Search

• The present study frames expert and non-expert drivers' situation awareness (SA) within the Perceptual Cycle Model. • SA is assessed along with driver gaze behaviour to correlate behavioural and verbal report measures. • Both verbal counts and fixation-related gaze are found to reliably differentiate expert and non-expert drivers. • Differences in expert and non-expert gaze behaviour informs an understanding of expert SA. Efforts to reduce road crash rates depend on a clear understanding of the factors that contribute to driver risk. Not all drivers are at equivalent risk. It is critical to identify the factors that contribute to the development of expertise in the driving environment. The rapid development of a driver's situation awareness (SA) is central to the safe performance of the driving task. Therefore, SA must be clearly operationalised in order to better assess its role in the development of expertise. This study employs an existing scheme based on the Perceptual Cycle Model (PCM) used for post hoc incident analysis and adapts it to the driving context. We attempted to correlate performance on coded verbalisations indicative of SA with non-invasive objective gaze metrics. Gaze metrics and the verbal counts were shown to differentiate between both expert and experienced (non-expert) drivers, but these measures failed to correlate with one another. Findings indicate differences in the way expert and experienced drivers update their schema of the driving task, with equivalent effort required to do so. The novel adaptation demonstrated in this paper allows for a domain-specific assessment of SA which reliably differentiates between drivers of varying expertise levels. Although selected gaze metrics were shown to be inadequate predictors of SA, additional analysis demonstrated key differences in gaze content. Combined, these findings enhance an understanding of expert SA development contributing to reduced crash risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Learner drivers completed a 6-week online hazard perception training course. • Parents supervised the online training and real-world transfer exercises. • Both learners and parents had improved hazard perception skill after training. • Learners demonstrated safer following distance preferences after training. • All learners and parents who completed the course reported safer real driving. We previously found that a six-session online hazard perception training course, which incorporates evidence-based learning strategies and footage of over a hundred real crashes, improved hazard perception skill and reduced risk-taking intentions in novice drivers who had passed their on-road driving test within the previous three years. However, one issue with targeting crash-prevention training at individuals who are already driving unsupervised is that drivers are at their highest crash risk immediately after they pass their on-road driving test. That is, the training may arrive too late to protect drivers while they are at their most vulnerable. It is also possible that it may prove difficult to persuade drivers to complete an unsupervised training course if they are already licensed to drive independently. Given that learner drivers cannot drive unsupervised, and that they are typically supervised by a parent, one potential strategy is to target the training at learners and to ask their parents to provide one-on-one mentoring throughout the course. We therefore recruited learner driver/parent-supervisor dyads to participate in a randomized control study, with the objective of examining the effects of the hazard perception training course on aspects of driving behaviour associated with crash risk (as measured using validated computer-based tests). Outcome measures included two hazard perception skill assessments (a response time hazard perception test and a verbal response hazard prediction test), and three tests assessing aspects of risk-taking propensity in driving (speed choice, following distance, and gap acceptance). Learners who completed the course (N = 26) significantly improved their scores on both hazard perception skill measures, and also chose safer following distances, compared with a waitlist control group (N = 23). However, the training did not significantly reduce learners' speed choice or gap acceptance propensity. The hazard perception skill of parent-supervisors, who observed the course but did not complete it, also improved on both hazard perception measures, relative to controls. Additionally, both learners and their parent-supervisors reported a range of positive effects on the learners' real-world driving performance. These results suggest that this type of hazard perception training could be beneficial if deployed during the learner phase of driver licensing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]