Page | 1 out of 39

SAFETY ENHANCED INNOVATIONS FOR OLDER ROAD USERS

EUROPEAN COMMISSION EIGHTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

HORIZON 2020 GA No. 636136

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 636136.

Deliverable No. 1.3 - Update

Deliverable Title Road Safety measures towards the elderly, Effects of active vehicle safety systems and derivation of safety strategies

Dissemination level Public

Written by

Marcus Wisch BASt

Checked by Hynd, David TRL

Approved by Wisch, Marcus BASt 20/05/2018

Issue date 20/05/2018

Page | 2 out of 39

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SENIORS can contribute to a safer mobility of older road users in many aspects.

New vehicles are becoming easier to drive (due to features such as steering assistance, lighter gear changes and emergency brake assist). This makes it easier for drivers with physical limitations to operate a vehicle safely. For elderly people, due to a higher proportion of injuries to thorax among older drivers than younger car occupants, injury severity might be reduced by improvements of restraint systems.

SENIORS believes that especially automotive suppliers, car manufacturers and research institutes worked comprehensively on improvements in the area of passive vehicle safety systems in last years and that these systems still provide high potentials for lower numbers of road fatalities and seriously injured with a near-term impact. This is in particular true and required, as the market penetration of ADAS will take many years. The highest benefits will be achieved when the causation of traffic accidents, biomechanics and trauma medicine is better understood.

Older people take part in road traffic either by walking, driving a car (or as passenger) or riding a bicycle. SENIORS covers these transport modes.

There are still several deficits in traffic facilities for which reason there are, for example either not many or plenty of bad quality pedestrian crossings and view obstructed intersections which cause nowadays and in future road safety conflicts and likely collisions. In particular, as long as these fields are not designed satisfyingly safe, vehicle technology has to compensate for this gap. Hereby, SENIORS supports the “Design for all” approach (leading to also an age-friendly vehicle design).

SENIORS contributes a lot, for example, with the THOR dummy, the Elderly, overweight dummy and recommendations for modified test and assessment procedures including age-related injury risk curves towards Euro NCAP and legislation to raise the protection level of older car occupants. Most of these measures stay concealed for the older users and hence, there is no conflict with any uncomfortability of new systems. With the enhanced development of Human Body Models and the pushing of finite element simulations in passive vehicle safety testing, various scenarios can be tested and issues could be identified in an early stage.

SENIORS partners are convinced that many collisions will be avoided in future and several others will be reduced in their severity due to ADAS; but, road traffic accidents will remain reality on European roads for the next decades, especially since ADAS will be limited in their performance in certain environmental conditions for many years. However, SENIORS partners also believe that in particular AEB systems offer a great potential to avoid crashes between passenger cars and pedestrians or cyclists and hence, many severe injuries could be avoided.

SENIORS won’t be able to answer the question which road safety issues concerning older road users could be covered in the best way by which discipline (vehicle technology, infrastructure, behaviour), but it will provide a clearer view on the potential of passive vehicle safety systems for older car occupants, pedestrians and cyclists. How these measures interact with any other safety-related measures needs to be monitored and investigated over the next decades.

Page | 3 out of 39

CONTENTS

Executive summary ........................................................................................................... 2

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4

1.1 The EU Project SENIORS ................................................................................................ 4

1.2 Background for this Deliverable .................................................................................... 5

1.3 Objectives of this Deliverable ....................................................................................... 5

1.4 Structure of this Deliverable ......................................................................................... 5

2 Analysis of Risks for the Elderly in Road Traffic .......................................................... 6

2.1 Early findings from SENIORS ......................................................................................... 6

2.2 Categorization .............................................................................................................. 8

2.3 Way forward .............................................................................................................. 10

3 Road Safety Measures towards the Elderly .............................................................. 11

3.1 Transport needs of older road users............................................................................ 11

3.2 Policies ...................................................................................................................... 12

3.2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 12 3.2.2 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 14

3.3 Safety measures considering vehicle safety systems .................................................... 18

3.3.1 Passive vehicle safety systems adapted for older road users ....................................................... 18 3.3.2 Active vehicle safety systems ........................................................................................................ 18

3.4 Safety measures considering infrastructure................................................................. 19

3.5 Safety measures considering behaviour in traffic and traffic education ........................ 21

3.5.1 Driving Trainings ............................................................................................................................ 21 3.5.2 Driving licenses and need for medical checks ............................................................................... 22

4 Effects of active vehicle safety systems .................................................................... 24

4.1 New Car Assessment Programmes (NCAPs) ................................................................. 24

4.2 European project VRUITS ............................................................................................ 24

4.3 Scientific Papers ......................................................................................................... 25

4.4 Insurance view ........................................................................................................... 27

4.5 Test track experiences ................................................................................................ 31

5 Derivation of safety strategies and Conclusions ....................................................... 33

6 References .............................................................................................................. 36

Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................... 39

Disclaimer....................................................................................................................... 39

Page | 4 out of 39

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 THE EU PROJECT SENIORS

Because society is aging demographically and obesity is becoming more prevalent, the SENIORS (Safety ENhanced Innovations for Older Road userS) project aims to improve the safe mobility of the elderly, and overweight/obese persons, using an integrated approach that covers the main modes of transport as well as the specific requirements of this vulnerable road user (VRU) group.

Primarily, this project investigates and assesses the injury reduction in road traffic crashes that can be achieved through innovative and suitable tools, test and assessment procedures, as well as safety systems in the area of the passive vehicle safety. The goal is to reduce, in near future, the numbers of fatally and seriously injured older road users for both major groups: car occupants and external road users (pedestrians, cyclists, e-bike riders).

Implemented in a project structure, the SENIORS project consists of four technical Work Packages (WP1 – WP4) which interact and will provide the substantial knowledge needed throughout the project. These WPs are:

WP1: Accidentology and behaviour of elderly in road traffic

WP2: Biomechanics

WP3: Test tool development

WP4: Current protection and impact of new safety systems

In addition, there is one Work Package assigned for the Dissemination and Exploitation (WP5) as well as one Work Package for the Project Management (WP6).

The overall scope for the SENIORS project is shown in the flowchart below.

Safety of older road users• Effectiveness of new tools and

advantages of new procedures• Applied to current and advanced

new safety systems• Passive• Active

Integrated benefit analysis

Biomechanical testingDummies / impactorsNumerical modelsInjury criteria

Injury risk curvesTest procedures

Assessment procedures

* To be confirmed from the accident analysis

‡ Head-neck and pedestrian

thorax will be early-stage research

Quantification of needs• Literature (injury, behaviour, …)• Accident studies

Initial benefit assessment• Achievable injury prevention• Analysis of risks• Derivation of safety strategies

Prioritise• Future project activities

IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS /

PRIORITIES FOR OLDER ROAD

USERS

IMPROVED TOOLS

CAR OCCUPANT

• Better older thorax IRC*

• Obese occupant• Active HBM

PEDESTRIAN/CYCLIST

• Flex-PLI with UBM• Head-neck• Pedestrian thorax‡

BENEFIT AND IMPACT

ASSESSMENTS

Page | 5 out of 39

1.2 BACKGROUND FOR THIS DELIVERABLE

Information is required about the performance of current and future active vehicle safety systems, but also measures of the road safety disciplines infrastructure and behaviour and education in traffic, to decide about an appropriate strategy for SENIORS defining most effective passive vehicle safety measures.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THIS DELIVERABLE

The objectives of this report are to:

– Identify safety measures already taken for older road users;

– Descriptive analysis of the risks of elderly in road traffic considering the integrated approach and regarding safety improvements from vehicle technology, infrastructure and behaviour;

– Understand potential impact of the implementation of the measures to be developed in SENIORS; and to

– Prepare the basis to estimate benefit of the developed tools, systems and identified synergy effects.

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THIS DELIVERABLE

Following this introduction Chapter 2 summarizes major risks for older road users in road traffic. Chapter 0 compiles road safety measures from the disciplines vehicle technology, infrastructure and behaviour in traffic. The occurrence and performance of active safety systems are under special consideration in Chapter 4 and finally, Chapter 5 compiles the overall conclusions from the SENIORS project perspective.

Page | 6 out of 39

2 ANALYSIS OF RISKS FOR THE ELDERLY IN ROAD TRAFFIC

2.1 EARLY FINDINGS FROM SENIORS

In SENIORS, various crash, hospital and psychological data analyses have been performed in addition to a comprehensive literature review to identify the most relevant road traffic situations that either raise the risk of injury of the older road user or highlight the age-related changes affecting driving performance and mobility habits, [1] and [2]. In addition, biomechanical characteristics of older road users have been collated and summarized for example in [3].

Since driving is a complex task that requires continuous information processing and appropriate and timely reactions, a person’s ability to move, perceive and react to the environment needs to be considered. The changes to motor, visual, and cognitive functions that the ageing process brings about were analyzed as well as the contribution of these functions to involvement in car accidents.

