Automated driving offers enjoyable and comfortable trips, though not everyone will find the experience pleasant. Some special populations such as elderly people, individuals with physical or cognitive impairments, and pregnant women face different difficulties in mobility services to conduct their daily activities and, consequently, also in using new technologies like autonomous vehicles.
Objective
This study aims to review the specific needs, concerns, and difficulties of special populations when using autonomous vehicles and to highlight the primary issues affecting their acceptance of these technologies.
Methods
A review of 48 papers was conducted to identify the special needs, concerns, and difficulties faced by various demographic groups, including elderly individuals, people with physical disabilities, and pregnant women, in using or approaching the use of autonomous vehicles.
Results
The review revealed that aging individuals have received more attention by scientific community compared to other disabled populations. Acceptance of autonomous vehicles was identified as the primary issue across all surveyed groups. Safety, comfort, and dependability were also significant concerns, particularly among individuals with special needs.
Conclusions
This study outlines the unique concerns of various demographic groups using autonomous vehicles, with acceptance highlighted as a common issue. Designing user-friendly interfaces tailored to diverse demographics could enhance acceptance and improve the overall travel experience for those needing constant support.
PettigrewSWorrallCTalatiZ, et al.Dimensions of attitudes to autonomous vehicles. Urban Plan Transp Res2019; 7: 19–33.
2.
PettigrewSCroninSL. Stakeholder views on the social issues relating to the introduction of autonomous vehicles. Transp Policy2019; 81: 64–67.
3.
González-GonzálezENoguésSSteadD. Parking futures: preparing European cities for the advent of automated vehicles. Land Use Policy2020; 91: 104010.
4.
WangCZhaoXFuR,et al.Research on the comfort of vehicle passengers considering the vehicle motion state and passenger physiological characteristics: improving the passenger comfort of autonomous vehicles. Int J Environ Res Public Health2020; 17: 6821.
5.
KnoefelFWallaceBGoubranR, et al.Semi-autonomous vehicles as a cognitive assistive device for older adults. Geriatrics2019; 4: 63.
6.
PetrovićĐMijailovićRPešićD. Traffic accidents with autonomous vehicles: type of collisions, manoeuvres and errors of conventional vehicles’ drivers. Transp Res Proc2020; 45: 161–168.
7.
CordtsPCottenSRQuT,et al.Mobility challenges and perceptions of autonomous vehicles for individuals with physical disabilities. Disabil Health J2021; 14: 101131.
8.
PetrovićĐMijailovićRMPešićD. Persons with physical disabilities and autonomous vehicles: the perspective of the driving status. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2022; 164: 98–110.
9.
MillerKChngSCheahL. Understanding acceptance of shared autonomous vehicles among people with different mobility and communication needs. Travel Behav Soc2022; 29: 200–210.
10.
BellemHThielBSchraufM,et al.Comfort in automated driving: an analysis of preferences for different automated driving styles and their dependence on personality traits. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2018; 55: 90–100.
11.
RaueMD'AmbrosioLAWardC, et al.The influence of feelings while driving regular cars on the perception and acceptance of self-driving cars. Risk Anal2019; 39: 358–374.
12.
KlinichKDManaryMAOrtonNR, et al.A literature review of wheelchair transportation safety relevant to automated vehicles. Int J Environ Res Public Health2022; 19: 1633.
13.
HulseLMXieHGaleaER. Perceptions of autonomous vehicles: relationships with road users, risk, gender and age. Saf Sci2018; 102: 1–13.
14.
BuehlerRPucherJGerikeR,et al.Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Transp Rev2017; 37: 4–28.
15.
RengeKParkKTadaM, et al.Mild functional decline and driving performance of older drivers without a diagnosed dementia: study of leukoaraiosis and cognitive function. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2020; 75: 160–172.
16.
DoulabiSHassanHMLiB. Senior Americans’ perceptions, attitudes, and safety concerns toward Autonomous Vehicles (AVs). J Saf Res2023 Feb 1; 84: 218–231.
17.
VespaJArmstrongDMMedinaL. Demographic turning points for the United States: Population projections for 2020 to 2060: US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, US …; 2018.
18.
KovacsFSMcLeodSCurtisC. Aged mobility in the era of transportation disruption: will autonomous vehicles address impediments to the mobility of ageing populations?Travel Behav Soc2020; 20: 122–132.
Huff JrEWDellaMariaNPosadasB, et al. (eds). Am I too old to drive? opinions of older adults on self-driving vehicles. Proceedings of The 21st International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 2019.
21.
IsbelSMulhallSGibsonD. Using automated vehicle technologies with older adults: a mixed-methods study. Occup Participat Health2022; 42: 189–198.
22.
