Hazard anticipation of young novice drivers - SWOV
Hazard anticipation of young novice drivers - SWOV
Hazard anticipation of young novice drivers - SWOV
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
al., 2002; Regan, Triggs, & Godley, 2000). This was 'Driver Zed' developed by<br />
the Foundation for Traffic Safety (AAA) in the United States and 'Drive<br />
Smart' developed at the Monash University Accident Research Centre in<br />
Australia. Driver Zed consists <strong>of</strong> various modules. In the training module<br />
'scan', video clips taken from the driver's perspective are presented on the<br />
screen. When the video stops questions are asked about what had happened<br />
so far in the video. In the module 'spot' videos (also from the driver's<br />
perspective) are paused and participants have to click with their mouse on<br />
overt latent hazards on the frozen video frame (e.g. a child playing with a<br />
ball on the pavement). In the module 'act' the videos pause just as in 'spot'<br />
and questions are asked about what the driver best can do in this situation.<br />
Finally, in the module 'drive' trainees have to decide when action is required<br />
and what the action should be. The modules in Drive Smart are called 'scan',<br />
'keep ahead' and 'play safe' (skaps). In Drive Smart videos from the driver's<br />
perspective are used in the same way as in Driver Zed. In contrast to Driver<br />
Zed, Drive Smart also pays attention to calibration, the ability to prioritize<br />
attention and time-sharing.<br />
Two weeks after having completed Driver Zed, participants drove more<br />
cautiously in a simulator and anticipated latent hazards better (i.e. they<br />
reduced speed in situations with latent hazards) than untrained <strong>drivers</strong><br />
(Fisher et al., 2002). One week after having completed Drive Smart, the<br />
treatment group and a control group drove in a simulator. This simulator<br />
drive contained sixteen near transfer hazardous situations and sixteen far<br />
transfer hazardous situations. In seven out <strong>of</strong> the sixteen near transfer<br />
situations the treatment group anticipated the hazards significantly better<br />
than the control group. Differences between the groups were considered as<br />
significant when p < .10. In none <strong>of</strong> the sixteen near transfer situations the<br />
control group anticipated the hazards significantly better than the treatment<br />
group. In eight out <strong>of</strong> the sixteen far transfer situations the treatment group<br />
anticipated the hazards significantly better than the control group. In none <strong>of</strong><br />
the sixteen far transfer situations the control group anticipated the hazards<br />
better than the treatment group. Four weeks later the two groups drove the<br />
same test simulator drive again. The results were the same (Regan et al.,<br />
2000).<br />
Both, in Driver Zed and in Drive Smart no distinction is made between<br />
overt latent hazards and covert latent hazards. In Driver Zed none <strong>of</strong> the<br />
hazards in the video clips is a covert latent hazard and in Drive Smart some<br />
are covert hazards. Despite the fact that there are no clear covert hazards in<br />
the training scenarios <strong>of</strong> Driver Zed, Fisher et al. (2002) found that<br />
participants that had completed Driver Zed, braked more <strong>of</strong>ten in situations<br />
197