Both, SENIORS Deliverable 1.1 [1] and 1.2 [2], provide various sources for risks of older road users in road traffic. A few are listed again (please see both deliverables for references):

- Seniors today are more mobile than seniors of earlier generations and mobility is critical for the maintenance of life satisfaction and subjective well-being. Therefore, this population aging is associated with an increase in the number of elderly road users. But participation in road traffic also bears the risk of being involved in road accidents. Due to age-related physiological changes the fatal accident risk for elderly road users is higher than that of their younger counterparts.

- Mobility habits of elderly persons have been analysed based on data from Germany, Italy, and Spain. Here, among others the frequency of trips, travelled distances, and trip purposes were analyzed for elderly persons as car occupants, cyclists, and pedestrians and were compared between the three countries to provide insight into the mobility behaviour of senior road users. The motorized individual transport is the most popular way of traffic participation among seniors and the rate of license holders as well as the availability of a car in the own household are high.

- On average, the car is the most preferred means of transportation by older road users, after walking. In Europe approximately half of all older road users’ trips are made by car. Furthermore, walking is also an important transportation mode in Europe since 30-50% of the older road users’ trips are made on foot. Cycling seems to be of minor significance as a transport mode for the elderly. The choice of a transport mode by older road users mainly depends on the availability of a car, gender, income, health, household structure and residence. Women are less dependent on the car and rely more on walking and public transport than men who have a strong connection to the private car. Walking and public transport services are more dominant in urban areas while the private car is more often used in the countryside.

- Elderly drivers’ accidents more often occur in daylight, on weekdays and on roads that are not affected by snow or ice compared to other drivers. Accidents reflect exposure: elderly prefer driving during the day and in good

Page | 7 out of 39

weather conditions, in order to reduce the risk on the road due their physical limitations. The elderly drivers are less prone to show risky behaviour; they drive less often and drive shorter distances than their younger counterparts.

- Most accidents of seniors happen on urban roads (seniors travel more on local roads than freeways and multi-lane divided roadways), mostly rear-end and angle-crashes; and the most frequent driving errors among elderly are disregard of the right of way and errors when turning, reversing, entering the flow of traffic or starting off the edge of the road. There are several kinds of behaviour among elderly drivers giving a positive effect on traffic safety such as the lower use of alcohol when driving, and the more frequent use of restraints.

- Elderly drivers are known to compensate for their driving limitations. They often self-regulate their driving by avoiding certain situations.

- Elderly drivers furthermore drive slower and with a larger headway than younger drivers - a behaviour that can be ascribed to the tactical level of vehicle control. This level comprises all driving manoeuvres based on knowledge about oneself, the vehicle, and expectations with respect to future traffic situations that aim at keeping the risk of experiencing a hazard low while participating in traffic. These changes in the driving behaviour of the elderly mostly take place on the strategic and tactical level since decisions here can be made under relatively low time pressure and a division of attention is required less frequently. Generally, it seems that senior drivers try to compensate for their performance deficits mainly by avoiding unfavourable times and situations when travelling as well as by driving cautiously. But it also needs to be noted that this avoidance of risky situations as well as the change in driving style might arise from changes in lifestyle habits, motives, and trip purposes at an advanced age due to changes with respect to employment status and/or place of residence and might not necessarily be manifestations of conscious or unconscious efforts to counteract existing deficits.

- Pedal errors (such as failing to stop or accelerating inappropriately) can also be a sign of decreased physical performance, and research has shown that elderly drivers who commit more pedal errors may be at higher risk of being involved in a crash. Reduced upper limb movement, particularly difficulty reaching and extending the arms, has also been found to be associated with crash involvement in drivers aged 55 and over.

- Visual functions central to night-time driving were subject to age-related decline, even in the absence of ocular disease.

- Age-related changes have been identified mainly in relation to attention, executive function and speed of processing. However, although some research has identified relationships between such functions and declines in driving ability and/or increased crash risk, it is important to recognize the limitations in the comparability across studies, particularly as constructs such as executive function are complex and often involve several overlapping processes. In fact, cognitive functions (as well as elements of motor and visual performance) are intrinsically related and, as such, it is perhaps the

Page | 8 out of 39

cumulative effect on multiple systems that is of real importance when it comes to understanding older driver behaviour.

- Motor function, particularly difficulties rotating the neck and torso play an important role in making assessments of when it is safe to pull out of an intersection. If the driver is unable (or slower) to perform the body movements that facilitate scanning of the environment before making decisions to turn, it is more likely that their ability to avoid a collision may be compromised, particularly in complex or congested traffic scenarios.

- Male elderly is used to drive the car, while the female are more relevant as co-driver. Very low is the percentage of elderly in the back of the car.

- Elderly people use seat belts more often than any other age group, in particular they always worn a seat belt as a passenger in the front of the car and always worn a seat belt in the back of the car.

- The elderly violate traffic rules mostly riding bicycle on sidewalk. No violations due to talking on the phone, riding in the dark without lights, or alcohol.

- Elderly pedestrians show a decrease in walking speed and acceleration capacity and they spend more time looking at the ground when crossing road.

- Frequently pedestrian accidents occurred when they were crossing followed by when they were walking on the road as a result of falling.

- The thorax was consistently identified as the most frequently injured body region for car occupants, at both AIS 2+ and AIS 3+ levels, and the risk of thorax injury was 2 or more times greater for the age 65+ group than the age 25-64 group. Serious head and lower extremity injuries were also relatively frequent and of elevated risk for the older age group.

- For cyclists, head, thorax and lower extremity injuries were seen to be the priority at the AIS 3+ level, with upper extremity injuries also common at the AIS 2+ level. For all of these body regions, the risk was greater for the 65+ age group than for the 25-64 age group.

- Similar injury priorities were observed for pedestrians as for cyclists, with lower extremity injuries being the priority at the AIS 2+ level and head & thorax injuries being the priority at the AIS 3+ level.

2.2 CATEGORIZATION

The ElderSafe study “Risks and countermeasures for road traffic of the elderly in Europe” [4] categorized road safety risks for different road user types such as car drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians.

Within this study the risk factor analysis revealed three dimensions that depend on each other: exposure, accident risk and injury risk. These dimensions were further split into thirteen risk domains:

Page | 9 out of 39

- Exposure:

• Urban roads,

• Rural roads,

• Transportation mode: car driver, car passenger, PTW-user, pedestrian, cyclist, public transport user.

- Accident risk:

• Illnesses/functional limitations,

• Medication,

• Risk taking/distraction,

• Self-regulation.

- Injury risk:

• Fragility.

The risk factors were determined by reviewing literature and policy documents as well as analysis of the European Accident Database CARE regarding road traffic fatalities. The study pointed out that there is a big lack of exposure data dedicated to older road users. Finally, population figures were chosen as best fitting source of exposure data, compared to e.g., number of trips, vehicle or person kilometres travelled. The goal was to gain a typology of risk factors for the elderly.

The method followed the approach from Elvik [5]. Elvik described that road safety issues are multidimensional and categorized eight risk dimensions:

1. Magnitude;

2. Severity;

3. Externality;

4. Inequality;

5. Complexity;

6. Spatial dispersion;

7. Temporal stability; and

8. Perceived urgency.

Finally, a qualitative assessment of the risk factors of these eight road safety dimensions was performed. A quantitative analysis was conducted for two dimensions only: the “Magnitude” (based on calculations for the proportion of exposure and the relative risk associated) and the “Perceived urgency or public support” (estimations for the success of implementing measures based on a stakeholder’s questionnaire) translated into a countermeasure ranking.

Overall, the authors collated various sources of information and concluded to derive a prioritization for a strongest impact on the reduction of serious road traffic casualties receiving also a strong support by the public in terms of countermeasures.

Page | 10 out of 39

Finally, priorities were set to the risk domains:

- Fragility,

- Illnesses and functional limitations,

- Urban roads,

- Pedestrian (i.e. walking as transportation mode), and

- Medication.

2.3 WAY FORWARD

Summarizing the information collected leads to the conclusion that there is an increased risk of injury for older road users compared to younger road users. Reasons for this are manifold and interdisciplinary as discussed in previous Sections.

Related to SENIORS and hence related to risks addressable by passive vehicle safety systems, the elderly as car occupant, pedestrian or cyclist remain of highest priority compared to other road user types. Further, the elderly’s fragility will be of special consideration for the next activities in SENIORS.

Page | 11 out of 39

3 ROAD SAFETY MEASURES TOWARDS THE ELDERLY

There is a variety of measures towards the improvement of the safety and the comfort of older road users in different transport modes. Several European research projects (for example GOAL [6] and TRACY [7]) have dealt with this topic comprehensively and provided various lists, conclusions and recommendations for improvements in different road safety disciplines such as the vehicle safety systems, infrastructure and traffic education. Furthermore, on the national level, several countries pressed ahead with innovations and the implementation of distinct measures in (pilot) regions or policies in last years. Some of those are explained in the following Sections.

