Despite extensive prevention, speeding remains a major contributor to traffic casualties. Understanding drivers’ perceived awareness and the subjective reasons for their speed behaviour could improve intervention strategies, and specifically inform the potential of speed feedback. A self-confrontation study was conducted in which 25 regular drivers recorded one of their drives using GoPro cameras, capturing both the road view and their speed, and selected video excerpts were later discussed with these participants. The study explored participants’ awareness and reasons for their speed behaviour, as well as general attitudes towards speeding, perceptions of its problematic nature, the acceptability of exceeding speed limits, and decision-making in speed choice. This study design aimed to provide an objective basis for the interviews and reduce recall biases. The results revealed that drivers show a latent awareness of their speeding behaviour, which they most often justified as usual, normal and safe. This general tolerance towards speeding suggests the normalisation of speed violations. As a result, individual safety interventions, such as feedback on driving behaviour, may not be effective. Prevention efforts should focus on changing norms, common beliefs and systemic factors regarding speeding.

This driving simulator study, which focused on supporting drivers through feedback rather than automating the driving task, examined the effect of real-time feedback based on different stages of information processing on driving behaviour. The stages investigated included providing information alone, assessment of that information, and a decision based on that assessment, following Parasuraman, Sheridan, and Wickens’s (2000) model of information-processing automation. The acceptability and effectiveness of the different stages of feedback were assessed on two key driving behaviours: speed and distance from the vehicle ahead. The results indicated that feedback had a limited effect on driving behaviour. However, the stage of information processing in the feedback did affect a number of outcomes, with decision-oriented feedback leading to improved behaviours but less favourable attitudinal results. Future safety interventions should consider altering risk perception and beliefs, or providing external motivation for behavioural change.

Trucks are disproportionately involved in fatal traffic accidents and contribute significantly to CO₂ emissions. Gathering data from trucks presents a unique opportunity for estimating driver-specific costs associated with truck operation. Although research has been published on the predictive validity of driver data, such as in the contexts of pay-how-you-drive insurance and naturalistic driving studies, the investigation into how telematics data relate to the negative consequences of truck driving remains limited. In the present study, driving data from 180 truck drivers, collected over a 2-year period, were examined to predict damage incidents, traffic fines, and fuel consumption. Correlation analysis revealed that the number of fines and damage incidents could be predicted based on the number of harsh braking events per hour of driving, whereas fuel consumption was predicted by engine torque exceedances. Our analysis also sheds light on the impact of covariates, including the engine capacity of the truck operated and time of day, among others. We conclude that the damage incidents and fines incurred by truck drivers can be predicted not only from their number of harsh decelerations but also through driving demands that extend beyond the driver’s immediate control. It is recommended that transportation companies adopt a systemic approach to mitigating truck-driving-related expenses.

Recent technological advancements allow monitoring of drivers’ behaviour and offer the opportunity for providing feedback. While this approach has been shown to have a positive effect on driver behaviour, whether it is accepted by drivers has not yet been extensively investigated. This questionnaire study examined the opinions of a sample of 628 Dutch drivers on the potential use of a monitoring and feedback system. The focus was on (1) whether drivers would be interested in being assessed, (2) whether data collection (i.e., monitoring) could be used for this purpose, and (3) which features the potential system must have in order to get accepted. The results showed that participants were moderately enthusiastic about the prospect of receiving monitoring feedback: on average, their opinion was between neutral and positive. Professional drivers expressed slightly more positive opinions, but no demographic variable was strongly associated with acceptability. Many drivers rated themselves as good drivers already and had low sensitivity to data collection, i.e., participants indicated being used to data collection online. If they were to use a monitoring and feedback device, participants indicated a preference for data on speed and forward-facing video footage and a preference for personalisation. The use of a monitoring and feedback system can be considered as a trade-off between sharing personal data and receiving support to improve driving skills. Based on the participants’ reported online behaviour, it appears that the perceived costs associated with sharing data are small. The potential benefits of driver monitoring and feedback, however, are not salient to the participants, which may limit the use of such a system on the roads.

Vehicles are increasingly equipped with sensors that capture the state of the driver, the vehicle, and the environment. These developments are relevant to formal driver testing, but little is known about the extent to which driving examiners would support the use of sensor data in their job. This semi-structured interview study examined the opinions of 37 driving examiners about data-driven assessment of test candidates. The results showed that the examiners were supportive of using data to explain their pass/fail verdict to the candidate. According to the examiners, data in an easily accessible form such as graphs of eye movements, headway, speed, or braking behavior, and color-coded scores, supplemented with camera images, would allow them to eliminate doubt or help them convince disagreeing test-takers. The examiners were skeptical about higher levels of decision support, noting that forming an overall picture of the candidate's abilities requires integrating multiple context-dependent sources of information. The interviews yielded other possible applications of data collection and sharing, such as selecting optimal routes, improving standardization, and training and pre-selecting candidates before they are allowed to take the driving test. Finally, the interviews focused on an increasingly viable form of data collection: simulator-based driver testing. This yielded a divided picture, with about half of the examiners being positive and half negative about using simulators in driver testing. In conclusion, this study has provided important insights regarding the use of data as an explanation aid for examiners. Future research should consider the views of test candidates and experimentally evaluate different forms of data-driven support in the driving test.

Usage-Based Insurances (UBI) enable policyholders to actively reduce the impact of vehicle insurance costs by adopting a safer and more eco-friendly driving style. UBI is especially relevant for younger drivers, who are a high-risk population. The effectiveness of UBI should be enhanced by providing in-car feedback optimised for individual drivers. Thirty young novice drivers were therefore invited to complete six experimental drives with an in-car interface that provided real-time information on rewards gained, their driving behaviour and the speed limit. Reward size was either displayed directly in euro, indirectly as a relatively large amount of credits, or as a percentage of the maximum available bonus. Also, interfaces were investigated that provided partial information to reduce the potential for driver distraction. Compared to a control no-UBI condition, behaviour improved similarly across interfaces, suggesting that interface personalisation after an initial familiarisation period could be feasible without compromising feedback effectiveness. Practitioner Summary: User experiences and effects on driving behaviour of six in-car interfaces were compared. The interface provided information on driving behaviour and rewards in a UBI setting. Results suggest that some personalisation of interfaces may be an option after an initial familiarisation period as driving behaviour improved similarly across interfaces.

In the present study, the frequency, determinants and consequences of three relevant emotions in traffic were investigated. Based on appraisal theory, it was predicted that the combination of three appraisal components (goal congruence, blame and threat) affects the occurrence of anger, anxiety and happiness. Participants (n = 44) filled in a questionnaire containing background and personality variables, and performed a test drive in an instrumented car. During the drive, speed and heart rate were registered and the traffic environment was recorded on video. Participants verbally reported scores for emotions and perceived risk. The most frequently occurring emotion was anxiety, followed by anger and happiness. Emotions while driving were related to emotional traits. Emotions while driving were also related to traffic events: anger and anxiety were both associated with goal incongruent events, and happiness with goal congruent events. Anger was mostly associated with other-blame and anxiety with situation-blame. Anger was mostly associated with events affecting impeded progress, and anxiety with events affecting safety. Anxiety, but not anger or happiness, was associated with increased perceived risk and with increased heart rate. Participants who reported anger drove faster and exceeded the speed limit more often on a 100 km/road section than participants who did not report anger. These and other results are discussed in terms of appraisal theory and state-trait differences in emotion.