Craig Lyon · IATSS Research 2020 · cross-sectional survey study · n=?

Age and road safety performance: Focusing on elderly and young drivers

Cited 64 times in the scientific literature.

Level 4 - case-series / case-control

Cross-sectional survey study analyzed by design analogy

OpenAlex W3081519797 · doi:10.1016/j.iatssr.2020.08.005 · record verified 2026-08-26

What was done

Analyzed self-report data from the E-Survey of Road User's Safety Attitudes (ESRA) to compare the attitudes and behaviors of young (18–21 years), middle-aged (35–54 years), and elderly (65+ years) drivers across Canada, the United States, and Europe. The analysis evaluated driving while distracted by mobile phones and driving while fatigued using multivariate logistic regression modeling.

What was found

The abstract reports no numerical values, effect sizes, or odds ratios. Drivers aged 18–21 years reported higher rates of distracted and fatigued driving, higher social and personal acceptability of these behaviors, and lower belief that distraction and fatigue cause crashes compared to drivers aged 35–54 years. Elderly drivers (65+ years) reported the lowest rates of distracted/fatigued driving, lowest acceptability, highest perception of crash risk from these behaviors, and greatest support for zero-tolerance mobile phone policies. Multivariate logistic regression confirmed that elderly drivers were least likely to engage in mobile phone distraction or driving while fatigued, and middle-aged drivers were significantly less likely than young drivers to read text messages/emails, check social media, or drive fatigued.

Why it matters

Highlights contrasting safety attitudes and high-risk driving behaviors across age demographics, illustrating that young drivers are substantially more prone to normalize mobile phone distraction and fatigue than older cohorts.

Limits

Total sample size was not reported in the abstract. Findings rely entirely on self-reported survey responses, which are subject to recall bias and social desirability bias. The abstract omits exact point estimates, odds ratios, and confidence intervals.

Cited by