RoviraEMcLaughlinACPakR,et al.Looking for age differences in self-driving vehicles: examining the effects of automation reliability, driving risk, and physical impairment on trust. Front Psychol2019; 10: 00.
23.
OxleyJCharltonJLoganD, et al.Safer vehicles and technology for older adults. Traffic Inj Prev2019; 20: S176–S1S9.
24.
SunHJingPZhaoM, et al.Research on the mode choice intention of the elderly for autonomous vehicles based on the extended ecological model. Sustainability2020; 12: 10661.
25.
HassanHMFergusonMRVrkljanB, et al.Older adults and their willingness to use semi and fully autonomous vehicles: a structural equation analysis. J Transp Geogr2021; 95: 103133.
26.
CharnessNYoonJSSoudersD, et al.Predictors of attitudes toward autonomous vehicles: the roles of age, gender, prior knowledge, and personality. Front Psychol2018; 9: 2589.
27.
FaustoBAMaldonadoPFARossLA, et al.A systematic review and meta-analysis of older driver interventions. Accid Anal Prev2021; 149: 105852.
28.
GasneCPaire-FicoutLBordelS, et al.Takeover performance of older drivers in automated driving: a review. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2022; 87: 347–364.
29.
KörberMGoldCLechnerD,et al.The influence of age on the take-over of vehicle control in highly automated driving. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2016; 39: 19–32.
30.
ZhangBDe WinterJVarottoS, et al.Determinants of take-over time from automated driving: a meta-analysis of 129 studies. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav2019; 64: 285–307.
31.
HuangGPittsBJ. The effects of age and physical exercise on multimodal signal responses: implications for semi-autonomous vehicle takeover requests. Appl Ergon2022; 98: 103595.
32.
LoiD (eds). @ HOME: exploring the role of ambient computing for older adults. Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction Multimodality and Assistive Environments: 13th International Conference, UAHCI 2019, Held as Part of the 21st HCI International Conference, HCII 2019, Orlando, FL, USA, July 26–31, 2019, Proceedings, Part II 21, 2019. Springer.
33.
TurabianMVan BenthemKHerdmanCM (eds). Electroencephalography shows effects of age in response to oddball auditory signals: implications for semi-autonomous vehicle alerting systems for older drivers. International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 2021. Springer.
34.
ForniCFacchianoFBartoliM, et al.Beneficial role of phytochemicals on oxidative stress and age-related diseases. BioMed Res Int2019; 2019: 1–16.
35.
RahmanMMDebSStrawdermanL, et al.Evaluation of transportation alternatives for aging population in the era of self-driving vehicles. IATSS Res2020; 44: 30–35.
36.
SiegfriedALBayneABeckLF,et al.Older adult willingness to use fully autonomous vehicle (FAV) ride sharing. Geriatrics2021; 6: 47.
37.
ParkSJHongSKimD, et al. (eds). Intelligent in-car health monitoring system for elderly drivers in connected car. Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) Volume VI: Transport Ergonomics and Human Factors (TEHF), Aerospace Human Factors and Ergonomics 20, 2019. Springer.
38.
BennettRVijaygopalRKottaszR. Willingness of people with mental health disabilities to travel in driverless vehicles. J Transp Health2019; 12: 1–12.
39.
EimontaiteIVoinescuAAlfordC, et al. (eds). The impact of different human-machine interface feedback modalities on older participants’ user experience of CAVs in a simulator environment. Advances in Human Factors of Transportation: Proceedings of the AHFE 2019 International Conference on Human Factors in Transportation, July 24-28, 2019, Washington DC, USA 10, 2020. Springer.
40.
RukonicLMwangeM-APKiefferS (eds). UX design and evaluation of warning alerts for semi-autonomous cars with elderly drivers. VISIGRAPP (2: HUCAPP); 2021.
41.
GünthnerTProffHJovicJ,et al.Tapping into market opportunities in aging societies-the example of advanced driver assistance systems in the transition to autonomous driving. Int J Automot Technol Manag2021; 21: 75–98.
42.
HuangGHungY-HProctorRW,et al.Age is more than just a number: the relationship among age, non-chronological age factors, self-perceived driving abilities, and autonomous vehicle acceptance. Accid Anal Prev2022; 178: 106850.
43.
LauerEHoutenvilleA. Annual disability statistics supplement. Institute on Disability, University of New Hampshire. 2018. 2017.
44.
OrganizationWH. International classification of functioning, disability, and health: children & youth version: ICF-CY. World Health Organization, 2007.
45.
TurnerRJLloydDATaylorJ. Physical disability and mental health: an epidemiology of psychiatric and substance disorders. Rehabil Psychol2006; 51: 14.
46.
Sharon-DavidHSiekanskaMTenenbaumG. Are gyms fit for all? A scoping review of the barriers and facilitators to gym-based exercise participation experienced by people with physical disabilities. Perform Enhanc Health2021; 9: 100170.
47.
BredemeierJWagnerGPAgranonikM, et al.The World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument for people with intellectual and physical disabilities (WHOQOL-Dis): evidence of validity of the Brazilian version. BMC Public Health2014; 14: 1–12.
48.
JeongJYuJ. Prevalence and influencing factors of metabolic syndrome among persons with physical disabilities. Asian Nurs Res2018; 12: 50–55.
49.
PrasadRHunterJHanleyJ. Driving experiences of disabled drivers. Clin Rehabil2006; 20: 445–450.
50.
IkedaHIkedaHMihoshiA,et al.Physical load related to highway-driving among disabled people. IATSS Res2007; 31: 100–109.
51.
FieldMJJetteAM. Transportation patterns and problems of people with disabilities. The future of disability in America. National Academies Press (US), 2007.
52.
RiggsWPandeA. On-demand microtransit and paratransit service using autonomous vehicles: gaps and opportunities in accessibility policy. Transp Policy2022; 127: 171–178.
53.
DiciannoBESivakanthanSSundaramSA, et al.Systematic review: automated vehicles and services for people with disabilities. Neurosci Lett2021; 761: 136103.
54.
SybilskiKMałachowskiJ. Impact of disabled driver’s mass center location on biomechanical parameters during crash. Appl Sci2021; 11: 1427.
55.
Srour ZreikRHarveyMBrewsterSA. Age matters: investigating older drivers’ perception of level 3 autonomous cars as a heterogeneous age group. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications 2023 Sep 18, pp. 13–18.
56.
RichterMAHagenmaierMBandteO, et al.Smart cities, urban mobility and autonomous vehicles: how different cities needs different sustainable investment strategies. Technol Forecast Social Change2022; 184: 121857.
57.
PaddeuDTsourosIParkhurstG, et al.A study of users’ preferences after a brief exposure in a Shared Autonomous Vehicle (SAV). Transp Res Proc2021; 52: 533–540.
58.
FarmerDKimHLeeJ. The relationship between exposure to and trust in automated transport technologies and intention to use a shared autonomous vehicle. Int J Hum Comp Interact2024; 40: 5897–5909.
59.
ClassenSSisiopikuVPMasonJR, et al.Experience of drivers of all age groups in accepting autonomous vehicle technology. J Intell Transp Syst2024; 28: 651–667.
60.
AhmedFPaulRAhmadMM, et al. (eds). Design and development of a smart wheelchair for the disabled people. 2021 International Conference on Information and Communication Technology for Sustainable Development (ICICT4SD), 2021. IEEE.
61.
ManyozoS. Low back pain during pregnancy: prevalence, risk factors and association with daily activities among pregnant women in urban Blantyre, Malawi. Malawi Med J2019; 31: 71–76.
62.
KamaiEMMcElrathTFFergusonKK. Fetal growth in environmental epidemiology: mechanisms, limitations, and a review of associations with biomarkers of non-persistent chemical exposures during pregnancy. Environ Health2019; 18: 1–30.
63.
LiuXHeSZhaoX, et al. (eds). What will influence pregnant women’s acceptance of fully automated vehicles? HCI International 2021-Posters: 23rd HCI International Conference, HCII 2021, Virtual Event, July 24–29, 2021, Proceedings, Part III 23, 2021. Springer.
64.
YouFChuX. Research on investigation of consumer market acceptance for intelligent vehicles in China: case study in Guangzhou. J Guangxi Univ(Nat Sci Ed)2019; 44: 534–545.
65.
RenPLuoGHuangJ, et al.Aging-related changes in reward-based decision-making depend on punishment frequency: an fMRI study. Front Aging Neurosci2023 Mar 6; 15: 1078455.
YouXJuCWangM, et al.Age differences in the influence of induced negative emotion on decision-making: the role of emotion regulation. J Gerontol Ser B2019; 74: 796–805.
68.
PetersonNChengJ. Decision experience in hyperchoice: the role of numeracy and age differences. Curr Psychol2022; 41: 5399–5411.
69.
ReinhartRMNguyenJA. Working memory revived in older adults by synchronizing rhythmic brain circuits. Nat Neurosci2019; 22: 820–827.
70.
RossatoCPluchinoPCelliniN, et al.Facing with collaborative robots: the subjective experience in senior and younger workers. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw2021 May 1; 24: 349–356.
71.
SlovicP. Public perception of risk. J Environ Health1997; 59: 22–25.
72.
LiuCWuQYangZ. Population aging and corporate risk-taking. Fin Res Lett2024 Mar 1; 61: 104974.
73.