As the number of potential safety measures is huge and it was found more and more difficult and time consuming to compare different measures and their effects with each other, projects such as the concluded ElderSafe project [4] and the currently running European project SafetyCube [8] aim to provide a structured overview.

3.1 TRANSPORT NEEDS OF OLDER ROAD USERS

To derive efficient road safety measures, the risks of older road users in road traffic need to be identified (see also Chapter 2), but also their needs have to be understood.

Therefore, the TRACY project compiled the needs of older road users [7]. A selection of those are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Transport needs of older people (based on [7])

Characteristic Explanation Affordable Use of the transport and mobility system should be possible within

older people’s financial means Barrier free System’s facilities should be usable by disabled persons and

should be designed to take into account the physical, sensory and cognitive impairments

Comfortable The transport and mobility system should be designed or adapted to ensure that older people can use it without experiencing undue comfort, pain, stress or anxiety

Efficient Ensure a reasonable time for the travel Reliable The transport and mobility system should perform as advertised

even in unpredictable weather phenomenon Safe The transport and mobility system should be safe and should let

feel older people safe using it Secure The transport and mobility system should be dependable, should

not present unnecessary risks and should let feel older people confident not being at a risk

Focusing on traffic safety, it is of highest importance that older people feel safe when being part of any kind of transportation mode. Besides of adapted vehicle safety system specifications, the information about these systems and their functionalities

Page | 12 out of 39

needs to be presented to (not only) older road users to gain a higher acceptance level.

Boenke et al. remarked that many older people are limited in their mobility, but the traffic environment is not prepared sufficiently for this [9]. Most important is an accessible environment that helps people with physical or sensory impairments, but also people with chronic diseases. It was cited that an accessible environment is indispensable for 10% of the population, necessary for 30-40% and comfortable for everybody. Regarding needs of the elderly, it was found that in urban areas 80% of the elderly walk often and this slower than other age groups. 18% of them need a walking assistance (e.g., cane or rollator). Often the green (walking) phases of pedestrian crossings were considered to be too short. To reach a town, the own passenger car is from highest importance followed by the public transport in larger cities. In less hilly areas, the preferred means of transport is the bicycle. Regarding cycling older people rated high traffic safety and comfort and less often travel speed. This includes the riding with the desired speed without the feeling of being an obstacle, the avoidance of steep hill up- and downwards as well as routs with as less stops as possible. Another survey showed that older people also demanded more police in public areas and service staff that supports for example in the case of trip-related questions or buying a ticket for the public transport.

3.2 POLICIES

3.2.1 Overview

The project “TRAnsport Needs for an ageing soCietY” (TRACY) found 174 policies and programmes specifically related to older road users in 33 countries including the EU-27 (n=127), Switzerland, Norway, the United States of America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. On average, there were five policies and programmes found per country. 64% of all policies and programmes were solely introduced for older people. Policies were generally related to individual modes of transport, but some covered also more than one. In most cases the evaluation of the impact of these measures remained unspecified [7].

An overview of the themes and modes compiled is shown in Figure 1.

Page | 13 out of 39

Figure 1: Overview of themes and modes of policies and programmes [7]

TRACY introduced a scoring system for the different policies and finally ranked them (Score 1 – 5). Interviews with government representatives were conducted to gain governments’ understanding of these policies. Finally, these were classified into “Very well understood”, “Reasonably well understood” and “Poorly understood”, see Figure 2. It can be seen that from a government’s perspective the topics “Safety”, “Affordability” and “Barrier freedom” were assigned being “Very well understood” and hence, measures are preferred addressing these.

Figure 2: Governments’ understanding of policies [7]

Page | 14 out of 39

3.2.2 Recommendations

Several projects announced lists of recommendations for research institutes and policy makers to ensure capturing the needs of older road users in road transport and increasing their safety.

TRACY

Among them, TRACY [7] recommended to the research community to:

1. Harmonisation of travel surveys to establish a European overview of transport needs;

2. Statistics and information about accidents and risks in relation to all transport

modes;

3. Improving knowledge about individual transport means for older people;

4. Research on virtual mobility and complementary mobile services;

5. Assessing driver training programmes and preparing for the transition from the car to other transport modes;

6. Establishing an overview of best practice at the local level and lessons for EU-policies.

Further, TRACY [7] recommended to policy makers to:

7. Promoting an all-mode approach, including walking and cycling

8. Encouraging policy evaluation and impact assessment in certain fields

9. Developing European guidance on age-friendly road and street design

10. Developing European guidance on less frequently considered qualities of an age-friendly transport system

Out of this list, SENIORS supports recommendations numbers 2, 3, 8 and 10 by its work.

GOAL

The project “Growing Older, stAying mobiLe: Transport needs for an aging society” (GOAL) had similar aims as TRACY. Thus, GOAL identified statistically profiles of older people and future scenarios as well as performed a gap analysis to support the mobility of older people through a systematic approach [6].

GOAL published an action plan addressing the key areas “Driving”, “Public transport”, “Walking and Cycling” as well as “Travel information” naming also seven actions:

1. Develop databases on walking and cycling behaviour by older people;

2. Identify motivators for walking and cycling for older people;

Page | 15 out of 39

3. Investigate the transition behaviour from car to other modalities;

4. Develop methodologies to assess the benefits of public transport accessibility measures;

5. Identify the requirements for travel information and social media suitable for older people;

6. Assess the impact and potential of future technology for the older driver; and

7. Develop driving screening and assessment tools and programs.

Out of this list, SENIORS supports actions, recommendations respectively, items 1 and 6 by its work.

Ageing and Safe Mobility

The international interdisciplinary conference “Ageing and Safe Mobility” 2014 dealt with the challenges for mobility and safety caused by the increase of the number and share of elderly road users in Europe in the next twenty years [10]. The conference was organized by the Forum of European Road Safety Research Institutes (FERSI) in cooperation with five other continental research associations dealing with road safety issues – ECTRI, Euro NCAP, ETRA, FEHRL and HUMANIST.

The conference concluded with nine recommendations:

1. General objectives; 2. Accident involvement; 3. Age-based obligatory aptitude testing; 4. Target groups; 5. Self-regulation; 6. Training; 7. Vehicle technology; 8. Infrastructure; and 9. Conceptual and methodological requirements.

Out of this list, SENIORS supports recommendations 1, 2 and 7 by its work. These recommendations include for example [10]:

- Active mobility, like walking and cycling, improves health and life quality. It is important to ensure that a modal shift from driving a car to public transport, bicycle and walking is safe. Older road users are characterized by their own risk potential (deficits, performance impairments) and safety potential (experience, attitudes, motives, ability to learn, compensation strategies). Road safety measures should be based primarily on the use of safety potentials.

- The accident risk for older vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians) is higher than the risk of elderly car drivers. Therefore it is important to implement corresponding targeted measures. There is a misperception of the accident risk of older drivers in European countries due to media-bias, frailty-

Page | 16 out of 39

bias and mileage-bias. This situation has to be improved through appropriate information and education measures.

- Studies showed that older drivers are willing to use new vehicle technologies, as long as they are adapted to their requirements and needs. Based on the fact that frailty is an important risk factor of older drivers being seriously injured or being killed in passenger cars it is recommended to consider the specific biomechanics of the elderly while developing dummies.

The conference also highlighted specific recommendations such as that the segment of elderly road users is highly heterogeneous with respect to road accident risk, individual characteristics, mobility needs, patterns and problems. Hence, it is important to develop and implement individual preventive measures for different target groups instead of general preventive measures. ElderSafe project

The EU ElderSafe Study “Risks and countermeasures for road traffic of the elderly in Europe” recommended a comprehensive and proactive strategy including a package of measures [4]. Among them, the following key areas had to be covered:

- Vehicle & ITS technologies;

- Education & training;

- Licensing & enforcement;

- Infrastructural interventions.

The project emphasizes the need of basing all measures on the “Design for all” approach taking into account the specific needs, opportunities and limitations of different road users that leads to an age-friendly design. As a consequence, the mobility of the elderly will be enhanced and the road safety level will be increased of both, the elderly and younger road users.

Regarding the key area “Vehicle and ITS technologies” advanced vehicle technologies or driver assistance systems were highlighted because of their capability to assist the elderly compensating for their age-related functional declines. Here, the age-friendly vehicle plays a predominant role. Finally, five policy recommendations have been provided for the “Vehicle and ITS technologies”, listed in short:

1. Develop better active vehicle safety systems considering elderly;

2. Introduce standardized testing procedure to assess advanced vehicle technologies for older drivers and include corresponding procedures in the consumer protection programme Euro NCAP;

3. Educate and train the elderly on correct usage of active safety technologies;

4. Encourage further development of crash avoidance systems;

Page | 17 out of 39

5. Explore the potential benefits and drawbacks of (semi-) automated driving.

It has to be noted that there was no clear definition of “advanced vehicle technologies”. SENIORS agrees to the importance of the abovementioned statements; however, SENIORS also believes that the potential of advanced passive vehicle safety technologies was understated.

