Hazard Mitigation Training for Novice Drivers on Curves

Introduction

Newly licensed teenage drivers (ages 16 and 17) face significantly elevated crash risk, being approximately 50% more likely to die in a crash compared to experienced middle-aged drivers (35-44 years old). Specifically, drivers under 19 are more prone to single-vehicle run-off-road crashes. Research indicates that novice drivers display poor hazard mitigation skills, often failing to scan for obscured hazards and consequently failing to mitigate them appropriately. A major contributing factor to these crashes is the driver’s speed selection before entering a curve. The purpose of this research was to assess the effectiveness of a training program, referred to as ACT (Anticipation, Control, and Terminate), at improving novice drivers’ hazard mitigation and speed selection behaviors specifically when navigating curves. ACT training evaluates the third necessary component for effective novice driver training: speed and lane position management (risk mitigation).

The study hypothesized that novice drivers who received ACT training would be more likely to make earlier anticipatory glances toward the extent of the sightline. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that ACT-trained drivers would begin to slow earlier than novice drivers, and that they would slow more often if they subsequently avoided a crash compared to placebo-trained drivers.

Methodology

Research Design: This research utilized a driving simulator and employed a two-group experimental design where newly licensed drivers were randomly assigned to either the ACT training cohort or a placebo training cohort. The study focused on two curve scenarios: a gradual curve to the left (associated with less crash risk) and a longer, tightening curve to the right (associated with greater crash risk).

Participants: Thirty-six newly licensed, novice drivers between the ages of 16 and 17 were recruited from Amherst, MA, and surrounding areas. Half (18 participants) were assigned to the ACT training group (mean age 17.4 years) and the other half (18 participants) were assigned to the placebo training group (mean age 17.2 years). All participants had been licensed for an average of 0.6 years.

Data Collection and Apparatus: Data were collected using a fixed-base driving simulator consisting of a Saturn sedan and three screens. Eye movements were monitored and recorded using an ASL Mobile Eye tracker to determine glance locations. The ACT training program was a rule-based system that included practice, pretest, training/mediation (error-based training using feedback based on the performance of exemplary, crash-free drivers), and posttest modules. The ACT curriculum extended previous RAPT training (Risk and Perception Training) and taught concepts such as anticipating hazards (glancing to the extent of the sight line), using the horn, changing lane position for a “Safety Bubble,” and slowing for HRECCS (Hidden hazards and roadside obstacles, Curves, etc.). The placebo program, while similar in appearance, focused on questions regarding signs and driver reactions, acting as a reaction time tester.

Analytical Methods: Dependent variables—anticipatory glances, slowing, and lane positions—were recorded for at least ten seconds before a curve. Anticipatory glances were defined as glances toward the far extent of the sight line. A crucial measure was Target speed, which represented the expected speed at the apex of the curve, calculated from models based on Bonneson et al. (2009). The results analyzed aggregate behaviors and conditional outcomes, such as the probability of crashing given whether the driver slowed.

Results

The study found that the ACT training successfully influenced novice driver behavior, particularly in high-risk scenarios, demonstrating that the program is an effective countermeasure.

Sharp Right Curve (High Risk):

• Glancing: ACT-trained drivers were significantly more likely to glance to the far extent when five and six seconds before the curve. At the sharp curve right, ACT drivers were five times more likely to make this glance (11 vs. 2) than placebo drivers.
• Slowing: ACT-trained drivers slowed to the target speed of 20 mph significantly earlier (2.7 seconds before the curve) compared to placebo-trained drivers (1.8 seconds before the curve).
• Conditional Behavior: Nine ACT-trained drivers both glanced and slowed, whereas only two placebo-trained drivers did both. When placebo-trained drivers failed to glance, the percentage of drivers that slowed dropped to 62%, but 71% of ACT drivers still slowed without the glance. For those who did glance appropriately, 89% of ACT drivers and 100% of placebo drivers slowed to the target speed, indicating that slowing was associated with an anticipatory glance.
• Crashes: One ACT-trained driver and five placebo-trained drivers crashed at this location. Notably, none of the drivers who crashed (ACT or placebo) had made an anticipatory glance five to eight seconds before the curve. Placebo-trained drivers who slowed to the target speed were significantly less likely to crash (0% crash rate) compared to those who did not slow (83% crash rate).

Gradual Left Curve (Low Risk):

• Both ACT and placebo groups showed equal likelihood of glancing and slowing 3 seconds before the curve.
• However, when examining the effectiveness of the glance, 92% of the ACT-trained drivers who glanced slowed to the target speed of 34 mph, compared to only 57% of the placebo-trained drivers who glanced.

Overall, the ACT trained drivers reduced their speed in line with speed loss models and made more anticipatory glances compared to the placebo-trained group.

References

1. 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, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
2. Bonneson, J. A., & Pratt, M. P. (2009). A model for predicting speed along horizontal curves on two-lane highways. Paper No. 09-1419, Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
3. 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.
4. Fatality Analysis Reporting System [FARS]. (2012). (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) Retrieved November 12, 2012, from http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/ncsa/fars.html.
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, pp. 287-302.
6. Fisher, D. L. (2008). Evaluation of PC-Based Novice Driver Risk Awareness DOT HS 810 926. Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
7. Glennon, J. C., Neuman, T. R., Leisch, J. T. (1986). Safety and operational considerations for design of rural highway curves, (DOT – FH – 11 – 9575). McLean, VA: Federal Highway Administration.
8. Maeda, T., Irie, N., Hidaka, K., Nishimura, H. (1977). Performance of driver-vehicle system in emergency avoidance, (Technical paper 770130). Warrendale, PA; Society of Automotive Engineers.
9. Mayhew, D. R.; Simpson, H. M. & Pak, A. (2003). Changes in collision rates among novice drivers during the first months of driving. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 3, 683-91.
10. 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. Proceedings of the fifth International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design, 391 – 397.
11. Muttart, J. W., Fisher, D. L., Pollatsek, A. P., & Marquard, J. (2013). Comparison of anticipatory glancing and risk mitigation of novice drivers and exemplary drivers when approaching curves. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training, and Vehicle Design (pp. 212-218). Public Policy Center, University of Iowa Lake George, NY. Iowa City.
12. 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.
13. Thomas, F. D., S. L. Rilea, R. D. Blomberg, R. C. Peck. & K. T. Korbelak, Evaluation of the Safety Benefits of the Risk Awareness and Perception Training Program for Novice Teen Drivers. DOT HS 812 235. 2016. Washington, D.C: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
14. Zegeer, C., 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. Publication No. FHWA-RD-90-021, University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC.