Hazard anticipation of young novice drivers - SWOV

more difficulties to detect and recognize covert latent hazards than to detect
and recognize overt latent hazards. The detection and recognition of a covert
latent hazard requires the selection of a dominant schema that can predict
the hazard on context aspects only. The possibility of an invisible other road
user on collision course is something the driver has to infer from other visual
cues (e.g. 'there can be something behind this lorry that blocks my view'). On
the other hand, in case of overt latent hazards content aspects are visible. To
put it differently: It is probably more difficult to expect things to happen
without direct visible cues than to expect actions from others who are visible.
As fixations on overt latent hazards not necessarily indicate that an overt
latent hazard was recognized, only differences in mentioned overt latent and
covert latent hazards in each group can provide information in support or
not in support of the hypothesis. For both young learner drivers and older
learner drivers the percentage of mentioned covert latent hazards was
significantly lower than the percentage of mentioned overt latent hazards,
but the difference in percentages mentioned overt latent hazards and
mentioned covert latent hazards was not significant for experienced drivers.
These results are in support of the hypothesis.
Interestingly, the hazard detection and recognition task could be developed
into a diagnostic tool for (learner) drivers to test their cognitive aspect of
hazard anticipation, without the use of an eye tracker. The scale of
mentioned latent hazards (overt and covert latent hazards combined) had an
acceptable internal reliability, there was a large difference between
experienced drivers and inexperienced driver and the relationship between
fixated covert latent hazards and mention covert latent hazards was
substantial. Jackson et al. (2009) used a slightly different task. In this task
video clips were paused when overt latent hazards just became visible, but
had not (yet) developed into an imminent threat. The screen turned black
and participants had to tell what could happen next. Jackson et al. (2009) also
found that experienced drivers mentioned significantly more potential
hazards than inexperienced drivers. In the present study, participants
watched short video clips in which overt latent hazards and covert latent
hazards did not materialize. Directly after each clip participants were asked
what could have happened that did not happen. Participants could also
mention what drew their attention while they watched the video clip. An
advantage of the method used in the present study is that participants are
not triggered by what they have seen immediately before the video clip
stopped. It could be that when the video stops after the first signs of the
development of an overt latent hazard, this hazard was not recognized just
169