"Due" and "because of" are very difficult questions. Someone whose family member died but who has a bigger beef might well conclude, "because he didn't get the bonus that [some company] owed him, he ended up having to settle for a Chevy Cobalt - a car that likely ended up killing him."
Is this use of "because" correct? Sure, why not. He wouldn't have died if his bonus had been paid? Might well be true.
I would personally not be interested in "due to" and "because of". To answer your question, you could have asked instead,
"I wonder if experienced drivers who were used to driving without power steering would have not been adversely affected."
Note: my example is a case where blaming a lack of bonus on the death is clearly wrong - but isn't attributing causative power to someone not being used to a car suddenly changing into a totally different input paradigm equally wrong? Better to stick to the factual question for starters.