 2013 Great variation in own assistive technology (low to high) but generally a positive attitude but fear of cost Attitudes to automation? – Reluctant but interested The 3 Themes: Planning the drive – a growing concern - navigation support, road signs, night time driving, heavy traffic Driving through an intersection requiring high attention – a well recognized problem – traffic rules (e.g. roundabouts), infrastructure, other road users – hard to formulate assistance needed but if possible positive, cost? Speed adjustment – not really a recognized problem – more a problem of other road users – concerned with following the speed limit

Date 9 Safe Move R ESULTS Underlying themes found Ageism – sometimes feeling discriminated Attitude to speed – both up and down Difficulties to interact – other road users cause problems, e.g. pedestrians and cyclist unpredictable Driving context – the car has priority over others, now much more denser and faster traffic Realizing aging – do not see own decline (lack of insight) There is a need, an interest, for assistance but more or less conscious Results will be used for design of both training and driver support demonstrators

Date 10 Safe Move G ENDER ISSUES In 2011: 17 of 36 were women (47%) 8 of 20 consistent estimators were women 8 of 13 over estimators were women! 1 of 3 under estimators were women In 2013: 8 of 27 were women (30%) 2 of 16 consistent estimators were women 5 of 9 over estimators were women! 1 of 2 under estimators were women Over estimation not just a male “problem” (60%) Females – driving not just freedom but also security for attending evening events

Consistent estimators Not upset if other drivers drive faster Positive to do driver training ” speed bumps are there because we drive too fast” Over estimators Ok to exceed speed limit (most had a speed ticket) Showed a more “aggressive” driving style Under estimators (the few) Humble attitude More self critical T HE CATEGORIES Date Safe Move 11

Date 12 Safe Move C ONCLUSIONS Both FG approaches – mixed and homogeneous gave the same result There is a need and interest for driver support but concerns with cost and reliability Navigation, hazard warning, (speed control) Old drivers are diverse Estimator type – seems to catch some diversity but a tricky concept Over estimating not just males

First FG: Broberg, T., Dukic Willstrand, T. Safe mobility for elderly drivers — Considerations on expert and self-assessment, Accident Analysis and Prevention 66 (2014), p. 104–113 Both FGs shortly available as a SafeMove report. R EPORTING Date 13 Safe Move

Date 14 Safe Move S WEET DREAMS AND NIGHT MARES