How science informs engineering, education, and enforcement
A message for driving instructors
Joost C.F.De de Winter (TU Delft - OLD Intelligent Vehicles & Cognitive Robotics)
Natália Kovácsová (TU Delft - OLD Intelligent Vehicles & Cognitive Robotics)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
The aim of this chapter is to illustrate to driving instructors how science contributes to cumulative knowledge on road safety. We do this by reviewing a scientific study for each of the three classical Es of road safety: (1) education, (2) enforcement, and (3) engineering.
Regarding education, we review the DeKalb experiment from the 1980s, which was a largesample randomized controlled trial that studied the effect of driver education on postlicense crash rates. The DeKalb experiment showed that participants who were assigned to a state-of-the-art driver education program performed better on theory and road tests, and became licensed sooner than control participants who did not receive formal driving instruction. Although the state-of-the-art education improved these target outcomes, there is no consistent evidence that it reduced crash risk. The recent consensus is that theoretical knowledge and skillful maneuvering alone are not sufficient for safe driving. Drivers should also have postlicense on-road experience and the lifestyle and attitudes that contribute to a safe driving style.
Regarding enforcement, we describe a UK study from the late 1990s on the statistical reliability of the formal road test. In this study, driving test candidates were asked to retake the test with a different examiner. The results showed surprisingly low consistency between the two tests, indicating that an assessment of a 30-minute drive might not be trustworthy. We provide several recommendations (such as increasing the test duration and implementing standardized routes and checklists) for improving the reliability of road testing. Furthermore, the value of computerized testing (e.g., hazard perception testing) and long-term data collection (e.g., in-vehicle driver state monitoring) is addressed.
Regarding engineering, the growing prevalence of active safety systems in vehicles has raised the question of how to treat such technologies in driver education curricula. A study on electronic stability control (ESC) was reviewed to illustrate how advances in technology improve road safety and affect elements of on-road training. In the case of ESC, skid training has become less relevant, but it is unknown whether learner drivers should experience critical driving situations during which the ESC gets activated. This may foster their overconfidence.