Further, the ElderSafe project listed specific recommendations for actions concerning the vehicle technology and manufacturing sector:

- To design and inform older road users about effective vehicle safety technologies to better protect the (older) VRU;

- To design smart vehicle safety technologies adapted to the needs and individual characteristics of different driver groups, such as the higher physical vulnerability of the older driver / passengers;

- To systematically assess the usability of advanced vehicle technologies for older drivers.

In addition, ElderSafe provided distinct recommendations to research institutes (here interpreted as representative for collaborative research projects such as SENIORS):

1. To better understand the accident circumstances in which older road users are involved and propose effective countermeasures;

2. To explore the impact of innovative transportation means such as electric vehicles, pedelecs (e-bikes) and intelligent bikes on elderly safety;

3. To explore the exposure patterns of elderly road users;

4. To evaluate the effectiveness of countermeasures to improve older road user safety;

5. To produce scientifically sound criteria (neuropsychological tests, medical tests, driving test) to evaluate driving abilities (including compensation behaviour) and risks;

6. To explore the prediction of non-fitness to drive in order to establish testing standards by differentiating safe from at-risk driving.

SENIORS supports recommendations 1 – 4 by its work.

Page | 18 out of 39

3.3 SAFETY MEASURES CONSIDERING VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS

3.3.1 Passive vehicle safety systems adapted for older road users

Frontal and side airbags, but also curtain airbags as well as load limiters and seatbelt pre-tensioners for drivers and front-seated passengers are now almost universally available in new passenger vehicles.

The ElderSafe study reported an over-involvement of older people in severe crashes: “Indication that the elderly tend to drive with older, used cars without the safety advantage of advanced passive safety measures” [4]. The analyses of accident and hospital data within the SENIORS Work Package 1 could not confirm this finding.

In a Japanese study belted drivers and front seat passengers in frontal collisions were analyzed to clarify the relation between age groups and chest injuries, especially the rib injury severity [11]. Vehicle speed change or the delta-v of cars were used to evaluate the injury severity of 246 occupants. In the analysis, the young-age group represented 16 to 24 years old occupants, middle-age group represented 25 to 54 years old, elderly-age group represented over 54 years old. It was concluded that the injury severity of elderly people is related to rib injuries, which tend to occur at a lower delta-v compared with the young group. Depending on the delta-v, however, rib injuries sustained by the elderly-age group could be three ranks more severe than those sustained by the young-age group, even with the same delta-v. It was also found that most of rib fractures were caused by the contact with the seat belt. This finding was true in all age groups. For the protection of elderly people, ideas that aim to reduce rib injuries would be useful. Also, it was expected that restraint systems dedicated to elderly people could be developed. Mertz and Dalmotas found also great potential for adapted restraint systems to increase the safety level of older car occupants [12]. In particular, the authors mentioned that a load limiter chosen to minimize AIS3+ chest injuries to young occupants would not minimize such injuries to older occupants. However, a shoulder belt load limit of 2.5 kN would substantially reduce the AIS3+ chest injuries in 99 percent of frontal collisions for all adult, front outboard-seated occupants whose normalized bone strengths are greater than 0.4. Further, to reduce the occurrence of shoulder belt induced AIS3+ chest injuries, the shoulder belt limit load must be chosen to give low risks of such injuries in the more frequent, low severity collisions (delta-v < 40 km/h) and the airbag must be designed to provide the protection in the less frequent, high severity collisions (delta-v = 48-56 km/h, 90 ms pulse). The SENIORS project investigates by its testing and simulation runs innovative restraint systems adapted to older people.

3.3.2 Active vehicle safety systems

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) could help to go beyond physical and visual deficit of the elderly. This is even emphasized as “older drivers are becoming more and more in favour of advanced passive and active safety devices compared to

Page | 19 out of 39

younger drivers because they perceive them more as a support than as an interference with their driving activity” [4]. The range of active vehicle safety systems is large and cannot be summarised in this report, but it is aimed to focus on Lane Assistance systems and Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) systems in this Section and to report about ADAS effects in Chapter 0. The Robert Bosch GmbH publishes annually current figures of the market penetration of AEB and lane assistance systems in newly registered passenger cars [13]. The figures from the year 2015 show an increase of the market penetration of these systems in five European countries compared to 2014, see Table 2. Only Germany showed a decreased share of lane assistance systems; however, this could be covered by other ADAS including a lane assistance.

Table 2: Shares of Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) and lane assistance systems in newly registered passenger cars in Europe (based on [13])

% Year Belgium Germany Great Britain

Netherlands Spain

AEB system 2014 25 20 5 17 11

2015 30 25 21 32 16

Lane Assistance

2014 14 21 6 11 9

2015 15 16 14 13 12

SENIORS does neither test nor evaluate the performance of any active vehicle safety system; therefore the final benefit analysis must rely on literature findings.

3.4 SAFETY MEASURES CONSIDERING INFRASTRUCTURE

The interdisciplinary authors of the report “Design of safe intersections for vulnerable road users“ focused on the identification of current traffic safety issues and their causations especially for children, elderly people and people with special mobility restrictions or disabilities [14].

On the basis of a macroscopic accident analysis of about 350,000 accidents at intersections from five German federal states typical accident situations of children and elderly people were determined. In view of accidents in urban areas it was found that elderly people are mostly involved in left-turning accidents (one vehicle oncoming) and right-angle accidents as drivers (this corresponds to the distribution of all accidents at intersections); and that in relation to all road users children and elderly people are disproportionately often involved in accidents with vehicles as pedestrians (where they also often get injured).

Generally, a high regulatory compliance of all road users could be noticed. In the group of the pedestrians and bicyclists children relatively made more mistakes than people of other age groups. Elderly drivers committed the same mistakes than

Page | 20 out of 39

younger drivers. However, elderly drivers made relatively more mistakes than younger drivers when turning left.

Conflicts and road traffic accident were often observed when:

- left turning traffic was not protected by traffic lights;

- missing or not more recognizable guidance (guidelines, waiting lines) for vehicles turning left;

- vehicles turned left and vehicles went straight using the left lane together (especially when vehicles that are going straight could use the middle or the right lanes, too);

- insufficient fields of vision;

- design of pedestrian and bicycle facilities was not compliant to the guidelines and lack of crossing facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists.

It was emphasized that most of the identified conflicts would most likely not have occurred if the examined intersections had been designed according to the current guidelines and directives. Therefore, recommendations for the design of intersections must relate mainly to the current guidelines and directives for the design of urban roads and intersections. For praxis, it was recommended for example to create road crossing zones appropriate for their specific purpose (e.g. close to a school), to guarantee sufficient fields of view at junctions, to highlight crossing cycle paths (e.g. by red colour floor painting), to shorten waiting periods at pedestrian crossings and to establish widely ground-level crossing facilities for pedestrian.

Boenke et al. emphasized the need for checking latest road design guidelines in road construction planning phases for which also the official safety audits and accident commissions (related to Germany) should be contacted [9].

The authors revealed by analysing the results of surveys that older people demand for quality and safety of the pathways. This indicates the necessity for continuous routes, safe walkable and understandable pathways, safe and numerous crossings and simple access to stops and buildings. It was highlighted that only after applying these measures, other routes for cyclists and motorized traffic should be planned as deficits of pedestrian traffic facilities have disparately more severe issues in their usage compared to deficits of the other traffic facilities. Therefore, pathways should be wide enough, should use appropriate surface materials and should be maintained. It is also recommended to separate different areas of purpose from each other by colours, materials etc.

Regarding cycling older people require wide cycling lanes to feel safe also in overtaking situations and to avoid their evasion to pathways. Other measures are to provide guidance in mixed traffic areas, on cycle paths along roads or fully separate lanes and to ensure always good conditions for best visibility to other traffic participants. Ending cycling lanes should be designed in a protective way (e.g. transition to normal road) as many older persons have difficulties to glance over their shoulder. Crossing areas for cyclists should be designed with similar requirements as for pedestrians.

Page | 21 out of 39

Regarding older car drivers it was recommended to ensure all times best conditions for good visibility including the enforcement of stop and park prohibitions in critical areas. In the case of acute-angled intersections and crossroads a traffic signal should be installed also to approach the difficulties of glancing over the shoulder. Also, clear markings of roads of different priorities are required and roundabouts should be used. The number of road signs should be reduced to the most necessary ones and labels should be large and differing in colour depending on their purpose.

Further, parking lots (of public and private areas) should be designed to consist of understandable and large parking areas per vehicle and protective walking zones. Accesses to public transport require coordination with the respective means of transport, e.g. the height of the tram stop’s access step should be equal to the entry area of the tram (barrier-free).

