Hazard Mitigation & Crash Risk | Novice vs Expert Drivers

Introduction:

Crash statistics consistently indicate that newly licensed teenage drivers are overrepresented in traffic fatalities, particularly in run-off-the-road, intersection, and rear-end collisions. While previous research has established that novice drivers possess poor hazard anticipation skills, this study sought to investigate the subsequent step: hazard mitigation. The research aimed to identify whether the high crash risk for novices is due to a lack of knowledge regarding proper response strategies (e.g., slowing and lane positioning) or a general failure to anticipate threats. The study tested the hypothesis that experienced drivers implement earlier risk-mitigation tactics and evaluated whether a computer-based training program could teach these behaviors to novices.

Methodology: 

The research was conducted through two experiments using a fixed-based, high-fidelity driving simulator.

• Experiment 1: Compared the behaviors of 18 exemplary experienced drivers (licensed over 10 years with clean records) and 18 newly licensed drivers (aged 16–18).
• Experiment 2: Evaluated the ACT (Anticipate, Control, and Terminate) training program. A group of 18 novice drivers received ACT training, while a control group of 18 received placebo training.

Data collection utilized vehicle measures (speed, braking, and lane position) and an ASL MobileEye eye tracker to monitor glance locations. Participants navigated 18 scenarios featuring horizontal curves, intersections with obstructed views, and straight road segments with roadside hazards. Analysts calculated conditional probabilities to determine if drivers mitigated hazards (slowed to a target speed) specifically because they had glanced at the potential threat.

Results:

The study revealed significant differences in how experienced and novice drivers manage roadway risks:

• Anticipatory Glances and Slowing: In Experiment 1, experienced drivers began to slow approximately eight seconds before a potential incident, reaching target speeds much earlier than novices. Experienced drivers were significantly more likely to glance at the “far extent” of curves and intersections to identify latent hazards.
• Crash Frequency: Novice drivers in Experiment 1 crashed 23 times, compared to only 9 crashes for experienced drivers.
• Training Efficacy: In Experiment 2, ACT-trained novices performed nearly as well as experienced drivers. They made significantly more anticipatory glances and selected safer lane positions than the placebo group.
• Impact of Mitigation: ACT-trained drivers crashed only 8 times, while the placebo group crashed 22 times.
• The HRECCS Rule: The training successfully taught novices to slow for HRECCS (Hidden obstacles, Roadside hazards, no Escape route, Closing with no option to pass, Curves, and traffic Signals).

The findings confirm that while glancing at a hazard is a vital prerequisite, the conscious decision to reduce speed well in advance is the critical behavior that separates expert drivers from novices.

References

1. AASHTO. (2001). A policy on geometric design of highways and streets. Washington, DC.
2. Anderson, I. B., & Krammes, R. A. (2000). Speed reduction as a surrogate for accident experience at horizontal curves on rural two-lane roads. Transportation Research Record 1701.
3. Bonneson, J. A., & Pratt, M. P. (2009). A model for predicting speed along horizontal curves on two-lane highways. Paper No. 09-1419.
4. Braitman, K. A., Kirley, B. B., McCartt, A. T., & Chaudhary, N. K. (2008). Crashes of novice teenage drivers: Characteristics and contributing factors. Journal of Safety Research, 39(1), 47-54.
5. Fisher, D. L., Laurie, N. E., Glaser, R., Connerney, K., Pollatsek, A., Duffy, S. A., & Brock, J. (2002). The use of an advanced driving simulator to evaluate the effects of training and experience on drivers’ behavior in risky traffic scenarios. Human Factors, 44, 287-302.
6. Glennon, J. C., Neuman, T. R., & Leisch, J. T. (1985). Safety and operational considerations for design of rural highway curves.
7. Mikolajetz, A., Henning, M. J., Tenzer, A., Zobel, R., Krems, J. F., & Petzoldt, T. (2009). Curve negotiation: Identifying driver behavior around curves with the driver performance database.
8. Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Pradhan, A. K. (2006). Identifying and remediating failures of selective attention in younger drivers. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 255-259.
9. Pradhan, A. K., Hammel, K. R., DeRamus, R., Pollatsek, A., Noyce, D. A., & Fisher, D. L. (2005). The use of eye movements to evaluate the effects of driver age on risk perception in an advanced driving simulator. Human Factors, 47, 840-852.
10. Zegeer, C. V., Stewart, R., Reinfurt, D., Council, F. M., Neuman, T., Hamilton, E., Miller, T., & Hunter, W. (1990). Cost effective geometric improvements for safety upgrading of horizontal curves.

Analogy for Understanding: Expert driving is less like a fast-paced reactionary arcade game and more like a strategic game of chess. While a novice driver reacts only when a hazard enters their immediate “square,” the experienced driver views the entire “board” eight seconds ahead. By identifying the opponent’s potential moves (latent hazards) and adjusting their position early, the expert ensures that they never actually have to make an emergency escape, effectively winning the game before a conflict even materializes.