KoopmanPWagnerM. Challenges in autonomous vehicle testing and validation. SAE Int J Transp Saf2016; 4: 15–24.
74.
NikolinSTanYYSchwaabA, et al.An investigation of working memory deficits in depression using the n-back task: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Affect Disord2021; 284: –8.
75.
ZmudJPSenerIN. Towards an understanding of the travel behavior impact of autonomous vehicles. Transp Res Proc2017; 25: 2500–2519.
76.
NastjukIHerrenkindBMarroneM, et al.What drives the acceptance of autonomous driving? An investigation of acceptance factors from an end-user's perspective. Technol Forecast Soc Change2020; 161: 120319.
77.
KettlesNVan BelleJ-P (eds). Investigation into the antecedents of autonomous car acceptance using an enhanced UTAUT model. 2019 International Conference on Advances in Big Data, Computing and Data Communication Systems (icABCD), 2019. IEEE.
78.
KimKTHawkinsBALeeY-H,et al.Social support and daily life activity: determinants of aging well. Activ Adapt Aging2023; 47: 171–194.
79.
YangJCoughlinJF. In-vehicle technology for self-driving cars: advantages and challenges for aging drivers. Int J Automot Technol2014; 15: 333–340.
80.
CoughlinJFReimerB. New demands from an older population: An integrated approach to defining the future of older driver safety. SAE Technical Paper, 2006.
81.
ChenFTerkenJ. Mental load and fatigue. In: Automotive interaction design: from theory to practice. Springer, 2022, pp.65–81.
82.
HedgeCPowellGSumnerP. The mapping between transformed reaction time costs and models of processing in aging and cognition. Psychol Aging2018; 33: 1093.
83.
BuggJMZookNADeLoshEL, et al.Age differences in fluid intelligence: contributions of general slowing and frontal decline. Brain Cognit2006; 62: 9–16.
84.
PiolattoMBianchiFRotaM, et al.The effect of social relationships on cognitive decline in older adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. BMC Public Health2022 Feb 11; 22: 78.
85.
BettioLERajendranLGil-MohapelJ. The effects of aging in the hippocampus and cognitive decline. Neurosci Biobehav Rev2017; 79: 66–86.
86.
HaynesBIKliegelMZimprichD,et al.Intraindividual reaction time variability predicts prospective memory failures in older adults. Aging Neuropsychol Cognit2018; 25: 132–145.
87.
KilleenOJLottDZhouLB, et al.Population prevalence of vision impairment in US adults 71 years and older: the national health and aging trends study. JAMA Ophthalmol2023 Feb 1; 141: 197–204.
88.
PelletierALRojas-RoldanLCoffinJ. Vision loss in older adults. Am Family Phys2016; 94: 219–226.
CollinsBCLaakkonenEKLoweDA. Aging of the musculoskeletal system: how the loss of estrogen impacts muscle strength. Bone2019; 123: 137–144.
91.
MeyerDHSchumacherB. Bit age: a transcriptome-based aging clock near the theoretical limit of accuracy. Aging Cell2021; 20: e13320.
92.
VolaklisKAHalleMMeisingerC. Muscular strength as a strong predictor of mortality: a narrative review. Eur J Internal Med2015; 26: 303–310.
93.
BrinkleyJHuff JrEWPosadasB, et al.Exploring the needs, preferences, and concerns of persons with visual impairments regarding autonomous vehicles. ACM Trans Accessib Comput2020; 13: 1–34.
94.
BrewerRNKameswaranV (eds). Understanding the power of control in autonomous vehicles for people with vision impairment. Proceedings of the 20th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility, 2018.
95.
KwakyeK. Social responsibility considerations for autonomous vehicles implementation: Design and legislature for equity towards vulnerable groups. Available at SSRN 4175764. 2022.
96.
BennettRVijaygopalRKottaszR. Attitudes towards autonomous vehicles among people with physical disabilities. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2019; 127: 1–17.
97.
Kassens-NoorECaiMKotval-KaramchandaniZ,et al.Autonomous vehicles and mobility for people with special needs. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract2021; 150: 385–397.
98.
TunçalpӦWereWMacLennanC, et al.Quality of care for pregnant women and newborns—the WHO vision. BJOG Int J Obstetr Gynaecol2015; 122: 1045.
99.
ParkJZahabiMBlanchardS, et al.A novel autonomous vehicle interface for older adults with cognitive impairment. Appl Ergon2023; 113: 104080.
100.
FariasSTMungasDReedBR, et al.MCI Is associated with deficits in everyday functioning. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord2006; 20: 17.
101.
EskandarMGiangWCMotamediS, et al.Designing a reminders system in highly automated vehicles’ interfaces for individuals with mild cognitive impairment. Front Fut Transp2022; 3: 854553.