The project “TRAnsport Needs for an ageing soCietY” (TRACY) provided also recommendations for the road design for elderly [7]. As example, the following items were highlighted by the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute:

- “Understandable”, standardized road design;

- As little information as possible in the road environment;

- Allow time for difficult driving situations;

- Junctions and places/squares with clear assignment of functions;

- Provide not too much, but also not too little stress for drivers;

- Signage and guidance should be readable, logical and consequent.

3.5 SAFETY MEASURES CONSIDERING BEHAVIOUR IN TRAFFIC AND TRAFFIC

EDUCATION

3.5.1 Driving Trainings

The authors of the report „State of knowledge about traffic safety measures for older road users“ investigated the effect of different trainings for older road users regarding improvements of their car driving competence [15].

The studies were based on the fact that with increasing age specific changes of sensory, motor and cognitive functions emerge which are relevant for driving, but that many seniors drive inconspicuously because they activate compensatory mechanisms. Against this background the question emerged whether older drivers are posing an increased risk, and, if so, whether this risk could be counteracted by interventions. Age-related functional changes that are relevant for driving as well as compensatory mechanisms were outlined and the usefulness of sensory and cognitive tests for the prediction of fitness to drive was discussed. Here the authors proposed integrated screening tests, which should be followed by a driving test and, if necessary, intervention measures. Concerning intervention measures the design of traffic environment appeared to be relevant, particularly for situations which impose problems for elderly. Thus, the problematic design of traffic routeing for left-turns at complex intersections was chosen to be re-designed, in particular at critical

Page | 22 out of 39

intersections. Relevant driver assistance systems promise useful support, but were not available in the time of the study. It was also noted that too little attention is devoted to small systems such as turnable seat rests. A relevant training study in real traffic (“Dortmunder Fahrtrainingsstudie”) was discussed as it could be demonstrated that older drivers could improve their driving behaviour after a special driving training in real traffic, compared to a control group. Simulator trainings yield improvements of single driving-related action chains. Function centred training, which targets driving-relevant functions directly are mentioned more frequently in the literature. However, they originate mainly from one working group, and comprise only the „UFOV®-Training“. This training yields clear improvements of driving competence and increases the duration of mobility in older drivers. However, given the lack of studies, there is urgent need for further studies on different and multifaceted functional trainings.

A focus group of older drivers was consulted concerning their subjective driving problems and meaningful intervention measures. Complex driver assistant systems were seen rather negative, simple technical aids rather positive. As to traffic design the reduction of information overload was reminded. The seniors well noticed their decay of vision, particularly in darkness and rain. A majority voted for mandatory annual tests of vision; a regular check of driving performance was generally refused. All participants voted for practical trainings, but are concerned about their costs.

In summary, particularly the practical individual trainings yield good effects on the driving competence of elderly. The benefit of driving training in real traffic is relatively clear and mainly improves drivers with poor a priori performance. The few studies to simulator-based and functional trainings suggest positive and partly enduring effects on driving performance and mobility in older drivers. Here, further research is urgently necessary, which should focus on low-cost training techniques.

3.5.2 Driving licenses and need for medical checks

The project “TRAnsport Needs for an ageing soCietY” (TRACY) provided also recommendations for the driving licence for elderly [7]. As example, the following items were highlighted by the Czech Republic according to the law 361 from the year 2000 about the Medical Certificate about fitness to drive:

- Mandatory for people at the age of 60 and older;

- Renewal with 65 and 68 years;

- Afterwards compulsory renewal every two years;

- Penalties for driving without valid medical certificate up to 395€ and one year driving ban.

Martensen and Diependaele highlighted work from the European CONSOL project which had compared the procedures to renew driving licenses in 27 European countries [16], see Figure 3. It can be seen that there is a balanced mix of countries demanding medical checks or at least an administrative procedure but there are also countries which offer driving licenses with unlimited validity.

Page | 23 out of 39

Figure 3: Procedures to renew driving licenses in 27 EU countries (source: screenshot from [16])

A discussion at the Conference "Ageing and Safe Mobilitiy" [10] revealed that still representatives from certain countries were against a mandatory introduction of medical checks for elderly and constituted instead in the necessity to improve their self-reflection including potential deficits. Here, also courses from traffic clubs / associations and medical insurances should be considered. In addition, it was proposed to add clear statements to medication if these could influence the capability to take part safely in road traffic.

The Working Group on Eyesight gave no recommendations for regular eye examinations, because accident data could not show yet that repeated eye examinations would decrease the number of road accidents, but the group appreciates voluntary eye examinations [17].

Also the German Insurance Association (GDV) confirmed that there is no prove of positive effects of age-related driving abilities for the road traffic safety [18]. The report says that there was no link found between eye examinations and accident risk. A reason for this could be that usually eye examinations check for visual acuity, but driving requires mostly cognitive controlling and the processing of sight movements.

Page | 24 out of 39

4 EFFECTS OF ACTIVE VEHICLE SAFETY SYSTEMS

A large number of active vehicle safety systems are available and spread over modern passenger cars. Besides safety-related improvements of headlights and other vehicle components, the driver is in particular addressed by Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) and Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) systems.

In a nutshell, active vehicle safety systems improve the safety of older car occupants, pedestrians or cyclists as they are able to avoid crashes or to reduce the car’s impact speed; however, there was no ADAS identified that is designed specifically for older road users. As a consequence, available ADAS performance studies were not informing clearly about age-related effects and hence, results were considered being fully applicable to older road users (to be included in the SENIORS final benefit estimation as input parameter).

4.1 NEW CAR ASSESSMENT PROGRAMMES (NCAPS)

AEB systems for vehicle-to-rear-end-vehicle accidents are already in production since 2003 and have been considered in consumer testing by Euro NCAP since 2014. These look-ahead systems assess the risk of a collision with another vehicle and brake automatically if needed to mitigate or even avoid an accident. Since 2016 Euro NCAP is also assessing AEB systems designed to avoid crashes with pedestrians. By 2018, AEB system functionalities detecting cyclists will also be part of the test assessment.

However, as these systems (see also Section 3.3.2) still have a low market penetration and further, as it is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of AEB systems as avoided crashes can (mostly) not be found in crash databases anymore, effectiveness analyses based on recorded road traffic accident data or naturalistic driving studies are challenging and limited. Nevertheless, researchers take also advantage of actual results from system performance tests, such as from Euro NCAP AEB tests, or theoretical assumptions of system specifications and/or their performance.

Nolan and Karush reported that “even when a feature is mandatory in new vehicles, it still takes decades before all vehicles on the road are equipped with it” [19]. Further, “the Highway Loss Data Institute [...] found that it takes about three decades or longer from the time a promising safety feature is introduced until it is on 95 percent of registered vehicles.”

4.2 EUROPEAN PROJECT VRUITS

The project “Improving the safety and mobility of vulnerable road users through ITS applications” (VRUITS) conducted studies, among others, to design the warning cascade of older drivers using cooperative AEB systems [20]. The system was defined to warn the driver several seconds before a collision with a crossing cyclist is expected either by a visual, audible or tactile perception in form of an activated seatbelt pre-tensioner. Comparing older and younger volunteers using this system revealed that requirements for such systems differ by the users’ age group. Finally, it could be shown that “excellent Human Machine Interface design will ensure that

Page | 25 out of 39

older drivers benefit from this technology whilst not increasing mental workload or decision making time” and that “by acknowledging the different older driver profiles systems could be personalized or adapted to their needs allowing them to drive their car for longer and safer”.

4.3 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS

Cicchino determined the effectiveness of FCW and AEB systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates comparing police-recorded crash involvements in years 2010-2014 of vehicles with different equipment, i.e. the same model with FCW alone or with AEB and where customers ordered these vehicles without these functionalities [21]. In detail, the objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of FCW alone, a low-speed AEB system operational at speeds up to 19 mph that does not warn the driver prior to braking, and FCW with AEB that operates at higher speeds in reducing front-to-rear crashes and injuries. Similar analyses compared rates between Volvo 2011–2012 model S60 and 2010–2012 model XC60 vehicles with a standard low-speed AEB system to those of other luxury midsize cars and SUVs, respectively, without the system. FCW alone, low-speed AEB, and FCW with AEB reduced rear-end striking crash involvement rates by 27%, 43%, and 50%, respectively. Rates of rear-end striking crash involvements with injuries were reduced by 20%, 45%, and 56%, respectively, by FCW alone, low-speed AEB, and FCW with AEB, and rates of rear-end striking crash involvements with third-party injuries were reduced by 18%, 44%, and 59%, respectively. Reductions in rear-end striking crashes with third-party injuries were marginally significant for FCW alone, and all other reductions were statistically significant. FCW alone and low-speed AEB reduced rates of being rear struck in rear-end crashes by 13% and 12%, respectively, but FCW with AEB increased rates of rear-end struck crash involvements by 20%. It was concluded that almost 1 million U.S. police-reported rear-end crashes in 2014 and more than 400,000 injuries in such crashes could have been prevented if all vehicles were equipped with FCW and AEB that perform similarly as systems did for study vehicles.

