Table 1: Evaluation studies of older driver training and education programs published 2000-early 2011. Authors Nature of participants Age of key participants Program Effectiveness 1. Education only Bédard et al. (2004)* ‘normal’ active drivers 55 yrs+ 55-Alive/Mature Driving Ineffective – no driving improvements Bao and Boyle (2009) ‘normal’ active drivers 65 yrs+ 55-Alive/Mature Driving Effective – improved driving at intersections Nasvadi & Vavrik (2007)* ‘normal’ active drivers 55 yrs+ 55-Alive/Mature Driving Ineffective – increased crash rates for some participants Owsley et al. (2003)* visually impaired, crash-involved drivers 60 yrs+ tailored program Effective – self-reported improved safety attitudes, self-regulatory practices Owsley et al. (2004)* visually impaired, crash-involved drivers 60 yrs+ tailored program Ineffective – no crash reductions Kelsey and Janke (2005) drivers with ‘unclean’ records 70 yrs+ education publications and/or resources list Ineffective - no crash, violation reductions (although increased driving, safety knowledge) 2. Practical driver training programs Marottoli et al. (2007b)* ‘normal’ active drivers 70 yrs+ 55-Alive/Mature Driving + on-road training Effective – improved driving knowledge, performance Bedard et al. (2008)* ‘normal’ active drivers 65 yrs+ 55-Alive/Mature Driving + on-road training Effective – improved driving knowledge, performance Lavalliere et al. (2009) ‘normal’ active drivers ? 55-Alive/Mature Driving + simulator training Effective – improved driving performance Romoser & Fisher (2009) ‘normal’ active drivers 70 yrs+ ‘active ‘ simulator training, ‘passive’ education Effective only for active group – improved simulator and driving performance at intersections Horswill et al. (2010) ‘normal’ active 65 yrs+ hazard perception Effective – improved hazard perception
In addition, participants were asked to rate various functional abilities for safe driving. Table 3 summarises these ratings. Overall, participants rated their abilities for safe driving highly, many reporting very good to excellent abilities and this was particularly so for vision for safe driving through the night. For other abilities, a substantial proportion also rated their abilities as fair to good (e.g., vision for safe driving at night, ability to respond quickly for safe driving). No significant changes were noted for rating responses between pre-workshop responses and There was some suggestion, however, that ratings for safe driving during the day decreased, with fewer reporting very good to excellent abilities and more reporting fair to good abilities after attending the workshop. Table 3: Ratings of abilities for safe driving by survey training session Rating for safe driving Pre-training (%) Post-training (%) Vision for safe driving during the day: Very good to excellent Fair to good Very poor to poor 68.6 31.4 0.0 67.6 32.4 0.0 Vision for safe driving at night: Very good to excellent Fair to good Very poor to poor 34.3 57.1 8.6 38.2 52.9 8.8 Ability to respond quickly: Very good to excellent Fair to good Very poor to poor 40.0 54.3 5.7 35.3 58.8 5.8 Upper body strength and flexibility: Very good to excellent Fair to good Very poor to poor 51.4 45.7 2.9 55.9 41.2 2.9 Lower body strength and flexibility: Very good to excellent Fair to good Very poor to poor 54.3 42.8 2.9 50.0 47.1 2.9 Participants were asked to respond to a series of general statements about older driver safety (Table 4). Generally, participants were aware of important road safety issues prior to attending the training session, with the majority agreeing with statements on self-regulation amongst older drivers, driving at safe speeds and safety features of vehicles. There was less