Fildes et al. calculated the effectiveness of low speed autonomous emergency braking in real-world rear-end crashes [22]. The validating vehicle safety through meta-analysis (VVSMA) group comprising a collaboration of government, industry consumer organisations and researchers, pooled data from a number of countries using a standard analysis format and the established MUND approach. Induced exposure methods were adopted to control for any extraneous effects. The findings showed a 38% overall reduction in rear-end crashes for vehicles fitted with AEB compared to a comparison sample of similar vehicles. There was no statistical evidence of any difference in effect between urban (≤60 km/h) and rural (>60 km/h) speed zones. The authors also compared own results with those from the literature summarizing these findings in a table, see Table 3.

Page | 26 out of 39

Table 3: Published studies of benefits of AEB technology [22]

MacAlister and Zuby stated that cyclists are overrepresented among motor vehicle crash fatalities [23]. Analyses of related crash data led to the most relevant crash scenarios between cars and cyclists. The most common crash modes involved the movement combinations straight‐crossing, turning‐crossing, and turning‐in line. Crashes that occurred in non‐daylight conditions and on roads with speed limits of 40 mi/h and greater contributed to the greatest percentage of fatalities. Cyclist detection systems that function at high speeds and in both daylight and non‐daylight conditions offer the greatest potential benefit. Effective cyclist detection systems designed to function in scenarios like the three common fatal crash modes and two additional most common crash modes could help mitigate or prevent up to 47% of crashes, 48% of injuries, and 54% of fatalities, potentially saving up to 363 lives annually in the US.

Chauvel et al. explained the activation cascades of AEB systems for pedestrians [24]. The authors described that the driver might be first notified about the danger by a tone or a visual warning or by an haptic feedback in the brake. If the driver does not act and if the impact is considered as inevitable, an automatic braking is applied. Notification step can also be skipped and the system brakes when the imminent collision is detected. Braking strategies vary across systems in terms of operating speeds range, adjusting the level of the braking force and the time when impact is considered inevitable. The value of deceleration is generally limited to 0.6 g.

A detailed analysis of pedestrian crashes was carried out with the help of European in-depth crash data as well as police reports. Results showed that crashes with pedestrians occurred often in cities and during daytime. Expected effectiveness of pedestrian AEB systems, if 100% of the fleet would be fitted with a perfect system that never fails, would be a reduction of 15.3% of fatal pedestrian crashes and 38.2% of seriously injured pedestrian crashes each year. These would amount to 1.3% and 3.8% of all fatal and serious injury crashes respectively that occur annually in France. Hence, these figures represent the potential of pedestrian AEB systems.

Wisch et al. highlighted the importance of older pedestrians in specific crash scenarios with passenger cars [25]. Continuing benefit estimations for related AEB systems published by Edwards et al. [26] showed that the nominal benefits estimated for Great Britain ranged from £119 million to £385 million annually and for Germany from €63 million to €216 million annually depending on the type of AEB system

Page | 27 out of 39

assumed fitted. Sensitivity calculations showed that the benefit estimated could vary from about half to twice the nominal estimate, depending on factors such as whether or not the system would function at night and the road friction assumed. Based on scaling of estimates made, the nominal benefit of implementing pedestrian AEB systems on all cars in Europe was estimated to range from about €1 billion per year for current generation AEB systems to about €3.5 billion for a reference limit system (i.e. best performance thought technically feasible at present). Dividing these values by the number of new passenger cars registered in Europe per year gave an indication that the cost of a system per car should be less than ~€80 to ~€280 for it to be cost effective.

Jermakian and Zuby investigated major crash scenarios between passenger cars and pedestrians and reported potential benefits of vehicle based pedestrian detection systems [27]. The objective of the study was to determine the most common and injurious pedestrian crash scenarios in the United States. Crash records were extracted from the 2005-09 files of the National Automotive Sampling System General Estimates System (NASS GES) and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). The largest number of pedestrian crash involvements and deaths involved a pedestrian crossing the roadway while the vehicle was traveling straight. This scenario accounted for 43 percent of pedestrian involvements and 46 percent of pedestrian deaths in single-vehicle crashes. The other main crash scenarios involved the pedestrian traveling in-line with traffic while the vehicle was traveling straight and the pedestrian crossing while the vehicle was turning. A larger proportion of fatal pedestrian crashes occurred in nondaylight conditions and on roadways with speed limits higher than 40 mi/h, when compared with pedestrian crash involvements of all severities. Finally, it was concluded that vehicle technologies that can quickly and accurately detect pedestrians in the three most common crash scenarios potentially can mitigate as many as 65 percent of pedestrian involvements and 58 percent of pedestrian deaths in single-vehicle crashes in the United States. It was also noted that there is great potential for pedestrian detection systems, but they must function in low-light conditions and at higher vehicle speeds to address a large proportion of pedestrian deaths.

4.4 INSURANCE VIEW

Kühn et al. analysed a representative sample from the German Insurers' database (UDV) covering 2,025 accidents. Statistical methods were applied to extrapolate from these accidents up to 167,699 claims to estimate the benefit of ADAS [28].

The authors concluded that a Collision Mitigation Braking System (CMBS) which is able to gather information from the environment, to warn the driver and to perform a partial braking maneuver autonomously (CMBS 2), could prevent up to 17.8 % of all car accidents with personal injuries in the data sample. The theoretical safety potential of a Lateral Guidance System, consisting of Lane Change Assist and Lane Keeping Assist, was determined to be up to 7.3 %. Hence, a car fleet equipped with CMBS 2 and Lateral Guidance could avoid up to 25.1 % of all car accidents in the data sample. This theoretical safety potential is based on the assumptions that 100

Page | 28 out of 39

% of the car fleet is equipped with these systems and the driver reacts perfectly when warned.

“The Highway Loss Data Institute, founded in 1972, shares and supports this mission through scientific studies of insurance data representing the human and economic losses resulting from the ownership and operation of different types of vehicles and by publishing insurance loss results by vehicle make and model” [29]. Among others, series vehicles equipped with forward collision warning (FCW) systems with and without autonomous braking were compared based on crash information collated by the insurance market, see Figure 4. It can be seen that the collision claim frequency decreased greatly in case of vehicles with FCW and autonomous braking compared to vehicles of the same manufacturer not equipped with autonomous braking.

Figure 4: Collision claim frequency by manufacture, all vehicles equipped with FCW [29]

In contrast to this positive development, a statistic on the overall collision loss of vehicles equipped with adaptive headlights revealed positive and negative trends, see Figure 5.

Figure 5: Overall collision losses by manufacturer, all vehicles equipped with adaptive headlights [29]

Further, lane departure warning systems without an active assist could not avoid crashes all times as can be seen in Figure 6.

Page | 29 out of 39

Figure 6: Collision claim frequency by manufacturer, all vehicles equipped with lane departure warning system but

without active assist [29]

The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) investigated the experiences of owners of non-luxury vehicles with collision avoidance technology [30]. The study was based on earlier findings such as that:

- Collision avoidance technologies have potential to prevent up to 20 percent of police-reported crashes;

- Full effectiveness of technologies depends on how they are used; and - Previous surveys with Volvo and Infiniti owners found high acceptance of

systems among drivers.

Despite the fact that all interviewed persons reported about unnecessary system activations independently from the vehicle’s brand and equipment, see Figure 7; it could also be shown that drivers felt to drive safer with lane departure systems and with Adaptive cruise control (ACC) and blind spot detection, see Table 4 and Table 5, respectively.

Figure 7: Percent of owners who report false or unnecessary activations [30]

Page | 30 out of 39

Table 4: Percent of drivers reporting safer driving behaviours with lane departure prevention systems, figures extracted from [30]

Lane departure prevention Infiniti(2009) Toyota (2013) Drift fromlane less often 68 35 Use turn signal more often 64 14 Table 5: Percent of drivers reporting safer driving behaviours with Adaptive cruise control and blind spot detection systems, figures extracted from [30]

Adaptive cruise control and blind spot detection

Volvo (2009, 2012)

Toyota, Dodge, and Jeep (2013)

Follow vehicles less closely with adaptive cruise control

46 36-41

Check side mirrors more frequently with blind spot detection

25 20 for Dodge and Jeep

Regarding younger and older drivers, the study revealed that drivers younger than 41 years benefit more often from FCW than drivers with the age of at least 61 years, see Figure 8.

Figure 8: Percent of owners reporting benefit from forward collision warning by owner age [30]

Interestingly and conversely, older drivers reported less often than younger drivers to drive safely with the lane departure prevention system, thus they did not drift from the lane less often, see [30]. However, the same figure also shows that older drivers showed safer behaviour compared to younger drivers with the blind spot detection system, hence, they have checked the side mirrors more often.

Page | 31 out of 39

Figure 9: Percent of owners reporting safer driving behaviours with lane departure prevention and blind spot

detection systems by owner age [30]

Finally, it was concluded that drivers aged 40 and younger experienced more warnings and generally reported the most positive impact on driving habits and that the use of systems was consistent with previous surveys:

- Most owners leave systems on and would want again. - Lane departure prevention was least likely to be used.

4.5 TEST TRACK EXPERIENCES

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) from the US evaluated the human performance using light vehicle brake assist systems [31]. The Brake Assist System (BAS) is a safety feature that supplements drivers’ inadequate braking force during panic braking maneuvers upon the detection of a rapid brake pedal application. An evaluation of drivers’ panic braking performance using BAS was presented. Two vehicles with electronic BASs were selected: a 2006 Mercedes-Benz R350 and a 2007 Volvo S80. Sixty-four participants, balanced for age and gender, drove one of the instrumented vehicles at 45 mph and stopped at an unexpected barricade. Following debriefing, drivers performed another braking maneuver at the barricade, were shown how to perform a hard stop, and performed hard-braking maneuvers in which BAS was either enabled or disabled. Twenty-eight percent of drivers activated BAS subsequent to the demonstration. In the most conservative analysis, where the effect of BAS activation was isolated from driver panic-braking variability, it was found that BAS-active stopping distances were on average 1.43 ft (s.e. = 1.19 ft) shorter than BAS-disabled stopping distances. Yet, two drivers, who differed in age, sex, and vehicle driven, exhibited reductions in stopping distance exceeding 10 ft. Overall, the as-tested BAS has potential safety benefit that could be accrued from reduced stopping distance, but were not realized in this evaluation. Moreover, BAS implementations that do not completely rely on the driver may offer greater safety benefits. Euro NCAP started to test pedestrian AEB systems by the year 2016. Test procedures for these tests had been developed by and discussed between the

Page | 32 out of 39

AsPeCSS project (funded by the EC under FP7) and other initiatives (e.g. the AEB group with Thatcham Research from the UK). Seiniger et al. described the development process and summarized the test and assessment procedures as of March 2015 showing also first test and assessment results of five cars [32]. All but one vehicle achieved maximum rating in the Adult near-side 75%-scenario, which is from a technical perspective considered to be the easiest. The same setup with a 25% front impact point turned out to be more difficult: since the dummy is located more to the near-side throughout the whole experiment, the required sensor viewing angle is higher. The dummy also enters the zone where a braking intervention is justified at a later time. Nevertheless, two vehicles achieved almost full score in this scenario. An adult approaching from the far side at running speed is difficult as well: for lower speeds, the required viewing angle becomes relatively large, and the dummy enters the zone where braking is justified at a late time as well. Results for this scenario were comparable: again two vehicles achieved almost full score. The most challenging scenario from a technical perspective is the obstructed child: the dummy appears comparatively late, so there is little time available for detection, classification and braking. The results show that none of the tested vehicles was able to achieve a rating of more than 7 points (=40% of the available points). This might change when vehicles will be equipped with quicker brake systems. The test and assessment methodology seemed appropriate to rate the performance of different vehicles. The best test result was around 80%, while the worst rating result was around 10%. Other vehicles were between these boundaries.

Page | 33 out of 39

5 DERIVATION OF SAFETY STRATEGIES AND CONCLUSIONS

SENIORS can contribute to a safer mobility of older road users in many aspects. Some of them are highlighted in this Chapter.

It is relevant to underline that new vehicles are becoming easier to drive (due to features such as steering assistance, lighter gear changes and emergency brake assist). This makes it easier for drivers with physical limitations to operate a vehicle safely. For elderly people, due to a higher proportion of injuries to thorax among older drivers than younger car occupants, injury severity might be reduced by improvements of restraint systems.

Although the ElderSafe report [4] states that “more attention should be given to improve the physical protection of elderly” and that “future applications should be targeted at protecting the whole body in case of a crash” another part of the document reported one-sided and was not up to date for which reason, SENIORS strongly disagrees. In particular, this became obvious in the argumentation of promoting Advanced Driver Assistance Systems:

“Since 1996, the European Commission regulates that the car manufactures need to apply minimum requirements regarding the safety of car occupants (CEE 96/79, CEE 96/27…). In this context, several technical solutions were developed and are now applied within the automotive market. These passive safety solutions can no longer be considered as innovative, because these solutions are already present in all vehicles. Therefore, these technologies will not be discussed in this section. Instead, the focus of this section lies on the effectiveness of Advanced Driving Assistance Systems (ADAS) with respect to elderly driver safety.”

SENIORS believes that especially automotive suppliers, car manufacturers and research institutes worked comprehensively on improvements in the area of passive vehicle safety systems in last years and that these systems still provide high potentials for lower numbers of road fatalities and seriously injured with a near-term impact. This is in particular true and required, as the market penetration of ADAS will take many years. The highest benefits will be achieved when the causation of traffic accidents, biomechanics and trauma medicine is better understood.

The references available for this report highlighted uniformly that older people take part in road traffic either by walking, driving a car (or as passenger) or riding a bicycle. SENIORS covers these transport modes. There are still several deficits in traffic facilities for which reason there are, for example either not many or plenty of bad quality pedestrian crossings and view obstructed intersections which cause nowadays and in future road safety conflicts and likely collisions. In particular, as long as these fields are not designed satisfyingly safe, vehicle technology has to compensate for this gap. Hereby, SENIORS supports the “Design for all” approach (leading to also an age-friendly vehicle design). As highlighted in literature, thorax injuries are a priority for prevention for car occupants, particularly for older car occupants. Therefore, SENIORS focuses on the thorax injuries of car occupants by improved test tools, procedures and assessments.

Page | 34 out of 39

Regarding pedestrians and cyclists, SENIORS focuses on the head, leg and thorax region, consequently related to literature and own findings. Overall, SENIORS supports by pushing standardised and harmonized testing procedures, here for instance the legform impactor FlexPLI.

In addition, SENIORS informs about passive vehicle safety innovations and the high level of safety already reached in any conference, workshop or similar where SENIORS partners participate. SENIORS partners are convinced that passive vehicle safety measures have still a large potential and that corresponding developments should not become victim of a rigorous monetary led company’s management. The Ageing and Safe Mobility Conference, as referred to among others in Section 3.2.2, revealed that older drivers are willing to use new vehicle technologies, as long as they are adapted to their requirements and needs. Based on the fact that frailty is an important risk factor of older drivers being seriously injured or being killed in passenger cars it is recommended to consider the specific biomechanics of the elderly while developing dummies and restraint systems. Here, SENIORS contributes a lot, for example, with the THOR dummy, the Elderly, overweight dummy and recommendations for modified test and assessment procedures including age-related injury risk curves towards Euro NCAP and legislation to raise the protection level of older car occupants. Most of these measures stay concealed for the older users and hence, there is no conflict with any uncomfortability of new systems. The conference also highlighted specific recommendations such as that the segment of elderly road users is highly heterogeneous with respect to road accident risk, individual characteristics, mobility needs, patterns and problems. Hence, it is important to develop and implement individual preventive measures for different target groups instead of general preventive measures. This is in particular regarded with the enhanced development of Human Body Models and the pushing of finite element simulations in passive vehicle safety testing as here, various scenarios can be tested and issues could be identified in an early stage. Active vehicle safety systems will influence the crash occurrence in the next years. First benefit estimations for these systems exist; however most of them are based on many theoretical assumptions regarding their performance, high market penetration rates (if not 100%), high system acceptance levels by the drivers and of crash data which basis is a traffic not mixed up with active safety system equipped vehicles. Early benefit estimations of AEB systems on test tracks show achievement rates of 10-80% which is promising. SENIORS partners are convinced that many collisions will be avoided in future and several others will be reduced in their severity due to ADAS; but, road traffic accidents will remain reality on European roads for the next decades, especially since ADAS will be limited in their performance in certain environmental conditions for many years. However, SENIORS partners also believe that in particular AEB systems offer a great potential to avoid crashes between passenger cars and pedestrians or cyclists and hence, many severe injuries could be avoided.

Page | 35 out of 39

SENIORS recommends to carefully observe the actually reduced crash speeds by ADAS and the potential changing accident scenarios. In addition, the market penetration of both, active and passive vehicle safety systems needs to be monitored. SENIORS won’t be able to answer the question which road safety issues concerning older road users could be covered in the best way by which discipline (vehicle technology, infrastructure, behaviour), but it will provide a clearer view on the potential of passive vehicle safety systems for older car occupants, pedestrians and cyclists. How these measures interact with any other safety-related measures needs to be monitored and investigated over the next decades. On a policy level, SENIORS regards the ageing also as a pan-European problem and would like to direct to other parts of the world as well (for example, Japan), where cultures have also to deal with this special safety concern and where safety measures are under development which should at least be considered as potential solutions for Europe as well. Finally, it has to be noted that SENIORS supports the “design for all” approach and will promote the new passive vehicle safety technologies as good as it can.

Page | 36 out of 39

6 REFERENCES

[1] A. Fiorentino, A. Fornells, K. Schubert and K. Fernández Medina, “Deliverable 1.1 Behavioural aspects of elderly as road traffic participants and modal split,” H2020 Project SENIORS, GA No. 636136, European Commission, 2017.

[2] M. Wisch, E. Vukovic, R. Schäfer, D. Hynd, A. Barrow, R. Khatry, A. Fiorentino, A. Fornells, P. Pradeep and N. Lübbe, “Deliverable 1.2 - Road traffic accidents involving the elderly and obese people in Europe incl. investigation of the risk of injury and disabilities,” H2020 Project SENIORS, GA No. 636136, European Commission, 2017.

[3] D. Hynd, N. Hylands, A. Wagner, O. Zander, A. Eggers, J. Ott, M. Wisch and B. Pipkorn, “Biofidelity Requirements for an Older and Obese Car Occupants and External Road User Surrogates,” H2020 Project SENIORS, GA No. 636136, European Commission, 2016.

[4] E. Polders, T. Brijs, E. Vlahogianni, E. Papadimitriou, G. Yannis, F. Leopold, C. Durso and K. Diamandouros, “ElderSafe - Risks and countermeasures for road traffic of elderly in Europe,” Final Report, MOVE/C4/2014-244, European Commission, 2015.

[5] R. Elvik, “Dimensions of road safety problems and their measurement,” Accident

Analysis & Prevention 40(3), pp. 1200-1210, 2008.

[6] E. Wilschut, “The GOAL Action Plan - Growing Older, stAying mobiLe: Transport needs for an aging society,” Presentation at the European Interdisciplinary

Conference "Ageing and Safe Mobility“, 28 11 2014.

[7] M. Gather, “Transport policies in an ageing society: An evaluation of current practice in Europe and beyond - Results of EU-research project TRACY,” Presentation at the European Interdisciplinary Conference "Ageing and Safe

Mobility", 27 November 2014.

[8] Horizon 2020, “Safety CaUsation, Benefits and Efficiency,” EC Innovation and Networks Executive Agency (INEA), [Online]. Available: https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/horizon-2020/projects/h2020-transport/safety/safetycube. [Accessed 8 August 2016].

[9] D. Boenke, J. Gerlach, B. Rönsch-Hasselhorn and V. Conrad, “Empfehlungen zur Mobilitätssicherung älterer Menschen im Straßenraum,” Schriftenreihe der Eugen-

Otto-Butz-Stiftung, vol. 01, 2010.

[10] Federal Highway Research Institute, “Ageing and Safe Mobilitiy - International interdisciplinary conference,” 27-28 November 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.bast.de/BASt_2017/DE/Verkehrssicherheit/Publikationen/Veranstaltungen/U-Ageing-2014/aging-hidden_node.html. [Accessed 8 August 2016].

[11] M. Shimamura, H. Ohhashi and M. Yamazaki, “The Effects of Occupant Age on Patterns of Rib Fractures to Belt-Restrained Drivers and Front Passengers in Frontal Crashes in Japan,” Stapp Car Crash Journal, no. 47, pp. 349-65, 2003.

[12] H. J. Mertz and D. J. Dalmotas, “Effects of Shoulder Belt Limit Forces on Adult Thoracic Protection in Frontal Collisions,” Stapp Car Crash Journal, no. 51, pp. 361-80, 2007.

[13] Carhs, “Presse release: Notbremssysteme und Spurassistenten sind auf dem Vormarsch,” 22 December 2015. [Online]. Available: www.safety-wissen.com.

Page | 37 out of 39

[Accessed 8 August 2016].

[14] J. E. Bakaba and J. Ortlepp, “Sichere Knotenpunkte für schwächere Verkehrsteilnehmer (“Design of safe intersections for vulnerable road users“),” in Forschungsbericht Nr. 23, Berlin, Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e.V. (GDV) - Unfallforschung der Versicherer, 2014.

[15] M. Falkenstein, S. Poschadel and S. Joiko, “Erkenntnisstand zu Verkehrssicherheitsmaßnahmen für ältere Verkehrsteilnehmer,” Berichte der

Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen, vol. BASt M 248, 2014.

[16] H. Martensen and K. Diependaele, “Presentations of the Conference "Ageing and Safe Mobilitiy" - Comparison of European Countries with and without age based screening of older drivers,” 27-28 November 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.bast.de/BASt_2017/DE/Verkehrssicherheit/Publikationen/Veranstaltungen/U-Ageing-2014/Presentations.html;jsessionid=BDB35B778DCEF3501CCF3DA8F73C1AAC.live11292?nn=1119708. [Accessed 8 August 2016].

[17] L. J. van Rijn, “New standards for the visual functions of drivers,” The Eyesight Working Group, Brussels, 2005.

[18] Unfallforscher der Versicherer, “Unfallforschung kompakt - Fahreignung von Senioren,” Gesamtverband der Deutschen Versicherungswirtschaft e.V. (GDV), Berlin, 2015.

[19] J. M. Nolan and S. Karush, “Navigating toward zero fatalities: the role of NCAPs,” Journal of the Australasian College of Road Safety, vol. 25, no. 2, 2014.

[20] E. Wilschut, “vruits - Improving the Safety and Mobility of Vulnerable Road Users through ITS Applications,” Presentation at the European Interdisciplinary

Conference "Ageing and Safe Mobility“, 27 November 2014.

[21] J. B. Cicchino, “Effectiveness of forward collision warning and autonomous emergency braking systems in reducing front-to-rear crash rates,” Accident

Analysis & Prevention, no. 99, pp. 142-152, 2017.

[22] B. Fildes, M. Keall, N. Bos, A. Lie, Y. Page, C. Pastor, L. Pennisi, M. Rizzi, P. Thomas and C. Tingvall, “Effectiveness of low speed autonomous emergency braking in real-world rear-end crashes,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, no. 81, pp. 24-49, 2015.

[23] A. MacAllister and D. S. Zuby, “Cyclist Crash Scenarios and Factors Relevant to the Design of Cyclist Detection Systems,” in Proceedings of the IRCOBI Conference

IRC-15-50, 2015.

[24] C. Chauvel, Y. Page, B. Fildes and J. Lahausse, “Automatic Emergency Braking for Pedestrians effective Target Population and expected Safety Benefits,” in Proceedings of the 23rd Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference 13-0008, Seoul, 2013.

[25] M. Wisch, P. Seiniger, M. Edwards, T. Schaller, M. Pla, A. Aparicio, S. Geronimi and N. Lubbe, “European project AsPeCSS - interim result: Development of Test Scenarios based on identified Accident Scenarios,” in Proceedings of the 23rd

Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference 13-0405, Seoul, 2013.

[26] M. Edwards, A. Nathanson and M. Wisch, “Estimate of Potential Benefit for Europe of Fitting Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems for Pedestrian Protection to Passenger Cars,” in Traffic Injury Prevention, 2014.

Page | 38 out of 39

[27] J. S. Jermakian and D. S. Zuby, “Primary Pedestrian Crash Scenarios: Factors Relevant to the Design of Pedestrian Detection Systems,” in Insurance Institute for

Highway Safety (IIHS), 2011.

[28] M. Kühn, T. Hummel and J. Bende, “Benefit Estimation of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems for Cars derived from Real-Life Accidents,” in Proceedings of

the 21st Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV) Conference 09-0317, 2009.

[29] M. Moore, “Initial Evaluation of Crash Avoidance Technologies Using Insurance Data,” in Transport Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., 2013.

[30] J. B. Cicchino, “Experiences of Owners of Non-Luxury Vehicles with Collision Avoidance Technology,” in Transport Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., 2014.

[31] G. M. Fitch, M. Blanco, J. F. Morgan, J. C. Rice, A. Wharton, W. W. Wierwille and R. J. Hanowski, “Human Performance Evaluation of Light Vehicle Brake Assist Systems: Final Report,” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DOT HS 811 251, 2010.

[32] P. Seiniger, A. Hellmann, O. Bartels, M. Wisch and J. Gail, “Test Procedures and Results for Pedestrian AEB Systems,” in Proceedings of the 24th Enhanced Safety

of Vehicles (ESV) Conference 15-0358, Gothenburg, 2015.

Page | 39 out of 39

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 636136.

DISCLAIMER

This publication has been produced by the SENIORS project, which is funded under the Horizon 2020 Programme of the European Commission. The present document is a draft and has not been approved. The content of this report does not reflect the official opinion of the European Union. Responsibility for the information and views expressed therein lies entirely with the authors.